UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`DGL GROUP, LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`Case No.: IPR2022-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 10,597,107
`___________________
`DECLARATION OF DR. GLENN E. VALLEE, PH.D., P.E.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0001
`
`

`

`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`A. Qualifications ..................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Basis of My Opinion and Materials Considered ................................ 6
`C.
`Legal Standards for Patentability ....................................................... 6
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT FIELD AND THE RELEVANT
`TIMEFRAME ............................................................................................. 10
`III. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT FIELD IN
`THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME .............................................................. 10
`IV. STATE OF THE ART FOR THE ‘107 PATENT .... Error! Bookmark not
`defined.
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘107 patent ............................................................. 11
`VI. CLAIM INTERPRETATION .................................................................... 13
`A.
`Electric balance vehicle .................................................................... 13
`B.
`Controller .......................................................................................... 14
`C.
`Configured to control the hub motors / controls the motors /
`configured for controlling the first and second hub motors ............. 14
`VII. THE PRIOR ART ....................................................................................... 15
`A.
`Chen .................................................................................................. 15
`B.
`Kickstarter ........................................................................................ 17
`C. Guangjing ......................................................................................... 18
`D. Kakinuma ......................................................................................... 20
`E.
`Osamu ............................................................................................... 22
`VIII. THE PRIOR ART IN RELATION TO CLAIMS OF THE ‘107 PATENT
` .................................................................................................................... 26
`A.
`Chen in Combination With Guangjing Compared to Claims 8, 10,
`11, and 14-16 of the ‘107 patent ...................................................... 26
`
`
`
`010-9348-2542/5/AMERICAS
`
`
`- i -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0002
`
`

`

`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Chen in Combination With Guangjing and Kakinuma Compared to
`Claims 1, 5, 6, 12, 13, and 25 of the ‘107 patent ............................. 47
`Chen in Combination With Guangjing, Kakinuma, and Dunn
`Compared to Claim 4 of the ‘107 patent .......................................... 58
`Chen in Combination With Guangjing, Kakinuma, and Osamu
`Compared to Claim 7 of the ‘107 patent .......................................... 60
`Chen in Combination With Guangjing and Hye Compared to Claims
`9 and 17 of the ‘107 patent ............................................................... 62
`Chen in Combination With Guangjing and Dunn Compared to
`Claims 19 and 20 of the ‘107 patent ................................................ 66
`Chen in Combination With Guangjing, Dunn, and Cosby Compared
`to Claims 21 and 24 of the ‘107 patent ............................................ 67
`Chen in Combination With Guangjing and Larson Compared to
`Claims 22 and 23 of the ‘107 patent ................................................ 70
`Kickstarter Compared to Claims 1, 5, 8, 10-16, and 25 of the ‘107
`patent ................................................................................................ 74
`Kickstarter in Combination With Guangjing Compared to Claim 6 of
`the ‘107 patent .................................................................................. 87
`K. Kickstarter in Combination With Osamu Compared to Claim 7 of
`the ‘107 patent .................................................................................. 87
`Kickstarter in Combination With Hye Compared to Claims 9, 17,
`and 18 of the ‘107 patent .................................................................. 88
`M. GROUND 13: Kickstarter and Dunn render claims 4, 19, and 20
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. ....................................................... 89
`N. Kickstarter in Combination With Dunn and Cosby Compared to
`Claims 21 and 24 of the ‘107 patent ................................................ 90
`O. Kickstarter in Combination Larson Compared to Claims 22 and 23
`of the ‘107 patent .............................................................................. 91
`IX. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................ 92
`X.
`CONCLUSION........................................................................................... 92
`
`- ii -
`
`010-9348-2542/5/AMERICAS
`
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`L.
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0003
`
`

`

`I, Dr. Glenn E. Vallee, Ph.D., P.E. declare as follows:
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Based on my background, being over the age of eighteen (18), and being of
`
`1.
`
`sound mind, I am competent to make this Declaration.
`
`2.
`
`DGL Group, Ltd. (“DGL”) has retained me to provide my opinion on U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,597,107 (“‘107 patent”) for a Declaration in support of a Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of the ‘107 patent. The opinion set forth in this
`
`Declaration addresses the ‘107 patent, the state of the relevant art at the time of the
`
`invention of the ‘107 patent, and the scope and content of the prior art in comparison
`
`to the ‘107 patent.
`
`3.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the ‘107 patent, which was filed on
`
`October 18, 2019, and issued on March 4, 2020. I have also reviewed and am familiar
`
`with the prosecution history of the ‘107 patent.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that the application for the ‘107 patent was a continuation of U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 16/429,636, filed on June 3, 2019, which issued as U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,486,764, which in turn was a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`15/160,589, filed on May 20, 2016, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,336,392, which
`
`in turn was a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/773,650, filed on
`
`September 8, 2015, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,376,155, which was a 371
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0004
`
`

`

`national stage filing of PCT/CN2014/092849, filed December 2, 2014, which claimed
`
`priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 20140262353.9, filed on June 13, 2014.
`
`5.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with: (1) U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US
`
`2013/0238231 A1 to Chen (“Chen”) (EX1004); (2) An archived webpage of a
`
`Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign for a Hovertrax Hoverboard, hosted at
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20130504083823/http:/www.kickstarter.com/projects/68
`
`7658339/hovertrax (“Kickstarter”) (EX1015); (3) Chinese Patent No. CN 103144715
`
`A to Guangjing (“Guangjing”) (EX1005) and its certified translation (EX1006); (4)
`
`U.S. Patent No. US 7,958,956 B2 to Kakinuma (“Kakinuma”) (EX1007); (5) U.S.
`
`Patent Application Pub. No. US 2006/0226675 A1 to Dunn (“Dunn”) (EX1010); (6)
`
`Japanese Patent Application No. 2005-94898 to (“Osamu”) (EX1008) and its certified
`
`translation (EX1009); (7) Korean Patent Application No. 10-2005-0062416 to Hye
`
`(“Hye”) (EX1011) and its certified translation (EX1012); (8) U.S. Patent Application
`
`Pub. No. US 2011/0023652 to Cosby et al. (“Cosby) (EX1013); and (9) U.S. Patent
`
`Application Pub. No. US 2013/0206493 A1 to Larson et al. (“Larson”) (EX1014).
`
`6.
`
`I am familiar with the technology at issue as of June 13, 2014, the earliest filing
`
`date to which the ‘107 patent claims the benefit of priority.
`
`7.
`
`I have been asked to provide my technical review, analysis, insights, and
`
`opinions regarding the above-noted references that form the basis for the grounds of
`
`rejection set forth in the IPR Petition of the ‘107 patent.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0005
`
`

`

`A. Qualifications
`I am employed by Western New England University as an Associate Professor
`
`8.
`
`of Mechanical Engineering. My background is in the areas of mechanical engineering,
`
`design, product development and quality assurance. I have a Ph.D. in Mechanical
`
`Engineering from the University of Rhode Island. I also serve as a consultant in the
`
`areas of mechanical engineering design, numerical stress analysis and mechanical
`
`testing, as well as serving as a technical expert in product liability litigation. I am a
`
`member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME member no.
`
`1259837) and I am a licensed Professional Engineer (RI Lic. No. 6765).
`
`9.
`
`As set forth in more detail in my curriculum vitae, I have substantial experience
`
`in the areas of mechanical engineering, product design and development, quality
`
`assurance and mechanical testing. Prior to joining Western New England University,
`
`I served as the Director of Engineering and Quality Assurance, Worldwide for the
`
`Remington Products Company, L.L.C., in Bridgeport, CT from 1997 until 2002.
`
`Remington Products Company is a major manufacturer of personal care products,
`
`including electric shavers, beard trimmers and hair dryers. My responsibilities
`
`included directing the activities of Design and Product Engineering, Quality
`
`Assurance and Manufacturing departments in the U.S., U.K. and Asia. I was
`
`responsible for the design and development of international consumer products, and
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0006
`
`

`

`for focusing new product engineering toward continuously improving customer
`
`satisfaction through improved product design, performance and quality.
`
`10. Prior to my employment at Remington Products, I served as the Manager of the
`
`Engineering Laboratories at the Stanley Bostitch Company, now a division of
`
`Stanley/Black & Decker. Stanley Bostitch is a leading manufacturer of pneumatic
`
`nailers and staplers, and a variety of hand tools such as hammer tackers and staplers. I
`
`was employed by Stanley Bostitch from 1985 until 1997, serving first as a Technician,
`
`then Test Engineer, then Product Design/Development Engineer and was promoted to
`
`Manager of the Engineering Laboratories in 1995. My work as a Technician and then
`
`Test Engineer allowed me to acquire experience in conducting and developing test
`
`methodologies for all products. My work as a Product Design/Development Engineer
`
`involved designing and developing products from conception through manufacture
`
`and quality control. As the Manager of the Engineering Laboratories, I managed the
`
`largest of the Engineering Laboratories in Stanley Works and supervised 18
`
`employees. This position required that I coordinate testing and allocate resources to
`
`meet stringent scheduling requirements of the Product Development, Manufacturing
`
`and Marketing departments.
`
`11.
`
`I have significant experience in the design and development of a number of
`
`different vehicles and vehicle accessories. I currently serve as the academic advisor
`
`for the SAE Mini Baja project at Western New England University. In this role, I have
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0007
`
`

`

`supervised students in the design and development of suspension systems, two and
`
`four wheel drive systems, and an electronically controlled continuously variable
`
`transmission (“CVT”). Six Capstone Senior Design Projects have resulted from this
`
`work. I also supervised projects related to other vehicles and vehicle accessories,
`
`including the development of a low cost personal transportation vehicle, a door check
`
`mechanism for removable vehicle doors, and quick-change systems for tire
`
`replacement.
`
`12.
`
`I am identified as an inventor on nine patents, including those related to hand
`
`tools, pneumatic nailers, surgical devices, a water purification system, electrical power
`
`strips, and a fastener insertion system for fasteners with antennas. My patent work
`
`related to gas spring powered nailers included control systems in the form of electronic
`
`control boards. I have reviewed many patents while working with patent attorneys to
`
`file the applications for the patents discussed above. I have given deposition testimony
`
`eight times and I have testified in court four times, both related to product liability
`
`litigation where I testified as a technical expert. I have also testified once before the
`
`International Trade Commission as a technical expert in a patent matter and have given
`
`deposition testimony eleven times in patent related matters.
`
`13. Appendix A is a copy of my résumé, which further expands on my qualifications
`
`and expertise and includes articles I have published in the past ten years.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0008
`
`

`

`B. Basis of My Opinion and Materials Considered
`14. The opinion set forth in this Declaration is based on my entire background
`
`including my education and professional experience as well as my knowledge and
`
`research activities. In rendering this opinion, I reviewed the ‘107 patent, the prior art,
`
`and other background documents. Appendix B provides a full list of the documents
`
`that I considered in making this opinion.
`
`C. Legal Standards for Patentability
`15.
`I have been informed that under 35 U.S.C. § 120, an application for a patent can
`
`claim priority to an earlier filed non-provisional patent application if the later filed
`
`application is filed before the patenting or abandonment of the earlier filed application.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as anticipated if each and every
`
`element of a claim, as properly construed, is found either explicitly or inherently in a
`
`single prior art reference. Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily
`
`functions in accordance with, or includes the claimed limitations, it anticipates. I am
`
`informed that this standard is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
`
`if the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public
`
`use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention. I have also been informed that a claim is unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) if the claimed invention was described in a patent or published
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0009
`
`

`

`application by another inventor that was effectively filed before the effective filing
`
`date of the claimed invention.
`
`18.
`
`I further have been informed that under the exceptions set forth in 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b), a disclosure made one year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed
`
`invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention if the disclosure was made by
`
`the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed
`
`directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if the differences between the
`
`patented subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. I am informed that this standard is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`20. When considering the issues of obviousness, I understand that I am to do the
`
`following: (i) determine the scope and content of the prior art; (ii) ascertain the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; (iii) resolve the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (iv) consider objective evidence of non-
`
`obviousness. I appreciate that secondary considerations must be assessed as part of
`
`the overall obviousness analysis (i.e., as opposed to analyzing the prior art, reaching a
`
`tentative conclusion, and then assessing whether objective indicia alter that
`
`conclusion).
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0010
`
`

`

`21. Put another way, my understanding is that not all innovations are patentable.
`
`Even if a claimed product or method is not explicitly described in its entirety in a single
`
`prior art reference, the patent claim will still be found unpatentable if the claim would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
`
`made.
`
`22.
`
`In determining whether the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`considered obvious at the time that the invention was made from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, I have been informed of several principles regarding
`
`the combination of elements of the prior art:
`
`a. First, a combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious when it yields predictable results.
`
`b. Second, if a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a
`
`“predictable variation” in a prior art device, and would see the benefit
`
`from doing so, such a variation would be obvious. In particular, when
`
`there is pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
`
`identifiable, predictable solutions, it would be reasonable for a person of
`
`ordinary skill to pursue those options that fall within his or her technical
`
`grasp. If such a process leads to the claimed invention, then the latter is
`
`not patentable and is, instead, more the result of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0011
`
`

`

`c. Third, matters relating to ornamentation only, which have no mechanical
`
`function, cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish a claimed
`
`invention from the prior art. Rather, aesthetic design changes are
`
`considered routine expedients that require only ordinary skill in the art.
`
`d. Fourth, a simple substitution of one known element for another is likely
`
`obvious when the substitution yields predictable results.
`
`23. The “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” test is a useful guide in establishing
`
`a rationale for combining elements of the prior art. This test poses the question as to
`
`whether there is an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art to
`
`combine prior art elements in a way that realizes the claimed invention. Though useful
`
`to the obviousness inquiry, I understand that this test should not be treated as a rigid
`
`rule. It is not necessary to seek out precise teachings; it is permissible to consider the
`
`inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art (who is considered
`
`to have an ordinary level of creativity and is not an “automaton”) would employ.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that other factors may be considered in establishing a rationale for
`
`combining elements of the prior art. These factors include: (1) whether the claimed
`
`invention was merely the predictable result of using prior art elements according to
`
`their known function(s); (2) whether the claimed invention provides an obvious
`
`solution to a known problem in the relevant field; (3) whether it would have been
`
`obvious to try the combinations of elements, such as when there is a design need or
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0012
`
`

`

`market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions; and (4) whether the claimed invention resulted more from design
`
`incentives or other market forces. I further understand that for an invention to be
`
`rendered obvious, the prior art must provide a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`II. DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT FIELD AND THE RELEVANT
`TIMEFRAME
`
`25. To determine the relevant field, I reviewed the ‘107 patent and its file history.
`
`26. To determine the scope of the prior art, I understand the prior art must be earlier
`
`than the invention date of the ‘107 patent. As discussed above, the ‘107 patent claims
`
`priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 20140262353.9, filed on June 13, 2014.
`
`27.
`
` Based on this history, the ‘107 patent has a claim to the June 13, 2014 filing
`
`date of the above-identified Chinese Patent Application as the earliest priority date.
`
`28. Without confirming or acknowledging a priority date to which the ‘107 patent
`
`is entitled, the following opinion relies on art that is earlier than June 13, 2014.
`
`29. Based on my review of this material, I believe that the relevant field for the
`
`purposes of the ‘107 patent is, in general, mechanical, electrical, and/or computer
`
`science engineering, and personal transportation vehicles.
`
`THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT
`III.
`FIELD IN THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field” is a
`
`hypothetical person to whom an expert in the relevant field could assign a routine task
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0013
`
`

`

`with reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully carried out. I have
`
`been informed that the level of skill in the art is evidenced by prior art references.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that, in related district court litigation, Patent Owner contends:
`
`[A] person having ordinary skill in the art of the inventions of the
`Patents-in-Suit (a “POSITA”) would have at least: (1) a bachelor’s
`degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer
`science, or a related field, or equivalent experience, and; (2) at least two
`years of experience in the area of: (i) robotics or feedback control for
`electromechanical systems; (ii) mechanical design, dynamic analysis,
`and/or control design for mechatronic systems, or (iii) equivalent
`experience in (i) or (ii).
`
`32. For the purpose of this declaration, I have adopted Patent Owner’s definition of
`
`a POSITA.
`
`33. My background education and professional experience provide me with a strong
`
`understanding of the abilities and knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art for
`
`the relevant field of the ‘107 patent. Not only do I have such abilities and knowledge,
`
`but I have also taught, worked with, and overseen the work of others with such abilities
`
`and knowledge in my capacities as a professor, a consultant, and a professional
`
`engineer.
`
`34.
`
`
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘107 PATENT
`
`IV.
`35. Although it does not refer to it by name, the Background section of the ‘107
`
`patent describes the Segway as a prior art self-balancing vehicle that “generally has an
`
`operating rod. A user stands on a foot platform of the self-balancing vehicle to operate
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0014
`
`

`

`the operating rod so as to advance, retreat, and stop, and this control is known as
`
`‘manual control.’” EX1001 at 1:35-39.
`
`36. The ‘107 patent does not proclaim to disclose a new or unique self-balancing
`
`operation, acknowledging that “[h]ow the controller 82 in the present invention
`
`controls the self-balancing vehicle to achieve a self-balancing state and controls the
`
`wheels 50 to advance, retreat or turn belongs to the prior art.” EX1001 at 8:57-60.
`
`37. Rather than innovating a new method or control for self-balancing, the ‘107
`
`patent instead sought to provide a self-balancing vehicle that is “firmer,” “more
`
`compact,” easier to assemble, and “better balanced” in order to overcome perceived
`
`deficiencies in prior art self-balancing vehicles. See EX1001 at 3:19-45. To achieve
`
`these objectives, the vehicle 100 of the ‘107 patent includes (with reference to Figure
`
`2 of the ‘107 patent, reproduced above on p. 2), an inner cover 2 fixed between a top
`
`cover 1 and a bottom cover 3. Id. at 5:43-45.
`
`38. The inner cover 2 includes a first inner cover 21 and a second inner cover 22
`
`that are rotatable relative to one another via a rotating mechanism 60. Id. at 4:8-12;
`
`5:44-51. Wheels 50 are attached to the inner cover 2. EX1001 at 7:4-5. Using
`
`information from sensors 80 (including a gyroscope 83 and an acceleration sensor 85),
`
`a controller 82 controls motors 4 to drive the wheels 50 to rotate to achieve a self-
`
`balancing state. Id. at 8:33-61.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0015
`
`

`

`V. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`39. During an Inter Partes Review, I understand that the claims of a patent are given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the invention, in view of the claims,
`
`specification, prosecution history, and relevant extrinsic evidence. I have been
`
`informed that this standard of claim interpretation is referred to as the “Phillips claim
`
`construction” standard, and that it is the same standard applied in district court
`
`litigation.
`
`40.
`
`In the related district court litigation, I provided a declaration explaining my
`
`opinion on Petitioner’s proposed construction of three terms of the ‘107 patent.
`
`EX1024.
`
`41.
`
`I have been informed of Patent Owner’s proposed construction of these same
`
`terms. While I maintain that my opinion on the construction of these terms is correct,
`
`it is further my opinion that the prior art teaches the claims of the ‘107 patent under
`
`either party’s proposed constructions. Therefore, I identify the proposed constructions
`
`below without analysis.
`
`A. Electric balance vehicle
`42. Each of the challenged claims recite “an electric balance vehicle.” It is my
`
`opinion that, under the Phillips claim construction standard, the term “electric balance
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0016
`
`

`

`vehicle” as recited in the claims of the ‘107 patent means “a vehicle that automatically
`
`maintains its balance.” See EX1024, ¶¶ 31-52.
`
`43. Additionally, I have been informed that in the district court litigation, Patent
`
`Owner submitted that no construction is necessary for this term. I have been informed
`
`that this means that Patent Owner’s position is that the term “electric balance vehicle”
`
`should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`B. Controller
`44. Claims 1, 4-7, and 10-25 of the ‘107 patent each recite a “controller.” It is my
`
`opinion that, under the Phillips claim construction standard, the term “controller”
`
`means “a single controller.” See EX1024, ¶¶ 53-57.
`
`45. Additionally, I have been informed that in district court litigation, Patent Owner
`
`submitted that no construction is necessary for this term. I have been informed that
`
`this means that Patent Owner believes the plain and ordinary meaning should be
`
`applied to this term. I have also been informed that in district court litigation, Patent
`
`Owner alternatively submitted that this term should be construed to mean “a piece of
`
`equipment that controls the operation of a device.”
`
`C. Configured to control the hub motors / controls the motors / configured
`for controlling the first and second hub motors
`
`46. Claims 1 and 4-7 recites that the controller is “configured to control the hub
`
`motors.” Claims 10-24 recites that the controller “controls the motors.” Claim 25
`
`recites that the controller is “configured for controlling the first and second hub
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0017
`
`

`

`motors.” It is my opinion that, under the Phillips claim construction standard, the
`
`foregoing terms means that the single controller “controls both [hub] motors.” See
`
`EX1024, ¶¶ 58-62.
`
`47. Additionally, I have been informed that in district court litigation, Patent Owner
`
`submitted that no construction is necessary for these terms. I have been informed that
`
`this means Patent Owner believes the plain and ordinary meaning should be applied to
`
`these terms. I have also been informed that in district court litigation, Patent Owner
`
`alternatively submitted that these terms should be construed to mean “cause the hub
`
`motors to drive the corresponding wheels.”
`
`THE PRIOR ART
`
`VI.
`A. Chen
`48. Chen describes a “two-wheel, self-balancing vehicle 100” that has “a first and
`
`a second platform section 110, 130,” as shown in Figure 1. EX1004, ¶¶ [0016]-[0017].
`
`The specification states “[e]ach platform section 110, 130 may include a housing
`
`formed of a bottom housing member 111,131 and a top housing member 112, 132,”
`
`and “[t]he top housing members may have a foot placement section or area 113,133
`
`formed integrally therewith or affixed thereon.” Id. at ¶ [0017]. First section 110 and
`
`second section 130 “are movably coupled to one another” and include “a shaft 170
`
`about which they may rotate (or pivot with respect to one another).” Id. at ¶ [0023].
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0018
`
`

`

`
`49. As shown in Figure 2 (reproduced below), “each platform section preferably
`
`includes a position sensor 120, 140, which may be a gyroscopic sensor, for
`
`independent measurement of the position of the respective platform section.” Id. at
`
`¶ [0020]. Each position sensor 120, 140 sends position information “to drive the
`
`corresponding motor 117, 137 and wheel 115, 135,” and “control logic” 150, 151 may
`
`be used “for translating position data to motor drive signals.” Id. at ¶ [0020].
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0019
`
`

`

`
`50. Chen explains that “[s]ince the platform sections may rotate or pivot with
`
`respect to one another, the left section 110, for example, may tilt forward while the
`
`right section tilts backward.” Id. at ¶ [0024]. In addition, “the platform wheels could
`
`be tilted in the same direction, but one platform more than the other. This would cause
`
`the wheel associated with the more steeply tilted platform to drive faster, in turn
`
`causing the vehicle to turn.” Id. at ¶ [0024].
`
`B. Kickstarter
`51. Kickstarter describes an “[a]uto-balancing, electric transporter with gyro
`
`technology.” EX1015, p. 5. The transporter is referred to as the Hovertrax, and it
`
`allows a user to “[s]hift body weight to control speed and direction for seamless
`
`gliding!” Id. Kickstarter explains “[a]t the slightest lean of your feet, the Hovertrax
`
`travels forward, backwards, turns left and right, and rotates clockwise and
`
`counterclockwise.” Id. It also notes “[t]he Hovertrax has auto-balancing capabilities,
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0020
`
`

`

`meaning it will automatically catch the rider. Without any handlebars in the way, the
`
`rider can step off at any time.” Id., p. 8.
`
`52.
`
`Images of the Hovertrax are reproduced below. The Hovertrax has “two halves
`
`that tilt independently of each other. Each wheel has its own motor, each equipped
`
`with a gyro sensor and accelerometer.” Id., p. 7.
`
`
`
`C. Guangjing
`53. Guangjing discloses “[a] two-wheeled self-balancing patrol vehicle having a
`
`framework includes a framework, hub motors, flanged wheels, a steering box, a
`
`steering rod, a battery box, a control box, an upper housing, and a lower housing.”
`
`EX1006, 2:1-3. An exploded view of the vehicle is shown in Figure 1 of Guangjing
`
`(reproduced below).
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0021
`
`

`

`
`54. Guangjing explains that “flanged wheels are connected and fixed to the hub
`
`motors.” EX1006, 2:7-8. It also notes that the “battery box and the control box are
`
`installed on the rear side of the main frame corresponding to the steering box.” Id.,
`
`2:11-12.
`
`55. Guangjing discloses a framework 4 disposed between an upper housing 9 and a
`
`lower housing 1. See EX1005, Figure 1; EX1006, 3:10-13, 25-27. It states, “[t]he
`
`framework 4 is composed of a main frame 4-1, a rear support frame 4-2 and a front
`
`support frame 4-3. The front support frame 4-3 and the rear support frame 4-2 are
`
`symmetrically fixed on the front and back of the main frame 4-1, and the top surfaces
`
`of the main frame 4-1, the front support frame 4-3 and the rear support frame 4-2 are
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1003
`Page 0022
`
`

`

`flush.” Id., 3:13-16. Guangjing explains that because “a framework structure is
`
`adopted, . . . the structural strength is greatly improved, and compared with various
`
`self-balancing vehicles of the prior art, the weight is slightly lighter, the battery load
`
`is lower, the speed is faster, the response speed is faster, and the battery run-time is
`
`longer.” Id., 2:26-30
`
`D. Kakinuma
`56. Kakinuma is directed to a “coaxial two-wheel vehicle on which a rider stably
`
`travels without the upper body being Swayed left and right in a riding state of the
`
`center of gravity being posi