NHK Seating of America, Inc.v.Lear Corporation

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 2, 2016

10950711 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2016)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 29
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: February 2, 2016
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

NHK SEATING OF AMERICA, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
LEAR CORPORATION,
Patent Owner.

Case IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1

Before RICHARD E. RICE, MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, and
CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge.
FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
I. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
NHK Seating of America, Inc. (“NHK”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 11, 16, 45, 50–53, 59, 60,
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
2
63, and 66 of U.S. Patent No. 6,955,397 C1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’397 patent”).1
NHK supported the Petition with a declaration from Richard W. Kent, PhD
(Ex. 1012). Lear Corporation (“Lear”) timely filed a Preliminary Response.
Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). In its Preliminary Response, Lear indicated that
it had filed a disclaimer pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) and 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.321(a) of claims 11, 16, 50, 51, and 63, Prelim. Resp. 1 (citing
Ex. 2001), which left only claims 45, 52, 53, 59, 60, and 66 in the
’397 patent as candidates for inter partes review. On February 3, 2015,
based on the record before us at the time, we instituted an inter partes
review of claims 45, 52, 53, 59, 60, and 66, Paper 7 (“Institution Decision”
or “Dec.”), on the following grounds:
References Basis Claims
German Published Patent Application No. DE 102
49 265 B3 (“DE ’265”) (Ex. 1003 with certified
translation at Ex. 1004)
§ 102(a) 52, 53,
and 66
Japanese Unexamined Patent Application
Publication No. H11-268566 (“JP ’566”) (Ex. 1009
with certified translation at Ex. 1010) and DE ’265
§ 103 45
Japanese Patent Application Publication No. P10-
6832 (“JP ’832”) (Ex. 1005 with certified translation
at Ex. 1006) and Japanese Unexamined Patent
Application Publication No. 2000-201771
(“JP ’771”) (Ex. 1007 with certified translation at
Ex. 1008)
§ 103 52, 53,
59, 60,
and 66
JP ’566 and JP ’832 § 103 45

1 When we cite to any portion of Exhibit 1001, we will include a reference to
the original version of the ’397 patent, series B1, or the reexamination
certificate, series C1 as needed for clarity.
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
3
Dec. 20.
After we instituted this review, Lear filed a Patent Owner Response in
opposition to the Petition (Paper 11, “Resp.”) that was supported by the
declaration of David C. Viano, PhD (Ex. 2005). Lear also filed a statutory
disclaimer of claims 45 and 66. Resp. 1; Ex. 2007. Accordingly, the only
claims remaining for our consideration at trial are claims 52, 53, 59, and 60
(“the challenged claims”). See 35 U.S.C. § 253 (disclaimer of claims
considered effective as if part of original patent); 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 (Board
will not institute trial on disclaimed claims). Because Lear’s disclaimer of
claim 45 moots our consideration of the second and fourth challenges listed
in the table above, we do not address those challenges in this Decision.
NHK filed a Reply in support of the Petition (Paper 13, “Reply”) that was
supported by an additional declaration from Dr. Kent (Ex. 1018).
Lear also filed a Motion to Strike and/or Exclude the Testimony of
NHK’s Expert, Richard W. Kent. Paper 17 (“Motion” or “Motion to
Exclude”). NHK opposed the Motion to Exclude. Paper 21 (“Mot. Opp.”).
Lear filed a Reply in support of the Motion. Paper 24 (“Mot. Reply”). Lear
filed Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation on the Cross Examination of
Dr. Richard W. Kent, Paper 18, and NHK filed Petitioner’s Response to
Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation, Paper 22. Lear did not move to
amend any claim in the ’397 patent.
We heard oral argument on September 9, 2015. A transcript is entered
as Paper 28 (“Tr.”).
For the reasons expressed below, we conclude that NHK has
demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that claims 52, 53, 59, and
60 are unpatentable. We also deny Lear’s Motion to Exclude.
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
4
B. RELATED MATTERS
NHK identified as a related proceeding the co-pending district court
litigation of Lear Corporation v. NHK Seating of America, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-
12937-SJM-RSW (E.D. Mich.), filed July 5, 2013. Pet. 1. NHK also
identifies as a related proceeding the co-pending Ex Parte Reexamination
Control No. 90/012,836 originally involving claims 1–9, 11–18, and 20–70
(“the Reexam”). Id. at 2. Lear identifies six other inter partes review
proceedings as being directed to patents alleged to be infringed in the district
court litigation with NHK, including: IPR 2014-00925 (U.S. Patent No.
8,434,818), IPR 2014-01202 (U.S. Patent No. 5,378,043); IPR 2014-01079
(U.S. Patent No. 6,631,949); IPR 2014-01101 (U.S. Patent No. 6,631,955);
IPR 2014-01026 (U.S. Patent No. 6,655,733); and IPR 2014-00957 (U.S.
Patent No. 7,455,357). Prelim. Resp. 1.
C. THE ’397 PATENT
The ’397 patent is directed to a “vehicle seat assembly having an
active head restraint system.” Ex. 1001, B1, 1:7–9. All challenged claims
add various limitations to independent claim 11, a claim from which they all
ultimately depend. Claim 112 recites:
11. A vehicle seat assembly comprising:
a seatback frame;
an upper armature including a head restraint;
a lower armature;

2 Because claim 11 is among the claims that Lear disclaimed, Ex. 2001,
claim 11 is no longer subject to NHK’s challenges to its patentability,
37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e). Nevertheless, we consider the claim to be illustrative
because it recites many of the limitations at issue in this proceeding.
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
5
at least one first linkage moveably connected to said seatback
frame at a first coupling point, operatively connected to said
upper armature at a second coupling point, and operatively
connected to said lower armature at a third coupling point,
wherein said first coupling point and said third coupling point
are disposed in spaced relation relative to each other;
at least one second linkage moveably connected to said seatback
frame at a fourth coupling point and operatively connected to
said lower armature at a fifth coupling point, wherein said
fourth coupling point and said fifth coupling point are
disposed in spaced relation relative to each other; and
at least one biasing member interconnecting said seatback frame
and one of said first linkage and said second linkage, said
biasing member operable to bias said head restraint toward an
upright position;
wherein said lower armature is operable to concurrently move
each of said first linkage and said second linkage relative to
said seatback frame in response to a predetermined force
applied to said lower armature to thereby move said upper
armature and move said head restraint toward the occupant.
Id. at C1, 1:47–2:6.
We refer to the colorized versions of Figures 2 and 3 of the
’397 patent shown below in describing the claimed vehicle seat assembly.
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
6

Figure 2 of the ’397 patent illustrates
the support frame and activation
mechanism of the head restraint.
Figure 3 of the ’397 patent is a
partial view from behind of the
mechanism illustrated in Figure 2.
First linkage 92 (green) is: (a) connected to frame 38 (yellow) at first
coupling point 94, (b) operatively connected to upper armature 50 (pink) at
second coupling point 96, and (c) operatively connected to lower armature
52 (blue) at third coupling point 98. Id. at B1, 6:33–40. Second linkage 100
(green) is: (a) connected to frame 38 (yellow) at fourth coupling point 102
and (b) operatively connected to lower armature 52 (blue) at fifth coupling
point 104. Id. at B1, 6:60–65. “[T]he first linkage 92, the second linkage
100, and the lower armature 52 are able to freely move relative to each other
and are able to freely move relative to the seatback frame 38.” Id. at B1,
7:9–11.
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
7
Upon a rear collision, the occupant imparts a load upon first and
second impact bodies 74, 76 (red) causing rearward movement of the lower
armature 52 (blue). Id. at B1, 5:16–31. A sufficiently large load overcomes
force imparted by biasing member 106 (purple) and causes first and second
linkages 92, 100 (green) to pivot rearward. In turn, “[p]ivotal movement of
the first linkages 92 moves the cross bar 54 of the upper armature 50, and
this ultimately moves the head restraint 36 toward the head and neck area 32
of the occupant 24.” Id. at B1, 7:38–41.
II. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
“A claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”
37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d
1268, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We conclude that Congress implicitly
approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the
AIA.”), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 84
U.S.L.W. 3218 (Jan. 15, 2016) (No. 15-446). When applying that standard,
we interpret the claim language as it would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art in light of the specification. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603
F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, we give claim terms their ordinary
and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning ‘is the
meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
question.’”). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and
then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs.,
Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
8
NHK proposes interpretations for “operatively connected,” “support,”
“stiffener,” “cross member,” “spaced relation relative to each other,” and
“pivot.” Pet. 12–17. Of these terms, we determine that only the meaning of
“stiffener” has any bearing on a disputed issue between the parties.3 Lear
does not contest NHK’s interpretation of “stiffener” as meaning “a structure
that reinforces another structure.” Resp. 13. We adopt NHK’s interpretation
of the term “stiffener,” as we consider that interpretation to comport with the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the term.
III. THE CHALLENGES TO PATENTABILITY
We instituted a review of the patentability of claims 52, 53, 59, and 60
of the ’397 patent on the grounds that those claims may be anticipated or
obvious in light of various prior art references including: DE ’265, JP ’832,
and JP ’771. Dec. 9–17.
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631
(Fed. Cir. 1987). The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) reaffirmed the framework for determining
obviousness as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
As observed by the Court in KSR, the factual inquiries set forth in Graham

3 The parties offer competing interpretations for “operatively connected,”
“support,” and “spaced relation relative to each other.” Compare Pet. 12–14,
15–16 with Resp. 9–15. Neither party explains how, if at all, our analysis of
the differences between the prior art and the claims depends upon our
resolution of their disputes over the meaning of these terms. Accordingly,
we do not consider it necessary to interpret expressly any of these terms.
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
9
that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and content of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at
issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. With these standards in mind, we address each
challenge below.
A. THE PARTIES’ POST-INSTITUTION ARGUMENTS
In our Institution Decision, we concluded that the argument and
evidence adduced by NHK demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that:
(1) DE ’265 anticipated claims 52 and 53, Dec. 9–13, and (2) the
combination of JP ’832 and JP ’771 rendered claims 52, 53, 59, and 60
obvious, id. at 14–17. We must now determine whether NHK has
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the specified claims are
unpatentable over the cited prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). In this connection,
we previously instructed Lear that “any arguments for patentability not
raised in the [Patent Owner Response] will be deemed waived.” Paper 8, 5;
see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) (“Any material fact not specifically denied
may be considered admitted.”). Additionally, the Board’s Trial Practice
Guide states that the Patent Owner Response “should identify all the
involved claims that are believed to be patentable and state the basis for that
belief.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766
(Aug. 14, 2012).
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
10
Lear does not contest that DE ’265 describes all elements of claims 52
and 53. See Resp. 16–23 (arguing only that DE ’265 is not prior art under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)). Lear also does not contest that the combination of
JP ’832 and JP ’771 describes all elements of claims 52, 53, 59, and 60. See
id. at 23–32 (arguing only that combining JP ’771 with JP ’832 renders
JP ’832 unfit for its intended purpose). Accordingly, the record now
contains unrebutted arguments and evidence presented by NHK regarding
the manner in which the asserted prior art teaches all elements of the claims
against which that prior art is asserted. As discussed below, Lear contests
only whether DE ’265 is prior art to claims 52 and 53 and whether it would
have been obvious to combine JP ’771 with JP ’832.
B. ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 52 AND 53 BY DE ’265
We preliminarily determined that NHK had established a reasonable
likelihood of showing that DE ’265 anticipates claims 52 and 53. Dec. 9–13
(citing Pet. 21–28, Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 54–61). Lear argues only that DE ’265 is not
prior art and does not contest that DE ’265 describes all elements of claims
52 and 53 as those elements are arranged in those claims. Resp. 16–23. For
the reasons expressed below, NHK persuades us by a preponderance of
evidence that DE ’265 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and anticipates
claims 52 and 53.
Lear contends that DE ’265 is not prior art to claims 52 and 53
because Mladen Humer, the inventor, conceived the subject matter of these
claims before the effective date of DE ’265 and diligently reduced the
claimed subject matter to practice within the relevant time period. Resp. 16–
23. In support of its contentions, Lear proffers the Declaration of Mladen
Humer, which Lear also presented to the Office during the Reexam.
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
11
Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2003 (“the Humer Decl.”)). Mr. Humer testifies, “I
conceived of the invention by at least May 19, 2003.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 2. He also
testifies:
Attached as Exhibit 1 is an invention disclosure for the
invention of the '397 patent, documenting my earlier conception
of the claimed invention. The exploded view is dated May 19,
2003. The acronym SAHR stands for Self Aligning Head
Restraint. The labeled “Armature Sub-Assembly: Upper”
includes upright guides that receive posts of a head restraint.
Id. ¶ 8. The “Exhibit 1”4 to which Mr. Humer refers above is reproduced in
pertinent part below.

4 When citing exhibits to the Humer Decl., we adopt the parties’ convention
of citing those exhibits as, for example, Ex. 2003-1 (for Exhibit 1 to the
Humer Decl.).
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
12
The figure is an exploded view of a selection of internal
components of a head restraint system.
Regarding the components shown above and in all other versions illustrated
in later-appearing exhibits, Mr. Humer testifies that the “multiple variations
discussed below generally include the same active head restraint concept,
which is claimed in the patent. The design maintained the overall concept of
structure and function through the multiple variations.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 7. Mr.
Humer describes Exhibits 5–7, 10, 12, 14–19, and 21–26 to his declaration
as illustrating “a variation,” “variations,” “further variations,” or “another
variation” of the claimed invention. E.g., id. ¶¶ 12–14, 17, 19, 22, 24, 26,
28, 30, 32, 35, 36, 38–41, 45, and 46. The only evidence probative of the
relationship between these “variations” of the headrest system and claims 52
and 53 is Mr. Humer’s testimony stating:
For the period of January 23, 2004, which is prior to the
publication of [DE ’265], to the filing of the application for the
’397 patent on September 27, 2004, my colleagues and I worked
continuously on developing the invention of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-
13, 15-18, 20-43, 45-64 and 66 of the '397 patent.
Id. ¶ 3.
The words appearing in Exhibit 2003-1 constitute the only textual
description in evidence that potentially explains the manner in which any of
the components shown in the Exhibit connect, if at all, to each other. See id.
¶¶ 1–46 (only paragraph 7 explaining any aspect of Ex. 2003-1 and failing to
address relationship among components in the figure of Ex. 2003-1). Terms
appearing in Exhibit 2003-1 such as “link,” “lower armature,” and “upper
armature” imply a mechanical relationship among the components shown in
Exhibit 2003-1. We determine that those implied relationships are
insufficient to establish the manner in which those components connect and
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
13
move relative to each other. We also note the Mr. Humer does not testify in
any detail about the correlation, if any, between the components shown in
Exhibit 2003-1 and the elements of claims 52 and 53.
Nevertheless, Lear contends that the components shown in Exhibit
2003-1 correlate to the elements of claims 52 and 53 as set forth in the
numeric annotations appearing in Exhibit 2004, which is reproduced below.
Resp. 19 (reproducing Exhibit 2004).

Lear’s annotated version of the figure from Exhibit 1 to the
Humer Decl. includes reference numerals corresponding to those
used in the Specification to identify the elements.
Lear also provides the following versions of claims 11, 52, and 53 with
embedded references to the same numerals used in the annotated figure:
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
14
11. A vehicle seat assembly [10] comprising:
a seatback frame [38];
an upper armature [50] including a head restraint [36];
a lower armature [52];
at least one first linkage [92] moveably connected to said
seatback frame [38] at a first coupling point [94], operatively
connected to said upper armature [50] at a second coupling point
[96], and operatively connected to said lower armature [52] at a
third coupling point [98], wherein said first coupling point [94]
and said third coupling point [98] are disposed in spaced relation
relative to each other;
at least one second linkage [100] moveably connected to
said seatback frame [38] at a fourth coupling point [102] and
operatively connected to said lower armature [52] at a fifth
coupling point [104], wherein said fourth coupling point [102]
and said fifth coupling point [104] are disposed in spaced relation
relative to each other; and
at least one biasing member [106] interconnecting said
seatback frame [38] and one of said first linkage [92] and said
second linkage [100], said biasing member [106] operable to bias
said head restraint [36] toward an upright position;
wherein said lower armature [52] is operable to
concurrently move each of said first linkage [92] and said second
linkage [100] relative to said seatback frame [38] in response to
a predetermined force applied to said lower armature [52] to
thereby move said upper armature [50] and move said head
restraint [36] toward the occupant.
* * *
52. A vehicle seat assembly [10] as set forth in claim 11
wherein the lower armature [52] comprises a stiffener [62].
* * *
53. A vehicle seat assembly [10] as set forth in claim 52
wherein the stiffener [62] extends generally horizontally.
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
15
Resp. 20–21. Lear fails to submit testimony from Mr. Humer, Dr. Viano, or
any other evidence to support its contention that the annotations in Ex. 2004
accurately correlate elements recited in claims 52 and 53 to the components
shown in the Exhibit. Accordingly, we consider Lear’s annotations to be
attorney argument unsupported by evidence. Without such evidentiary
support, Lear’s argument that Mr. Humer conceived the invention of claims
52 and 53 before publication of DE ’265 is unpersuasive.
Additionally, even if we were to ascribe evidentiary weight to Exhibit
2004, NHK persuades us that Exhibit 2004 still fails to demonstrate Mr.
Humer’s conception of every feature recited in claims 52 and 53. NHK
argues that Exhibit 2004 does not demonstrate Mr. Humer’s possession of
every feature recited in claims 52 and 53 and thus fails to establish
conception early enough to eliminate DE ’265 as prior art. Reply 5–10.
More specifically, NHK contends that Exhibit 2004 fails to describe the
ways in which various elements of the claimed seat assembly move relative
to each other in response to forces applied to the assembly. Id. at 6–8. NHK
also contends that Exhibit 2004 fails, for example, to illustrate “at least one
first linkage movably connected to said seatback frame at a first coupling
point.” Id. at 8–9. In that regard, referring to annotations in the pertinent
portion of the figure from Exhibit 2004, which is reproduced below, Lear
contends that the numbered elements correlate to the claim language as
follows:
at least one first linkage [92] moveably connected to said
seatback frame [38] at a first coupling point [94], operatively
connected to said upper armature [50] at a second coupling point
[96], and operatively connected to said lower armature [52] at a
third coupling point [98], wherein said first coupling point [94]
and said third coupling point [98].
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
16

Resp. 20.
NHK argues that “[w]ithout additional explanation or support, it is
impossible to determine that this exploded view supports the elements of
claim 11.” Reply 9. The claims require that linkage 92 be coupled to frame
38 and lower armature 52 at two different “coupling points.” Exhibit 2004
fails to illustrate whether or how lower armature 52 is connected to frame 38
via linkage 92. Without evidence supporting Lear’s argument, we conclude
that Exhibit 2004 and Exhibit 2003-1 do not demonstrate conception of the
subject matter of claims 52 and 53, both of which depend from claim 11.
On the evidence before us, NHK persuades us that DE ’265 qualifies
as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Lear does not otherwise argue that
DE ’265 fails to anticipate claims 52 and 53. As noted in part III.A above,
NHK persuades us by a preponderance of evidence that DE ’265 describes
all elements of claims 52 and 53. Accordingly, NHK persuades us by a
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
17
preponderance of evidence that DE ’265 anticipates claims 52 and 53 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
C. OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 52, 53, 59, AND 60 IN VIEW OF JP ’832
AND JP ’771
Claim 52 depends from claim 11 and further recites “the lower
armature comprises a stiffener.” Ex. 1001, C1, 4:59–60. Claim 53 depends
from claim 52 and further recites that “the stiffener extends generally
horizontally.” Id. at C1, 4:61–62. Claim 59 depends from claim 50, which
depends from claim 11, and further recites that “the lower armature further
comprises a stiffener mechanically supporting the at least one support.”
Ex. 1001, C1, 5:17–18. The “at least one support” is an element introduced
in intervening claim 50 as follows: “the lower armature comprises at least
one support.” Id. at C1, 4:56. Claim 60 depends from claim 59 and further
recites “the stiffener extends generally parallel to the lower cross member.”
Id. at C1, 5:19–21.
We preliminarily determined on the record before us at the time that
NHK had established a reasonable likelihood of showing that the
combination of JP ’832 and JP ’771 renders claims 52, 53, 59, and 60
unpatentable as obvious. Dec. 14–16. The dispute at trial focuses upon
whether a skilled artisan would have combined the stiffener as described in
JP ’771 with the head restraint system described in JP ’832. For the reasons
expressed below, NHK persuades us that claims 52, 53, 59, and 60 are
unpatentable as obvious in view of the combination of JP ’832 and JP ’771.
1. NHK’s Argument and Evidence in the Petition
NHK contends that JP ’832 describes all elements recited in
independent claim 11 and dependent claim 50. Pet. 31–40. NHK relies
upon JP ’771 as describing the stiffener added in claims 52, 53, 59, and 60.
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
18
Id. at 41–46. Lear does not dispute NHK’s contentions. See Resp. 1–32 (not
addressing any aspect of claims 11, 50, 52, 53, 59, or 60).
a) Claims 52 and 53
NHK contends that JP ’832 describes all elements of independent
claim 11 and proffers testimony from Dr. Kent to support its contentions.
Pet. 31–39; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 66–70. Dr. Kent testifies that stiffeners were “well
known in the art prior to the critical date of the ’397 patent” and cites
JP ’771 as an example to support his conclusion. Ex. 1012 ¶ 71. NHK
contends that JP ’771 describes armature pipes 8 connected by a horizontal
bar that constitutes the stiffener introduced in claim 52 and further limited in
claim 53. Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 71). NHK contends that a skilled
artisan would have known that “adding a supporting means as expressly
taught in JP ’771 to the assembly of JP ’832 would stabilize the lower
armature and prevent wobbling and other deformation, and would help to
more efficiently move the headrest towards the head of the passenger.”
Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1012, ¶ 74). NHK also contends that a skilled artisan
“would have recognized these benefits and could have easily implemented
the JP ’771 teachings into the structure disclosed in JP ’832.” Pet. 43 (citing
Ex. 1012 ¶ 74).
b) Claims 59 and 60
NHK identifies “side support portion 20C” of JP ’832 as the “support”
introduced in claim 50. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 12). NHK contends that
the claimed stiffener is described for example, by the horizontal portion of
armature pipes 8 in JP ’771. Pet. 45. NHK contends, and Dr. Kent testifies,
that the horizontal portion of armature pipes 8 describes a stiffener that
“extends generally parallel to the lower cross member” as recited in claim
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
19
60. Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1008, Figs. 2, 8; Ex. 1012 ¶ 75). Dr. Kent testifies
that a skilled artisan “would have recognized these benefits and could have
easily implemented the JP ‘771 teachings into the structure disclosed in JP
‘832. For example, there is room in the JP ‘832 seatback to add a stiffener
between supports 20C, e.g., by welding.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 74.
2. Lear’s Arguments
Lear argues that NHK fails to establish that claims 52, 53, 59, and 60
are unpatentable as obvious because adding a stiffener to the seat described
in JP ’832 as NHK proposes “is counter to the intended purpose of the
JP ’832 seat design.” Resp. 30–32. More specifically, Lear argues that
JP ’832 incorporates “S-wire springs” to support the occupant and transfer
loads to the linkages in a manner that achieves the “important design
considerations” of “occupant comfort.” Id. at 31. Lear contends that adding
the “rigid body stiffener of JP ’771 destroys the intended compliance of the
S-wire springs.” Id. at 32. Lear relies upon Dr. Viano’s testimony that:
The design of JP ’832 balances comfort and design by
employing S-wires for receiving both normal and crash-related
input loads. The proposed combination to add a rigid body
stiffener such as armature pipes 8 as disclosed in JP ’771 would
worsen the comfort of the seat design of JP ’832 and negate the
very purpose of the S-wire springs.
Id. (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 103). Dr. Viano cites no documentary evidence to
support his conclusions about the intentions of the designers of the system
described in JP ’832.
3. NHK’s Argument in the Reply
In response to Lear’s arguments, NHK argues that JP ’832 never
mentions comfort features but instead focuses upon “a vehicle seat designed
to absorb an impact from a rear end of a vehicle.” Reply 16 (citing Ex. 1006
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
20
¶ 6). NHK also points out that JP ’832 discusses only deploying a headrest
to protect the passenger’s head in its “PROBLEM” and “SOLUTION”
sections. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 4–9). NHK contends that JP ’832,
therefore, never expressly indicates that “comfort” is the “intended purpose”
of its seating system. Id. NHK also contends that, even if we were to accept
that comfort is an intended purpose of JP ’832, a skilled artisan would have
found it obvious to position a stiffener behind support portions 20B of
JP ’832. Id. at 18–19. Positioning the stiffener in this manner would have
achieved the added benefit of ensuring that the headrest deploys correctly
even when the seat is loaded in an unbalanced manner across the seat width
without compromising the comfort of the seat. Id. (citing Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 22–
24). Dr. Viano, when cross examined by NHK, testified that an occupant
likely would not feel the S-wire support in JP ’832 when sitting in the seat.
Ex. 1017, 35:10–16. NHK concludes, and we agree, that the preponderance
of evidence supports our determination that positioning a stiffener behind
that S-wire support would not affect the comfort of the seat. Reply 19.
4. Conclusion
As noted in part III.A above, NHK persuades us by a preponderance
of evidence that the combination of JP ’832 and JP ’771 describes all
elements of claims 52, 53, 59, and 60. NHK persuades us by a
preponderance of evidence that a skilled artisan would have considered it
obvious to incorporate a stiffener such as the one described in JP ’771 in the
structure of JP ’832. Lear’s argument that the intended purpose of JP ’832
was to provide comfort for the occupant is not persuasive. We determine
that although comfort may be among the purposes of the seat in JP ’832, the
primary focus in JP ’832 is on supporting the occupant’s head during a
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
21
collision. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 4–9. We also determine that NHK has demonstrated
by a preponderance of evidence that a skilled artisan would have recognized
the advantages of adding a stiffener as described in JP ’771 to the impact
structure in JP ’832 and would have been capable of doing so without
compromising the comfort of the seat in JP ’832. Accordingly, we conclude
that NHK persuades us by a preponderance of evidence that the combination
of JP ’832 and JP ’771 renders claims 52, 53, 59, and 60 unpatentable as
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
IV. LEAR’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
We have reviewed Lear’s Motion to Exclude, NHK’s Opposition to
the Motion, and Lear’s Reply in support of the Motion. Based on our
review, we deny the Motion in all respects for one or both of the following
reasons: (1) the Motion is moot because it seeks to exclude evidence not
considered or relied upon in rendering this Decision or (2) the Motion
addresses issues more appropriate to determining the weight ascribed to the
evidence rather than the admissibility of evidence. In rendering this
Decision, we determine and ascribe the appropriate weight to all proffered
evidence and, when appropriate, comment upon the weight ascribed.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed above, we determine that NHK has shown
by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(1) DE ’265 anticipates claims 52 and 53 of the ’397 patent under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a); and
(2) the combination of JP ’832 and JP ’771 renders claims 52, 53, 59,
and 60 unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
22
VI. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is:
ORDERED that claims 52, 53, 59, and 60 of the ’397 patent are held
unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that Lear’s Motion to Exclude is denied; and
FURTHER ORDERED that because this is a Final Written Decision,
parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the Decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
IPR2014-01200
Patent 6,955,397 C1
23
PETITIONER:
William H. Mandir
John F. Rabena
SUGHRUE MION PLLC
wmandir@sughrue.com
jrabena@sughrue.com
PATENT OWNER:
John M. Halan
Frank A. Angileri
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
jhalan@brookskushman.com
fangileri@brookskushman.com