UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`iRobot Corporation
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,155,308
`Filing Date: June 3, 2003
`Issue Date: December 26, 2006
`
`Title: Robot Obstacle Detection System
`
`DECLARATION OF HAGEN SCHEMPF, Ph.D.
`
`Inter Partes Review No. <To Be Assigned>
`
`1
`
`IROBOT 2045
`Shenzhen Silver Star v. iRobot
`IPR2018-00897
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`I. BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE .............................................................. 5
`A. General Work Experience and Professional Background .............................. 5
`B. Education ........................................................................................................ 6
`C. Professional Societies, Committee Memberships, and Teaching
`Experience ...................................................................................................... 7
`D. Publications .................................................................................................... 7
`E. Patents ............................................................................................................. 8
`F. Compensation ................................................................................................. 8
`II. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................. 9
`III. RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND AND STATE OF THE
`ART ................................................................................................................... 10
`A. Collimator ..................................................................................................... 12
`IV. THE ‘308 PATENT ....................................................................................... 14
`A. The Specification .......................................................................................... 14
`B. Priority Benefit of the ‘308 Patent Claims ................................................... 15
`C. The Claims of the ‘308 Patent ...................................................................... 18
`D. Contested Claims of the ‘308 Patent ............................................................ 19
`V. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO THE CLAIMS ............................. 20
`A. Everett (Exh. 1005) ...................................................................................... 20
`i. Everett Discloses All the Features of Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 15, 19, 27-28
`and 32-34 ................................................................................................. 21
`(a) Claim Element 1(a): Preamble Analysis in View of Everett ............. 22
`(b) Claim Element 1(b) ............................................................................ 23
`(c) Claim Element 1(c) ............................................................................ 23
`(d) Claim Element 1(d) ............................................................................ 25
`ii. Everett Anticipates Dependent Claims 2, 6, 8, and 15 ............................ 28
`(a) Claim 2 ............................................................................................... 28
`(b) Claim 6 ............................................................................................... 29
`(c) Claim 8 ............................................................................................... 31
`(d) Claim 15 ............................................................................................. 31
`iii. Everett Anticipates independent claim 19 ............................................... 33
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`iv. Everett Anticipates dependent claims 27-28 and 32-34 .......................... 33
`(e) Claims 27 and 28 ................................................................................ 34
`(f) Claim 32 ............................................................................................. 35
`(g) Claim 33 ............................................................................................. 35
`(h) Claim 34 ............................................................................................. 36
`v. Summary of Everett Invalidity ................................................................ 37
`B. Jones (Exh. 1007) ......................................................................................... 38
`vi. Jones in Combination With Everett Renders Claims 3, 4, 7 and 15
`Obvious ................................................................................................... 38
`a) Claim 3 ............................................................................................... 40
`b) Claim 4 ............................................................................................... 42
`c) Claim 7 ............................................................................................... 44
`d) Claim 15 ............................................................................................. 44
`C. Schiller (Exh. 1014) ...................................................................................... 45
`vii. Schiller in Combination With Everett Renders claim 11 Obvious ...... 45
`D. Immega (Exh. 1015) ..................................................................................... 49
`viii.
`Immega in Combination With Everett Renders Claims 11, 12, and
`20 Obvious .............................................................................................. 49
`E. WO ‘399 Application (Exh. 1006) ............................................................... 52
`ix. WO ‘399 Application Discloses All the Features of Claims 1, 2, 6-8,
`19, 27, 31-32 and 34 ................................................................................ 53
`(a) Claim Element 1(a): Preamble Analysis in View of WO ‘399
`Application ......................................................................................... 53
`(b) Claim Element 1(b) ............................................................................ 54
`(c) Claim Element 1(c) ............................................................................ 55
`(d) Claim Element 1(d) ............................................................................ 56
`x. WO ‘399 Application Anticipates Dependent Claims 2 and 6-8 ............ 57
`(a) Claim 2 ............................................................................................... 57
`(b) Claim 6 ............................................................................................... 58
`(c) Claim 7 ............................................................................................... 59
`(d) Claim 8 ............................................................................................... 59
`xi. WO ‘399 Application Anticipates Independent Claim 19 ...................... 59
`(a) Claim 19 ............................................................................................. 59
`xii. WO ‘399 Application Anticipates Dependent Claims 27, 31-32 and
`34 ............................................................................................................. 60
`(e) Claim 27 ............................................................................................. 60
`(f) Claim 31 ............................................................................................. 61
`(g) Claim 32 ............................................................................................. 61
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`(h) Claim 34 ............................................................................................. 61
`xiii. Summary of WO ‘399 Application Invalidity .................................... 62
`xiv. Everett in Combination With WO ‘399 Application Renders Claims
`1, 15, 28 and 33 Obvious ......................................................................... 62
`xv. Jones in Combination With WO ‘399 Application Renders Claims 3, 4,
`7 and 15 Obvious ..................................................................................... 66
`xvi. WO ’399 Application in Combination With Everett and Jones
`Renders Claims 3, 4, 7 and 15 Obvious .................................................. 70
`xvii. WO ’399 Application in Combination With Schiller Renders Claim
`11 Obvious .............................................................................................. 70
`xviii. WO ’399 Application in Combination With Everett and Schiller
`Renders Claim 11 Obvious ...................................................................... 71
`xix. WO ’399 Application in Combination With Immega Renders
`Claims 11, 12 and 20 Obvious ................................................................ 71
`xx. WO ’399 Application in Combination With Everett and Immega
`Renders Claims 11, 12 and 20 Obvious .................................................. 72
`VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 72
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`I, Hagen Schempf, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been asked by Petitioner, Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent
`
`Technology Co. Ltd, to provide a declaration regarding certain aspects of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,155,308 (“the ‘308 Patent”) addressed below, which I understand is
`
`the subject of the present inter partes review proceeding.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
`
`2.
`
`I am over the age of 18 and am competent to offer this Declaration.
`
`I have personal knowledge, or have developed knowledge of these technologies
`
`based upon education, training, or experience, of the matters set forth herein.
`
`A. General Work Experience and Professional Background
`
`3.
`
`I currently act as a technology consultant in the position of co-
`
`owner for Icon Consultants, LLC, which I co-founded after retiring from my 25-
`
`year tenured academic research and development and teaching (1990-2015)
`
`career at The Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, PA,
`
`as well as my 12-years (1998-2010) of co-owning a robotics technology startup
`
`company (Automatika, Inc.) I co-founded, which was sold to QinetiQ in 2007. I
`
`have a very broad and deep understanding of robotics technologies as it relates
`
`to design, mechanisms, sensing, control as well as electronics and software
`
`systems utilized in mobile robots. I led teams that developed multiple robots for
`
`use in hazardous (asbestos-abatement), underwater (wreck-ROVs), outer-space
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`(U.S. space-shuttle
`
`inspection and maintenance), nuclear and explosive
`
`environments (tank-and-pipe inspection, repair and maintenance) for multiple
`
`commercial and government clients
`
`(National Aeronautics and Space
`
`Administration (NASA), United States Department of Defense (DoD), United
`
`States Department of Transportation (DoT), United States Environmental
`
`Protection Agency (EPA), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
`
`(DARPA), etc.), as well as small-scale ultra-rugged and portable military
`
`reconnaissance robots (warfighter-portable reconnaissance robot). As such I am
`
`very well versed with complete system design and with all their components
`
`such as motors, drivetrains, power-systems, user-interfaces, wireless
`
`communication systems, sensors, controls (hardware and software), electronics
`
`and microprocessors, and have an appreciation of the history of development in
`
`the field of robotics since its nascent years. All this experience is covered in my
`
`professional résumé (attached as Appendix A), which provides a detailed
`
`recitation of my employment history and tenure at various jobs.
`
`4.
`
`Also, see my Expert Witness Work experience for more details
`
`(attached as Appendix B).
`
`Education
`
`B.Sc. Mechanical Engineering, Stevens Institute of Technology,
`
`B.
`
`5.
`
`1984
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`M.Sc. Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts
`
`Institute of
`
`Technology (MIT), 1986
`
`Ph.D. Mechanical & Oceanographic Engineering, MIT and Woods
`
`Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI), 1990
`
`C.
`
`Professional Societies, Committee Memberships, and Teaching
`Experience
`
`6.
`
`Tau Beta Pi, Member and Treasurer, 1982-1984
`
`Member of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
`
`(ASME) and The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) during
`
`academic career (1990-2015)
`
`Creator and Founder of the Carnegie Mellon University (CMU)
`
`Robotics Degree Program - Master Of Science Robotic Systems Development
`
`(MRSD) (2010-2015); Served as Director for the Program and Lecturer for a
`
`Technology & Business Development Course (16-697)
`
`ASME and IEEE Reviewer for multiple Mechanical Design and
`
`Control as well as various Robotics Journals and Conferences (1999-2015)
`
`National Science Foundation (NSF) Reviewer; National Robotics
`
`Initiative; 2016/2017
`
`D.
`
`7.
`
`Publications
`
`My curriculum vitae, attached as Appendix C, provides as
`
`comprehensive a record of these publications as I have been able to assemble.
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`E.
`
`8.
`
`Patents
`
`My list of granted patents, attached as Appendix D, provides a
`
`complete listing of the patents issued to me (and other co-inventors) as of the
`
`date of this report submission.
`
`F. Compensation
`
`9.
`
`I am being compensated for the time I have spent on this matter at
`
`the rate of $450 per hour. My compensation does not depend in any way upon
`
`the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`10.
`
`The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my
`
`education and experience in the field of Mobile Robots, as well as the
`
`documents I have considered, including U.S. Patent No. 7,155,308 (“the ‘308
`
`Patent”) (Exh. 1001), which states on its face that it issued from an application
`
`filed on June 3, 2003. The ‘308 Patent is a continuation-in-part (“CIP”)
`
`application of U.S. Patent 6,594,844 parent patent (“the ‘844 Patent”). Exh.
`
`1008. The ‘844 Patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No.
`
`60/177,703 (“the Prov. App.,” Exh. 1009) filed on January 24, 2000, and was
`
`filed as a non-provisional application on January 24, 2001. For purposes of this
`
`Declaration, as will be explained in detail under the “Priority Benefit of the ‘308
`
`Patent Claims” section below, January 24, 2001 is purportedly the effective
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`filing date for the ‘308 Patent. I have considered the following documents in my
`
`analysis below:
`
`Exh. No.
`1001
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`1012
`1014
`1015
`
`Description of Exhibit
`U.S. Patent No. 7,155,308 to Joseph L. Jones
`Everett, H.R., Sensors for Mobile Robots Theory and Application
`(1995)
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 93/03399
`Joseph L. Jones and Anita M. Flynn., Mobile Robots: Inspiration to
`Implementation (1993), 1st Edition
` U.S. Patent 6,594,844 to Joseph L. Jones
` U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/177,703 to Joseph L. Jones
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collimator
`U.S. Patent No. 5,245,177 to Schiller
`U.S. Patent No. to 5,726,443 to Immega et al.
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`11.
`
`I have been informed that a person of ordinary skill in the art (a
`
`“POSITA”) is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have the skill and
`
`experience of an ordinary worker in the field and is deemed to have knowledge
`
`of the relevant prior art. A POSITA, as of the January 2001 filing date of the
`
`application upon which the ‘308 Patent claims priority would have had a
`
`bachelor’s degree in either computer engineering, electrical engineering,
`
`mechanical engineering, computer science, or robotic engineering (or equivalent
`
`degree/experience) with at least two years of experience in designing mobile
`
`robots and/or similar autonomous devices.
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`12. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical POSITA defined above, my analysis and opinions regarding the
`
`‘308 Patent is based on the perspective of a POSITA as of January 2001.
`
`III. RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND AND STATE OF
`THE ART
`
`13.
`
`The ‘308 Patent, entitled “Robot Obstacle Detection System,”
`
`discloses and claims a sensor subsystem for an autonomous robot. (Exh. 1001,
`
`1:65-66.). In this section, I provide a brief background of the state of the art
`
`pertinent to the claims of the ‘308 Patent as of January 2001.
`
`14.
`
`The prior art references discussed herein reflect the appropriate
`
`level of skill in the art as of January 2001.
`
`15.
`
`For example, Everett (Exh. 1005; published in 1995) is a
`
`comprehensive book showing the state of the art for sensors, including
`
`navigational and obstacle avoidance sensors, for use in robots long before
`
`January 2001. (See generally Exh. 1005).
`
`16. Also, Jones (Exh. 1007; 1st Edition published in 1993) is another
`
`comprehensive book showing the state of the art robots that contain near-
`
`infrared proximity detectors for obstacle avoidance. Jones also discloses
`
`detect/no-detect infrared sensors for use in obstacle detection applied to wall-
`
`following and cliff/edge-detection (and avoidance), for application in the field of
`
`mobile robots long before January 2001. (See generally Exh. 1007). I would
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`also like to emphasize that the author Jones of the Jones book (Exh. 1007) is
`
`also the ‘308 Patent’s named inventor, yet I have been informed by counsel that
`
`the Jones book was not cited (in any Information Disclosure Statement) during
`
`the Examination of the ‘308 Patent, even though its 1st Edition had already been
`
`in print for more than 7+ years.
`
`17.
`
`Jones in his book (Exh. 1007) challenges the reader to invent a new
`
`sensor arrangement to keep the mobile robot Rug Warrior from tumbling off the
`
`edge of a step and then asks the question of “What kind of sensors could be used
`
`to detect a drop-off?…Two near-infrared beams separated a few inches and
`
`aimed to cross at the level of the floor?” (Exh. 1007; 137 and description of
`
`FIG. 5.35). In my opinion, said passage in the Jones book actually already
`
`teaches the use of an emitter/detector pair aimed to cross (or in other words,
`
`overlap) at the floor-level, already back in 1993, well before the filing date of
`
`the provisional patent application (Exh. 1009).
`
`18. Additionally, Jones in his book (Exh. 1007) provides references to
`
`prior art in the form of commercially available infrared emitter and detector
`
`systems developed by multiple commercial companies, such as Sharp and
`
`Banner Engineering (Exh. 1007, Appendix C; 302 and 332). As just such an
`
`example of available prior art, Banner as far back as 1993 in its “Handbook of
`
`Photoelectric Sensing” offers numerous types of reflective, angled and
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`invariably collimated emitter/detectors sensory units as stand-alones and paired
`
`arrangements (including fiber-optic designs), for use in any controls or
`
`automation application. It is well known that such sensing elements were already
`
`available in the early 1990s for such industrial controls/automation applications
`
`and thus also found widespread usage in the field of robotics (industrial and
`
`remotely operated robot manipulators, mobile robots, etc.).
`
`19. Also, in my opinion, angled emitter/detector pairs in tubular
`
`arrangements for presence detection for use in, for example, industrial controls
`
`applications and/or robotic applications were generally known long before
`
`January 2001. For example, see generally Exh. 1014 and Exh. 1015.
`
`A. Collimator
`
`20.
`
`Claims 11, 12 and 20 of the ‘308 Patent recite a “collimator.”
`
`Specifically, claim 11 recites that the emitter and detector each have a collimator
`
`“about” them, and claim 20 recites that at least one of the emitters “is at least
`
`partially disposed within a collimator.” Claim 12 refers to the collimator of
`
`claim 11.
`
`21. Although the term “collimator” often refers to a device that creates
`
`parallel beams (collimated light), (Exh. 1012), the ‘308 Patent itself discloses
`
`that “[e]mitter collimator tube 60 forms directed beam 54 with a predefined field
`
`of emission and detector collimator tube 62 defines the field of view of the
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`detector 56. (Exh. 1001 at 6:2-5, 6:15-32, 7:19-28, and 7:33-44. Figs. 5, 6, 7,
`
`12, and 13). The specification of the ‘308 Patent also uses the term collimation
`
`to refer to the directionality imparted to the beam by fiber optic cables. (Exh.
`
`1001 at 12:34-37). The illustrated embodiments of Figs, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the
`
`‘308 Patent are not limited to emitting or receiving parallel beams of light
`
`because the fields of view therein are angled or cone-shaped. The specification
`
`of the ‘308 patent also mentions that collimation is not just to be deemed a way
`
`of creating solely parallel beams/rays of light, but that it is a process by which
`
`any desirable emission/detection field of view can be created, thereby
`
`generating, (in the case of circular emitter/detector ‘collimators’) conical shapes
`
`of any suitable internal angle, which when projected onto a floor create a region
`
`of potential overlap between an emitter and a detector where the “... overlap
`
`region can be selected by choosing the degree of collimation and the nominal
`
`distance to the floor”. (Exh. 1001; 6:54-56) The specification of the ‘308 Patent
`
`also uses the term “collimator” to encompass other types of devices that restrict
`
`or define the field of emission/view for the emitter/detector without having
`
`parallel beams.
`
`22.
`
`Thus, in my opinion, the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`consistent with the usage of the term “collimator” in the specification of the ‘308
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent is a “structure through which light passes to bound the optical field of an
`
`emitter or a detector.”
`
`IV. THE ‘308 PATENT
`A. The Specification
`
`23.
`
`The ‘308 Patent describes a “robot obstacle detection system
`
`including a robot housing which navigates with respect to a surface and a sensor
`
`subsystem . . . [that is] aimed at the surface for detecting the surface.” (Exh.
`
`1001, Abstract). “Surface 58 may be a floor or a wall depending on the
`
`arrangement of sensor subsystem 50 with respect to the housing of the robot.”
`
`(Exh. 1001, 5:59-61). The “robotic cleaning device 10” was built to “avoid
`
`[upward and downward] stairs 12 and 14 but traverse obstacle 16[.]” (Exh.
`
`1001, 5: 27-30). Robot 10 includes a “circuitry .. connected to detector 56 to
`
`redirect the robot when surface 58 does not occupy the region [70] defining the
`
`intersection of the field of emission of emitter 52 and the field of view of
`
`detector 56.” (Exh. 1001, FIG. 7, and 5:62-66 and 6:1-2). Specifically, “[t]he
`
`sensor subsystem is calibrated such that when floor or surface 58’, FIG. 8 is the
`
`“normal” or expected distance with respect to the robot, there is a full or a nearly
`
`full overlap between the field of emission of the emitter and the field of view of
`
`the detector[.]” (Exh. 1001, 6:33-37). “As the robot approaches a cliff, the
`
`overlap decreases until the reflected intensity is below the preset threshold. This
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`triggers cliff avoidance behavior.” (Exh. 1001, 6:46-48). “[W]hen there is no
`
`detectable overlap, i.e., when the detector fails to emit a signal,” “the system
`
`[was tuned] to simply redirect the robot.” (Exh. 1001, 6:59-64).
`
`B.
`
`24.
`
`Priority Benefit of the ‘308 Patent Claims
`
`In comparing the provisional application (Exh. 1009) with the ‘844
`
`parent Patent (Exh. 1008), it is apparent the ‘844 parent Patent added disclosure
`
`concerning “for obstacle avoidance, circuitry is added to the robot and connected
`
`to detector 56 to redirect the robot when surface 58 does not occupy the region
`
`defining the intersection of the field of emission of emitter 52 and the field of
`
`view of detector 56.” (Exh. 1008 at 5:24-37 and FIGS. 6 and 7). That new
`
`disclosure of the ‘844 parent Patent is largely identical to the disclosure at 5:62-
`
`66 of the ‘308 Patent. That new disclosure of the ‘844 parent patent, however,
`
`does not have any support in the provisional application. More importantly, the
`
`disclosure in the provisional application does not support the features of the
`
`claims 1 and 19 of the ‘308 Patent.
`
`25.
`
`In my opinion, the disclosure in the provisional application merely
`
`talks about a low cost edge detector (depicted as a table-top with a robot,
`
`presumably the rDuster disclosed therein, perched on the edge), which is
`
`comprised of “A novel combination of sensors and the locations of those sensors
`
`solves this problem inexpensively and reliably. The sensors consist of LEDs
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`and detectors that are setup to detect an object at close range under or near the
`
`edge of a robot. Only a few LEDs are required, along with several strategically
`
`placed, cheap detectors.” (Exh. 1009, 11) Nowhere in said provisional
`
`application is any mention made of the actual geometric arrangement, nor fields
`
`of view, of these sensors and certainly not that they might have overlapping
`
`fields of emission and detection. As a matter of fact, for a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time, the above-cited portion of the provisional patent
`
`application is much less revealing in content than a passage in the Jones book
`
`(Exh. 1007) where Jones challenges the reader to invent a new sensor
`
`arrangement to keep the mobile robot ‘Rug Warrior’ from tumbling off the edge
`
`of a step and then asks the question of “What kind of sensors could be used to
`
`detect a drop-off?…Two near-infrared beams separated a few inches and aimed
`
`to cross at the level of the floor?” (Exh. 1007; 137 and description of FIG. 5.35).
`
`In my opinion, said passage in the Jones book actually already teaches the use of
`
`an emitter/detector pair aimed to cross (or in other words, overlap) at the floor-
`
`level back in 1993, well before the filing date of the provisional patent
`
`application.
`
`26.
`
`Furthermore, the disclosure in the provisional application fails to
`
`describe that the fields of emission/view of the emitter/detector “intersect at a
`
`region” as required by independent claims 1 and 19. Nor is it inherently obvious
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`or necessarily true that such an intersection is required because one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand that other types of emitter/detector
`
`arrangements can also detect surfaces without using such intersecting regions.
`
`While it is true that emitter/detector pairs usually have some form of overlapping
`
`fields of emission and detection (such as in opposed or retro-reflective sensing
`
`modes), there are many sensing examples where the presence or orientation of a
`
`surface (in an area of interest) can be detected (whether in diffuse, divergent or
`
`convergent sensing modes), where the monitored zone is not at all in the area of
`
`the overlapping emitter/detector fields of emission/detection, but rather in-front
`
`or behind/beyond the region of overlap; surfaces at certain angles and with
`
`appropriate reflectivity properties could thus be envisioned that would create a
`
`reflected photon-path into the detector causing a signal to be triggered. Another
`
`example would even entail
`
`the use of completely non-overlapping
`
`emitter/detector fields of emission/detection, that can detect the presence of
`
`concave (angled such as in a prism, or curved such as in a parabolic bowl-shape)
`
`surfaces through the use of multi-point and/or specular reflection. Note further
`
`that the ‘308 patent depicts an intersection of the emitter/detector conical fields
`
`of emission/detection in Fig.7, which is of a finite type (meaning the detection
`
`zone is bounded on all four sides). There are however other types of
`
`intersections, including those of infinite type, where at least one of the sides of
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`each of the conical fields of emission is parallel to another conical side of the
`
`field of detection; said intersection detection region is theoretically infinite, and
`
`while possible and determined by the angle of incidence between the detector
`
`and emitter, it represents yet another possible type of emitter/detector
`
`arrangement with a different associated detection region. Furthermore, the
`
`notion of having a pair of emitter and detector sensors exhibiting an area of
`
`overlap is not only obvious, but was well known and represents one of the
`
`working principles behind
`
`the use of
`
`infrared photoelectric detection.
`
`Additionally, the principle of overlapping emitter/detector emission/detection
`
`fields in a particular sensing area of interest, was well known prior art and was
`
`(and still is) termed ‘mechanically-convergent mode’, which was a sensory
`
`arrangement well known at the time, as exhibited by Jones in his own 1993-
`
`dated book where he references Banner Engineering as a commercial sensor
`
`supplier (Exh. 1007, Appendix C, 302), who in turn in their Handbook of
`
`Photoelectric Sensing show the use of, and offers for sale, such mechanically
`
`convergent sensory-element models already back in 1993.
`
`C. The Claims of the ‘308 Patent
`
`27.
`
`This Declaration addresses claims 1, 2-4, 6-8, 11-12, 14-15, 19-22,
`
`25, 27-30, and 32-34 of the ‘308 Patent. Claims 1 and 19 read:
`
`1. A sensor subsystem for an autonomous robot which rides on a surface, the
`sensor subsystem comprising:
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`an optical emitter which emits a directed optical beam having a defined
`field of emission;
`a photon detector having a defined field of view which intersects the field
`of emission of the emitter at a region; and
`a circuit in communication with the detector providing an output when an
`object is not present in the region thereby re-directing the autonomous robot.
`(Exh. 1001, 12:61-67-13:1-3 (Claim 1).)
`
`19. A sensor subsystem for an autonomous robot, the sensor subsystem
`comprising:
`at least two emitters, each for emitting a beam having a field of emission
`toward a surface upon which the autonomous robot travels;
`at least two photon detectors, each having a field of view which intersects
`at least one field of emission at a region; and
`a circuit in communication with the detectors to re-direct the autonomous
`robot when the surface is not present in at least one region.
`(Exh. 1001, 14:7-17 (Claim 19).)
`
`I will address the dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-12, 14-15, 20-22, 25, 27-
`
`30, and 32-34 in the ‘308 Patent in my detailed analysis in Part V. “Application
`
`of the Prior Art” later. Because those claims are short, I reproduced them at the
`
`beginning of each section where they are discussed.
`
`D. Contested Claims of the ‘308 Patent
`
`28.
`
`For easier reference to elements of independent Claims 1 and 19
`
`from the ‘308 Patent, I reproduce their text here, including labels for each clause
`
`to make it easier to refer to each such element in my analysis and discussion of
`
`claims and individual claim elements (where applicable):
`
`1(a). A sensor subsystem for an autonomous robot which rides on a surface, the
`sensor subsystem comprising:
`1(b). an optical emitter which emits a directed optical beam having a defined
`field of emission;
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`1(c). a photon detector having a defined field of view which intersects the field
`of emission of the emitter at a region; and
`1(d). a circuit in communication with the detector providing an output when an
`object is not present in the region thereby re-directing the autonomous robot.
`
`19(a). A sensor subsystem for an autonomous robot, the sensor subsystem
`comprising:
`19(b). at least two emitters, each for emitting a beam having a field of emission
`toward a surface upon which the autonomous robot travels;
`19(c). at least two photon detectors, each having a field of view which intersects
`at least one field of emission at a region; and
`19(d). a circuit in communication with the detectors to re-direct the autonomous
`robot when the surface is not present in at least one region.
`
`29. Note that using this nomenclature, the Preamble to Claim 1 is
`
`identified as Claim Element 1(a), or simply 1(a). Thus, the first following
`
`limitation after the Preamble is Claim Element 1(b) or 1(b), the next is Claim
`
`Element 1(c) or 1(c), and so forth. I will use this nomenclature throughout this
`
`Declaration to ensure precise and unambiguous references to the numerous
`
`elements of Claim 1 (and Claim 19).
`
`V. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO THE CLAIMS
`A. Everett (Exh. 1005)
`
`30.
`
`The book, entitled “Sensors for Mobile Robots Theory and
`
`Application,” by H.R. Everett, was published in 1995. This book will
`
`henceforth be identified as “Everett.”
`
`31.
`
`Everett generally teaches a wide range of mobile, autonomous
`
`robots and the use of convergent proximity sensors thereon, for example, to
`
`20
`
`
`
`

`

`detect “discon