`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Shenzhen Zhiyi Technology Co. Ltd., d/b/a iLife,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`iRobot Corp.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490 to Jones et al.
`
`IPR Case No. IPR2017-02061
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`2.
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS .......................................................................................... iii
`THE BOARD MISAPPREHENDED PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT
`I.
`WITH RESPECT TO LIMITATION 1(d) ..................................................... 1
`The Board misapprehended Petitioner’s argument regarding
`A.
`how limitation 1(d) is met by Ueno-642. ............................................. 2
`1.
`Petitioner showed that Ueno-642 discloses selecting
`
`border-following travel in response to inputs from
`obstacle sensors .......................................................................... 3
`Petitioner showed that Ueno-642 discloses selecting
`random travel in response to inputs from obstacle sensors ....... 4
`The Board also misapprehended Ueno-642’s disclosures
`regarding the use of obstacle sensors to “exit” a mode. ....................... 5
`The Board misapprehended the language in limitation 1(d) as
`excluding pre-planned sequences of modes, which would
`exclude the only embodiment of the ’490 patent that uses three
`modes. ................................................................................................... 7
`Even if limitation 1(d) is interpreted to exclude pre-planned
`sequences of modes, Ueno-642 discloses using sequences of
`modes that are not pre-planned. ......................................................... 10
`The Board also appears to misapprehend limitation 1(d) as
`requiring that all operational modes must be stopped based on
`sensor information. ............................................................................. 11
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response led the Board to misapprehend
`Petitioner’s argument .................................................................................... 13
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`II.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,809,490 (“’490 patent”)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`File history of U.S. Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`Declaration of C. Douglass Locke, Ph.D., Regarding
`Invalidity of the Challenged Claims of U.S. Patent No.
`6,809,490 (“Locke”)
`
`Certified Translation of Japanese Unexamined Patent
`Application Publication H11-212642, published August 6,
`1999 (“Ueno-642”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,493,612 to Bissett (“Bissett-612”)
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication H11-
`212642, published August 6, 1999 (non-translated)
`
`Affidavit certifying translation of Japanese Unexamined
`Patent Application Publication H11-212642
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart, as submitted in Investigation
`No. 337-TA-1057, August 18, 2017
`
`U.K. Patent Application 9827758
`
`PCT Publication WO 00/38026
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`Shenzhen Zhiyi Technology Co. Ltd., d/b/a iLife (“Petitioner”) requests
`
`rehearing under § 42.71(d) of the institution decision issued March 12, 2018
`
`(“Decision”) in the above-identified matter. Specifically, the Board’s Decision
`
`relative to Ground 1 (claims 1-3, 7, and 12) misapprehended Petitioner’s argument
`
`with respect to limitation 1(d) of the ’490 patent and the corresponding disclosures
`
`of the Ueno-642 reference (Ex. 1004).
`
`I.
`
`THE BOARD MISAPPREHENDED PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT
`WITH RESPECT TO LIMITATION 1(D)
`
`Under § 42.71(d), “A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single
`
`request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board…. The request
`
`must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended
`
`or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a
`
`motion, an opposition, or a reply.”
`
`As explained below, the Board misapprehended Petitioner’s argument
`
`regarding limitation 1(d), and this misapprehension was the basis for denying
`
`institution of Ground 1. This misapprehension may have been due to misleading
`
`arguments made by Patent Owner.
`
`Limitation 1(d) requires:
`
`“said control system configured to operate the robot in a plurality
`of operational modes and to select from among the plurality of
`modes in real time in response to signals generated by the
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`obstacle detection sensor, said plurality of operational modes
`comprising: …”
`
`Claims 2, 3, 7, and 12 all depend from claim 1. The Decision denying institution
`
`with respect to claims 1-3, 7, and 12 was based on the alleged failure of Ueno-642
`
`to disclose limitation 1(d). (Decision at 10.)
`
`A.
`
`The Board misapprehended Petitioner’s argument regarding how
`limitation 1(d) is met by Ueno-642.
`
`The Decision states that the “critical language” at issue in limitation 1(d)
`
`requires:
`
`“that the control system ‘select[s] from among the plurality of
`modes … in response to signals generated by the obstacle
`detection sensor.’ This requires, in practical application, that the
`system can choose a mode in which to operate (‘select from
`among’), based on inputs from the obstacle sensor (‘in response
`to signals’).”
`
`(Decision at 6 (italic emphasis in the Decision, underline emphasis added).)
`
`According to the Board’s analysis of limitation 1(d), it requires that the system
`
`choose a mode in which to operate based on inputs from the obstacle sensor.
`
`Ueno-642 discloses this requirement, as shown in the Petition. Petitioner’s
`
`analysis of limitation 1(d) is set forth in the Petition at pages 18-22 of the Petition,
`
`with specific citations related to this aspect of limitation 1(d) set forth in at least
`
`pages 19-21.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`First, Petitioner cites Ex. 1004-Ueno at FIGS. 4, 5, 9, 10, 15, 18, and
`
`paragraphs 0023 and 0027 as disclosing that the Ueno-642 robot had three
`
`operational modes: spiral travel, border-following travel, and random travel.
`
`(Petition at 19.) There appears to be no dispute that Ueno-642 discloses operating
`
`in these three modes. (Decision at 7 (referencing Patent Owner’s preliminary
`
`response argument relative to “the three modes in Ueno-642”).)
`
`Second, Petitioner showed that the Ueno-642 robot had obstacle sensors,
`
`including “both infrared sensors and tactile (contact) sensors.” (Petition at 17.)
`
`Petitioner specifically pointed out that Ueno-642’s obstacle sensors included
`
`infrared sensors 26 and “side-sensor 25L.” (Petition at 17; Ueno-642 at ¶ 0016.)
`
`Third, Petitioner showed that the Ueno-642’s “CPU selects among these
`
`three modes based on the inputs from the sensor system.” (Petition at 20.)
`
`Petitioner then supported that statement as follows:
`
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner showed that Ueno-642 discloses selecting border-
`following travel in response to inputs from obstacle sensors
`
`Petitioner block-quoted paragraph 0023 of Ueno-642, which states that
`
`“[t]he border-following travel pattern . . . is started when the side sensor 25L
`
`detects the boundary such as a wall etc.” (Petition at 20 (citing Ex. 1004-Ueno at
`
`0023.) That statement shows that the Ueno-642 robot chooses to start operating in
`
`border-following travel mode based on input from “side-sensor 25L,” which is an
`
`obstacle sensor. Petitioner also cited to paragraphs 0024-25, which provide further
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`details regarding the border-following travel. In particular, paragraph 0024
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`discloses:
`
`“As described later, during random travel and spiral travel, if the
`side sensor 25L or 26 senses a boundary such as a wall, and
`generates an output, CPU 8 generates a border-following travel
`start instruction and the processing in Fig. 4 is started (Step
`S70).”
`
`(Ex. 1004-Ueno at 0024). This statement confirms that the Ueno robot chooses to
`
`start border-following travel based on input from obstacle sensors. More
`
`specifically, it shows that while the Ueno-642 robot is traveling in one mode (e.g.,
`
`random travel or spiral travel), the robot’s CPU will start border-following travel
`
`mode in response to outputs generated by either sensor 25L or 26 (which are
`
`obstacle sensors).
`
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner showed that Ueno-642 discloses selecting random
`travel in response to inputs from obstacle sensors
`
`To show this, Petitioner again referenced several paragraphs of Ueno-642 as
`
`disclosing selection of the mode based on obstacle sensor inputs. (See, e.g.,
`
`Petition at 20 (citing Ex. 1004-Ueno at FIG. 5; 0026; 0028-29; 0033.) In
`
`particular, paragraph 0028 discloses that the Ueno-642 robot (while operating in
`
`spiral travel mode) will respond to outputs from sensors 25L or 26 by entering a
`
`random travel mode:
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`“A spiral gets bigger and based on the output of sensors 26 and
`25L, when it is recognized that the robot 1 approached within the
`planned distance with respect to the wall surface B, the spiral
`travel is stopped and a random travel is started[.]”
`
`(Ex. 1004-Ueno at 0028 (emphasis added).) This statement shows Ueno-642
`
`discloses a robot that will start random travel mode “based on the output of sensors
`
`26 and 25L,” which are obstacle sensors.
`
`Accordingly, the Decision misapprehended Ueno-642 and Petitioner’s
`
`argument about limitation 1(d) when it concluded that Ueno-642 failed to disclose
`
`a robot that, “in practical application, … can choose a mode in which to operate
`
`(‘select from among’), based on inputs from the obstacle sensor (‘in response to
`
`signals’).” (See Decision at 6.) In fact, as just explained, Ueno-642 expressly
`
`discloses a robot whose CPU will choose to start operating in both border-
`
`following travel mode and random travel mode based on inputs from obstacle
`
`sensors 25L and 26.
`
`B.
`
`The Board also misapprehended Ueno-642’s disclosures regarding
`the use of obstacle sensors to “exit” a mode.
`
`The Decision states that using obstacle sensors to determine when to exit
`
`one mode is different from using those sensors to select the next mode:
`
`“Petitioner directs us to a disclosure in Ueno-642 where [based
`on sensors] the spiral is determined to be complete and a stop
`instruction is given. … Notably, however, signals from the
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`obstacle sensors in the spiral mode determine when to exit the
`spiral mode. Determining when to exit the present mode is not
`the same as selecting the next mode based on signals generated
`by the obstacle detection sensor.”
`
`(Decision at 7 (internal citations omitted; italics in original.) While it is certainly
`
`true that exiting a mode is not the same as selecting the next mode, this argument
`
`misapprehends Petitioner’s argument and the Ueno-642 reference, because Ueno-
`
`642 does disclose using obstacle sensors to select the next mode. The Decision
`
`cites to the Petition at 20 and to paragraph 0040 and FIG. 10 in particular. But that
`
`isolated view of Ueno-642 is not representative, because Ueno-642 does not only
`
`say that spiral travel ceases based on obstacle sensors.
`
`To the contrary, Ueno-642 states that the robot will stop its spiral (or
`
`random) operation and start border-following travel based on its obstacle sensors:
`
`“As described later, during random travel and spiral travel, if the
`side sensor 25L or 26 senses a boundary such as a wall, and
`generates an output, CPU 8 generates a border-following travel
`start instruction and the processing in Fig. 4 is started (Step
`S70).”
`
`(Ex. 1004-Ueno at 0024.)
`
`Ueno-642 also shows that the robot will stop spiral operation and start
`
`random travel based on its obstacle sensors:
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`“A spiral gets bigger and based on the output of sensors 26 and
`25L, when it is recognized that the robot 1 approached within the
`planned distance with respect to the wall surface B, the spiral
`travel is stopped and a random travel is started[.]”
`
`(Ex. 1004-Ueno at 0028 (emphasis added).)
`
`Thus, the Board’s analysis of paragraph 0040 and its relationship to ceasing
`
`spiral travel is incomplete, both in terms of what Ueno-642 discloses and the
`
`argument presented in the Petition. Ueno-642 states expressly that both border-
`
`following mode and random travel mode are started based on signals from obstacle
`
`sensors.
`
`C.
`
`The Board misapprehended the language in limitation 1(d) as
`excluding pre-planned sequences of modes, which would exclude
`the only embodiment of the ’490 patent that uses three modes.
`
`The Board also appears to have interpreted limitation 1(d) to exclude the
`
`possibility of having a pre-planned sequence of modes:
`
`“[T]he claims recite that the system ‘selects from among the
`plurality of modes’ (emphasis added), and we understand the
`plain meaning of this phrase to be that the control system has
`several options to choose from, and that choice is in response to,
`i.e., is based on, input from the sensor. In Ueno-642, there does
`not appear to be a choice made ‘from among the plurality of
`modes’ by the control system, but rather it must simply move to
`the pre-ordained next mode.”
`
`(Decision at 8 (emphasis added).)
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`The Board appears to interpret limitation 1(d) as requiring that the control
`
`system be configured “to select from among the plurality of modes only in
`
`response to signals generated by the obstacle detection sensor.” But the word
`
`“only” is not present in the claim. If a robot has a pre-planned sequence of modes
`
`selected from among the plurality of modes, and it starts the modes in that
`
`sequence in response to obstacle-sensor signals, then it is selecting from among the
`
`modes in response to both the sensor signals and the pre-planned sequence. That is
`
`how the robot of the ’490 patent behaves in the only described embodiment which
`
`uses all three modes:
`
`“[A] preferred embodiment of the present invention is detailed in
`FIG. 14, in which all three operational modes are used. In a
`preferred embodiment, the device 10 begins in spiral mode
`(movement line 45). If a reflective spiral pattern is used, the
`device continues in spiral mode until a predetermined or random
`number of reflective events has occurred. If a standard spiral is
`used (as shown in FIG. 14), the device should continue until any
`bump sensor event. In a preferred embodiment, the device
`immediately enters wall following mode after the triggering
`event. In a preferred embodiment, the device then switches
`between wall following mode (movement lines 51) and random
`bounce modes (movement lines 48) based on bump sensor events
`or the completion of the wall following algorithm.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 16:36-50.) In this embodiment, there is a preplanned sequence of
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`spiral / bounce / wall following / bounce / wall following etc. The initial spiral
`
`mode is exited when it bumps a wall (or, after some number of ‘reflective’ bumps
`
`have occurred). The wall-following mode is then selected based on encountering
`
`the wall, i.e., based on obstacle sensors. Bounce is then selected “based on bump
`
`sensor events or the completion of the wall following algorithm.”
`
`The above embodiment would not satisfy claim 1 under the Board’s
`
`apparent interpretation of the claims: after the initial spiral, the robot must move to
`
`the wall-following mode, and after that, the robot must cycle back and forth
`
`between bounce and wall-following. It does not make sense to read the claims to
`
`exclude this embodiment, especially because doing so requires adding a word to
`
`the claims that is not there: “select from among the plurality of modes only in
`
`response to signals generated by the obstacle detection sensor.”
`
`Furthermore, the above embodiment shows that Ueno-642 discloses exactly
`
`the same thing as the ’490 patent: a robot that may be configured to use both
`
`obstacle-sensor signals and a preset sequence of modes in selecting a next mode of
`
`operation.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`D. Even if limitation 1(d) is interpreted to exclude pre-planned
`sequences of modes, Ueno-642 discloses using sequences of modes
`that are not pre-planned.
`
`Additionally, while there is no question that Ueno-642 discloses using preset
`
`sequences of modes, Ueno-642 also discloses sequences of modes that are not pre-
`
`planned. In particular, claim 9 of Ueno-642 recites:
`
`[Claim 9] The method for controlling a self-propelled robot
`according to any of the claims 1 through 7 wherein the sequence
`of executing spiral travel, border-following travel and random
`travel is preset before traveling start.
`
`(Ueno-642 at claim 9.) This dependent claim adds the requirement that the
`
`sequence of executing modes be “preset,” which shows that the sequence of modes
`
`need not be preset.
`
`Ueno-642 confirms this when it explains that while the robot operates in a
`
`spiral mode, it then—in response to inputs from sensor 25L or 26—transitions to
`
`either border-following travel or random travel modes. That shows that a robot in
`
`spiral mode responds to sensor inputs by choosing from one of at least two other
`
`modes, specifically, border-following travel or random travel. (E.g., Ex. 1004-
`
`Ueno at 0023-24; 0028.) Thus, even if limitation 1(d) were interpreted to exclude
`
`pre-planned sequences of modes—which it should not be—Ueno-642 would
`
`nonetheless satisfy the claim because it discloses using sequences of modes that
`
`are not pre-planned.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`E. The Board also appears to misapprehend limitation 1(d) as
`requiring that all operational modes must be stopped based on
`sensor information.
`
`Finally, the Board appears to misapprehend limitation 1(d) as requiring that
`
`all three operational modes (and border-following in particular) be stopped based
`
`on sensor information. In particular, the Decision states:
`
`“Petitioner has not shown how Ueno-642 discloses exiting the
`border-following mode using obstacle detection because it
`appears the border-following mode only exits upon an expiration
`of a timer or a crossing of a distance threshold.”
`
`(Decision at 9 (emphasis added).)
`
`But even if it is true that the border-following mode only exits upon an
`
`expiration of a timer or a crossing of a distance threshold, that would not suggest
`
`that limitation 1(d) is not satisfied. Limitation 1(d) does not require that every
`
`operational mode be started or stopped based on sensor information. What it
`
`requires is that the control system “select from among the plurality of modes in
`
`real time in response to signals generated by the obstacle detection sensor….” The
`
`Petition shows how Ueno-642 discloses doing so, and in particular, how it
`
`discloses a control system configured to select border-following travel or random
`
`travel in real time in response to signals from sensors 25L and 26. (Petition at 20
`
`(citing Ex. 1004-Ueno at 0023-24; 0028).) In other words, the control system is
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`configured to select one of at least two different modes from among the plurality of
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`modes – which satisfies limitation 1(d).
`
`This is confirmed by the fact that embodiments of the ’490 patent describe
`
`exiting wall-following only when a distance threshold is crossed:
`
`“FIG. 13B shows the movement of a preferred embodiment of
`robot 10, whereby the robot cycles between BOUNCE and
`WALL FOLLOWING behaviors. As the robot follows path 99,
`each time the robot 10 encounters a wall 100, the robot follows
`the wall for a distance equal to twice the robot’s diameter.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 16:26-33.) In this embodiment, there is a preplanned sequence of
`
`bounce / wall following / bounce / wall following etc. Bounce mode is exited and
`
`wall-following started when the robot “encounters a wall,” i.e., based on obstacle
`
`sensors. Wall-following is exited and bounce is started when the robot has
`
`followed the wall “the wall for a distance equal to twice the robot’s diameter,” i.e.,
`
`based on a distance threshold. This shows that the ’490 patent expressly
`
`contemplates the use of distance thresholds to exit wall-following mode, and thus it
`
`would be improper to interpret limitation 1(d) to exclude that possibility.1 The use
`
`1 The Board appears to assume that wall-following up to a distance threshold does
`
`not use inputs from obstacle sensors. In fact, wall-following uses obstacle sensors
`
`to track the wall. Thus, travelling a preset distance along a wall should be
`
`considered an operation that is “based-upon” inputs from obstacle sensors.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`of distance thresholds to exit wall-following mode is yet another way that the
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`disclosure of Ueno-642 matches up exactly with the disclosure and claims of the
`
`’490 patent.
`
`II.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE LED THE BOARD
`TO MISAPPREHEND PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT
`
`As shown above, the Board misapprehended Petitioner’s argument and the
`
`prior art with respect
`
`to
`
`limitation 1(d).
`
` It appears
`
`that
`
`the Board’s
`
`misapprehension is due to Patent Owner’s misleading characterization of
`
`Petitioner’s arguments in the preliminary patent owner response (“POPR”). In
`
`particular, the POPR raised three arguments with respect to limitation 1(d): (1) that
`
`the travel mode pointer does not change in response to sensor signals; (2) that
`
`transitioning modes after traveling a planned time or distance is different than
`
`responding to sensors; and (3) that Ueno-642 prioritizes operations, not operating
`
`modes. (POPR at 26-29.) None of these arguments shows that Ueno-642 fails to
`
`disclose limitation 1(d).2
`
`
`2 After Patent Owner filed its POPR with the Board, Patent Owner has effectively
`
`admitted that Ueno-642 discloses every limitation of claim 1 in the corresponding
`
`ITC investigation identified in the Petition. (Petition at 1.) In the pre-hearing
`
`briefing in that proceeding, Petitioner asserted that claim 1 is anticipated by Ueno-
`
`642. Patent Owner did not dispute that Ueno anticipates all of the limitations of
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`First, the POPR argues that Ueno-642 discloses mode selection based on a
`
`travel mode pointer, not sensor signals. (POPR at 26-27.) But the POPR limits its
`
`analysis to paragraphs 0035 and 0037 of Ueno-642 and ignores the fact that, as
`
`described above, Ueno describes using outputs from sensors 25L and 26 to start at
`
`least border-following travel mode and random travel mode. The POPR’s reliance
`
`on two of many cited paragraphs mischaracterizes Petitioner’s arguments and
`
`incorrectly suggests that using both a preset sequence of modes and sensor signals
`
`would not satisfy the claims. The POPR also ignores the fact the 490 patent’s only
`
`3-mode embodiment uses both a preset sequence of modes and sensor signals,
`
`exactly like Ueno-642. (See supra § I.C.) The Board carried this deficient and
`
`misleading analysis of the Petition and Ueno-642 into its Decision by appearing to
`
`credit the arguments presented in the POPR at 26-27 and to Ueno-642 at
`
`paragraphs 0035-0037. (Decision at 7-8.)
`
`claim 1, including limitation 1(d). Patent Owner was required to present all of its
`
`arguments in its pre-hearing brief, so by not disputing that Ueno-642 anticipates all
`
`the limitations of claim 1, Patent Owner has effectively admitted anticipation.
`
`Petitioner believes that this is because interpreting the claims as excluding a pre-
`
`ordained sequence of modes is inconsistent with iRobot’s infringement theories: all
`
`of the allegedly infringing iLife devices operate with a pre-ordained sequence of
`
`modes (bounce/wall-follow/bounce/wall-follow/etc.).
`
`14
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`Second, the POPR argues that border-following travel is stopped after a
`
`planned time or distance. (POPR at 27.) This ignores that Ueno-642 discloses
`
`using sensors to determine when to start border-following travel and random travel
`
`modes, as explained above. (See supra § I.D.) It also ignores that the ’490 patent
`
`discloses doing exactly the same thing as Ueno (i.e., stopping one mode after a
`
`distance threshold). (Id.) The Decision appears to have credited Patent Owner’s
`
`argument even though it is misleading and incorrect as explained above in § I.D.
`
`Third, the POPR refers to lower-level robot operations that are not
`
`operational modes. (POPR at 28-29.) But the POPR presents no rational basis for
`
`determining that the presence additional disclosures in Ueno-642 that allegedly do
`
`not relate operational modes is relevant to what Ueno-642 does say about selecting
`
`operational modes. That is particularly true when there are clear disclosures in the
`
`reference which show that border-following and random travel modes are selected
`
`and started in response to sensor outputs. (See supra § I.A.) Nonetheless, the
`
`Decision appears to have adopted Patent Owner’s misleading argument.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests rehearing under
`
`42.71, and requests an inter partes review trial with the respect to the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’490 patent.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`Date: March 26, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`
`By: /s/ Patrick J. McCarthy
`Patrick J. McCarthy
`Registration No. 62,762
`mccarthyp@gtlaw.com
`Greenberg Traurig LLP
`2101 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20037
`Phone: (202) 533-2386
`Fax: (202) 331-3101
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Shenzhen Zhiyi
`Technology Co. Ltd., d/b/a iLife,
`
`16
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on this 26th day of March, 2018, a copy of this Request
`
`for Rehearing has been served in its entirety via electronic mail by emailing Patent
`
`Owner’s lead and backup counsel at:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`IPR44360-0004IP1@fr.com
`Jeremy J. Monaldo
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`Patrick J. Bisenius
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`Tonya S. Drake
`tdrake@irobot.com
`
`as provided for by Patent Owner’s Updated Mandatory Notices.
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 26, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`
`
`By: /s/ Patrick J. McCarthy
`Patrick J. McCarthy
`Registration No. 62,762
`mccarthyp@gtlaw.com
`Greenberg Traurig LLP
`2101 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20037
`Phone: (202) 533-2386
`Fax: (202) 331-3101
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Shenzhen Zhiyi
`Technology Co. Ltd., d/b/a iLife,
`
`
`17
`
`