Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46-15 Filed 02/08/22 Page 2 of 29 PageID #: 983
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`UNICORN GLOBAL, INC. and
`HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`DGL GROUP, LTD.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:21-cv-1443-MKB-SJB
`
`
`
` Hon. Margo K. Brodie, U.S.D.J.
` Hon. Sanket J. Bulsara, U.S.M.J.
`
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GLENN E. VALLEE, PH.D., P.E. IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANT DGL GROUP, LTD.’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
` DGL Exhibit 1024
`Page 0001
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46-15 Filed 02/08/22 Page 3 of 29 PageID #: 984
`
` I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Qualifications ................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Legal Understanding ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`Description of the Relevant Field ..................................................................................... 6
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................................... 6
`
`State of the Art for the ‘107 Patent................................................................................... 7
`
`VII. Overview of the ‘107 Patent ............................................................................................. 7
`
`VII. DISPUTED TERMS ........................................................................................................ 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Electric balance vehicle .......................................................................................... 9
`
`Controller .............................................................................................................. 20
`
`Controlling motors ................................................................................................ 22
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1024
`Page 0002
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46-15 Filed 02/08/22 Page 4 of 29 PageID #: 985
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS CONSIDERED
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1 - '107 Patent
`
`EXHIBIT 5 - Dr Maslen desposition transcript
`
`EXHIBIT 6 - Segway patent US6302230
`
`EXHIBIT 8 - CN 201320050547.3
`
`EXHIBIT 9 - Translation of CN 201320050547.3
`
`EXHIBIT 10 - CN 201220367045.9
`
`EXHIBIT 11 - Translation of 201220367045.9
`
`EXHIBIT 12 - CN 201310516158.X
`
`EXHIBIT 13 - Translation of CN 2201310516158.X
`
`
`
`ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 16/658,020
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1024
`Page 0003
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46-15 Filed 02/08/22 Page 5 of 29 PageID #: 986
`
`I, Dr. Glenn E. Vallee, Ph.D., P.E. declare as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Based on my background, being over the age of eighteen (18), and being of sound mind, I
`
`I.
`1.
`
`am competent to make this Declaration.
`
`2.
`
`DGL Group, Ltd. (“DGL”) has retained me to provide my opinion for the above-captioned
`
`case regarding the claim construction of three disputed terms of U.S. Patent 10,597,107 (“‘107
`
`Patent”). I am being compensated for my time in connection with this request at my standard
`
`hourly consulting rate of $400 per hour. My compensation is in no way contingent on the results
`
`of this proceeding or any other proceeding relating to the ‘107 Patent. The opinion set forth in this
`
`Declaration addresses my understanding of how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the
`
`disputed terms of the ‘107 Patent.
`
`3.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the ‘107 Patent, which issued on March 24, 2020. I
`
`understand that the ‘107 Patent has been provided as EX 1.1 I will cite to the specification using
`
`the following format: EX 1, 1:1–10. This example citation points to the ‘107 Patent at column 1,
`
`lines 1–10.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that the ‘107 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 16/658,020 (“‘020
`
`Application”), filed on October 18, 2019. I have reviewed and am familiar with the ‘020
`
`Application.
`
`5.
`
`I further understand that the ’107 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application
`
`16/429,636 (“‘636 Application”), filed on June 3, 2019, which issued as U.S. Patent 10,486,764
`
`
`1 I understand that the exhibits are being attached to the Bryan J. Jaketic Declaration in Support
`of Defendant DGL Group, LTD.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, with the exception of my
`curriculum vitae, which is attached hereto.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1024
`Page 0004
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46-15 Filed 02/08/22 Page 6 of 29 PageID #: 987
`
`(“‘764 Patent”) on November 26, 2019. I further understand that the ‘764 Patent is a continuation
`
`of U.S. Patent Application 15/160,589 (“‘589 Application”), filed on May 20, 2016, which issued
`
`as U.S. Patent 10,336,392 (“‘392 Patent”) on July 2, 2019. I further understand that the ‘392 Patent
`
`is a continuation of U.S. Application 14/773,650 (“‘650 Application”), which was filed as
`
`Application PCT/CN2014092849 on December 2, 2014 and issued as U.S. Patent 9,376,155 (“‘155
`
`Patent”) on June 28, 2016. Additionally, I understand that the ‘107 Patent claims foreign
`
`application priority to Chinese Patent Application 2014 1 0262353 (“CN353 Application”), filed
`
`on June 13, 2014.
`
`6.
`
`I understand that the ‘107 Patent is the subject of several litigation cases in district courts,
`
`including a case captioned Unicorn Global, Inc., Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.,
`
`and Shenzhen Uni-sun Electronic Co., Ltd. v. Golabs, Inc. d/b/a GOTRAX, Walmart Inc., Wal-
`
`mart Stores Texas, LLC, and Wal-mart.com USA LLC, Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-0202 (“Golabs
`
`litigation”). I have reviewed a transcript of a deposition of Eric. H. Maslen, Ph.D (“Dr. Maslen”)
`
`(EX 5) submitted as an Exhibit with Defendant’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief as part of
`
`the Golabs litigation.
`
`7.
`
`I understand that Dr. Maslen’s deposition was taken for a district court litigation, captioned
`
`Unicorn Global, Inc., Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., and Shenzhen Uni-Sun
`
`Electronic Co., Ltd. v. Golabs, Inc. d/b/a GOTRAX, Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-00754.
`
`8.
`
`I am familiar with the technology at issue as of June 13, 2014, the earliest filing date to
`
`which the ‘107 Patent claims priority.
`
`9.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding how one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand the disputed terms of the ‘107 Patent.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1024
`Page 0005
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46-15 Filed 02/08/22 Page 7 of 29 PageID #: 988
`
`II.
`10.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`I am employed by Western New England University as an Associate Professor 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 and patent 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).
`
`11.
`
`As set forth in more detail in my curriculum vitae (attached as Vallee EX A), 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
`
`for focusing new product engineering toward continuously improving customer satisfaction
`
`through improved product design, performance, and quality.
`
`12.
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1024
`Page 0006
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46-15 Filed 02/08/22 Page 8 of 29 PageID #: 989
`
`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. While at
`
`Stanley Bostitch, I developed and implemented standard test batteries and comprehensive test
`
`methods for all product testing. I also introduced and programmed high-speed data acquisition
`
`and control systems. 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.
`
`13.
`
`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 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.
`
`14.
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1024
`Page 0007
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46-15 Filed 02/08/22 Page 9 of 29 PageID #: 990
`
`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 patent applications. 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.
`
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`15.
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been informed about
`
`certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. The claim construction legal standards
`
`provided by counsel that I was asked to apply in forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration
`
`are summarized below.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the purpose of claim construction is to determine the meaning and scope
`
`of patent claims. I have been informed that claim terms should be construed according to their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that evidence that bears on the claim construction of a disputed term
`
`includes the claims themselves, the context in which a term is used in the claims, and the patent’s
`
`specification. I have also been informed that the file history should be considered when
`
`interpreting the meaning of the claims of a patent. I understand this type of evidence is referred to
`
`as “intrinsic evidence.”
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that dictionaries and expert testimony may be used during claim
`
`construction. I understand that type of evidence is referred to as “extrinsic evidence.”
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1024
`Page 0008
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46-15 Filed 02/08/22 Page 10 of 29 PageID #: 991
`
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT FIELD
`19.
`The ‘107 Patent states that “the present invention provides an electric self-balancing
`
`vehicle [that] includ[es] a top cover, a bottom cover, an inner cover, a rotating mechanism, two
`
`wheels, two hub motors, a plurality of sensors, a power supply, and a controller.” EX 1, 1:50–54.
`
`20.
`
`The ‘107 Patent further states 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.” EX 1, 8:57–60. I understand that Dr. Maslen has
`
`interpreted this text to mean that “the invention itself is not a disclosure of a control method or
`
`architecture…[a self-balancing control method] is not the subject of the invention.” EX 5, 44:12–
`
`17.
`
`21.
`
`I agree that a self-balancing control method is not the subject of the invention of the ‘107
`
`Patent.
`
`V.
`22.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`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 with reasonable
`
`confidence that the task would be successfully carried out.
`
`23.
`
`Based on my review of the ‘107 Patent, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time the ‘107 Patent was filed would have either had a Bachelor of Science in
`
`engineering, physics, computer science or a related field, or would have possessed equivalent work
`
`experience or other relevant technical training in engineering or design. It is my opinion that this
`
`education or work experience would have included exposure to control theory fundamentals.
`
`Additionally, it is my opinion that this person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least one
`
`year of experience working on electromechanical devices or robotics.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1024
`Page 0009
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46-15 Filed 02/08/22 Page 11 of 29 PageID #: 992
`
`24. 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.
`
`VI.
`25.
`
`STATE OF THE ART FOR THE ‘107 PATENT
`
`The BACKGROUND section of the ‘107 Patent explains:
`
`The existing electric-self balancing vehicle generally has an operating rod.
`A user stands on a foot platform of the self-balancing vehicle to operate the
`operating rod so as to advance, retreat, and stop, and this control is also known as
`“manual control”. The foot platform of the existing self-balancing vehicle is
`generally a flat plate, and the foot platform is always kept in a horizontal state
`during use and cannot rotate relatively. Therefore, the user cannot control the self-
`balancing vehicle merely through the feet.
`
`EX 1, 1:35–43. In my opinion, this passage describes a two-wheel self-balancing vehicle such as
`
`the “Segway.”
`
`26.
`
`I understand that Dr. Maslen has recognized that the Segway is “a predecessor of a
`
`hoverboard.” EX 5, 55:16. I agree that the Segway is a predecessor of the hoverboard. It is also
`
`my opinion that the vehicle described in the ‘107 Patent may be characterized as a hoverboard.
`
`27.
`
`The ‘107 Patent identifies U.S. Patent 6,302,230 (“‘230 Patent) (EX 6) in a list of
`
`“References Cited.” The ‘230 Patent identifies Dean Kamen as one of its inventors. I understand
`
`that Dean Kamen is widely attributed as being the inventor of the Segway. In my opinion, the
`
`‘230 Patent describes an example of a Segway.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘107 PATENT
`28.
`FIG. 2 of the ‘107 Patent (reproduced below) shows an exploded view of a first
`
`embodiment of an “electric self-balancing vehicle 100.” EX 1, 4:8–9.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1024
`Page 0010
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46-15 Filed 02/08/22 Page 12 of 29 PageID #: 993
`
`107 Patent, Figure 2
`
`
`
`The electric self-balancing vehicle includes “a top cover 1, an inner cover 2, a bottom cover 3, two
`
`hub motors 4, two wheels 50, a rotating mechanism 60, a plurality of sensors 80, a power supply
`
`81 and a controller 82.” EX 1, 4:10–12. “The inner cover 2 includes a first inner cover 21 and a
`
`second inner cover 22.” EX 1, 5:44–45. A “rotating mechanism 60 is fixed between the first inner
`
`cover 21 and the second inner cover 22…the left and right inner covers of the inner cover 2 can
`
`rotate under the cooperation of the rotating mechanism 60.” EX 1, 6:45–54. During operation of
`
`the vehicle, the sensors 80 send signals to the controller 82, which drives the hub motors 4 to rotate
`
`the wheels 50 and cause the vehicle to “turn, advance or retreat” and “achieve a self-balancing
`
`state.” EX 1, 8:50–61.
`
`29.
`
`The ‘107 Patent describes a second embodiment, which is different from the first
`
`embodiment only in the addition of a remote controller 210. EX 1, 9:46–52.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1024
`Page 0011
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46-15 Filed 02/08/22 Page 13 of 29 PageID #: 994
`
`VII. DISPUTED TERMS
`30.
`I have been informed that the parties dispute the following terms: (1) electric balance
`
`vehicle; (2) controller; (3) configured to control the hub motors / controls the motors / configured
`
`for controlling the first and second hub motors.
`
`Electric balance vehicle
`
`A.
`I have been informed that DGL proposes construing the term “electric balance vehicle” to
`
`31.
`
`mean a “vehicle that automatically maintains its balance.”
`
`32.
`
`The specification of the ‘107 Patent consistently describes its invention as providing a
`
`“self-balancing” vehicle. Additionally, the ‘107 Patent discusses how the specific arrangement of
`
`the vehicle improves its self-balancing ability. For example, the ‘107 Patent explains that the
`
`disclosed arrangement provides a better balance of weight between the sides of the vehicle, thus
`
`improving the vehicle’s self-balancing. EX 1, 3:32–34; 10:10–12. As another example, the ‘107
`
`Patent explains how the inner cover provides a more rigid structure that prevents the vehicle from
`
`powering off and causing rider to fall. EX 1, 6:36–44. As yet another example the ‘107 Patent
`
`explains how user safety is improved by providing sensors that are arranged so that the self-
`
`balancing vehicle does not automatically balance itself until a user is standing on the vehicle. EX
`
`1, 8:18–32.
`
`33.
`
`The ‘107 Patent does not include in its specification an explicit description of how the
`
`vehicle achieves self-balancing. The ‘107 Patent does, however say that the vehicle achieves “a
`
`self-balancing state and controls the wheels 50 to advance, retreat or turn belongs to the prior art.”
`
`EX 1, 8:58–60.
`
`34.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that one example prior art
`
`vehicle having the type of self-balancing described in the ‘107 Patent is the Segway. In my
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1024
`Page 0012
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46-15 Filed 02/08/22 Page 14 of 29 PageID #: 995
`
`opinion, the ‘230 Patent discloses details of the Segway. The ‘230 Patent is identified in a list of
`
`“References Cited” in the ‘107 Patent. Based on this, it is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would look to the ‘230 Patent for specific details regarding how the vehicle in the ‘107
`
`Patent achieves self-balancing.
`
`35.
`
`The ‘230 Patent provides several different embodiments for self-balancing vehicles, with
`
`one embodiment being shown in FIG. 1 (reproduced below).
`
`The ‘230 Patent, FIG. 1
`
`
`
`36.
`
`The ‘230 Patent states that “[a] subject 10 stands on a support platform 12 and holds a grip
`
`14 on a handle 16 attached to the platform 12, so that the vehicle 18 of this embodiment may be
`
`operated in a manner analogous to a scooter.” EX 6, 8:58–9:3.
`
`37.
`
`The ‘230 Patent explains:
`
`A control loop may be provided so that leaning of the subject results in the
`application of torque to wheel 20 about axle 22 thereby causing an acceleration of
`the vehicle. Balancing vehicle 18, however, is statically unstable, and, absent
`operation of the control loop to maintain dynamic stability, subject 10 will no
`longer be supported in a standing position and will fall from platform 12.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1024
`Page 0013
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46-15 Filed 02/08/22 Page 15 of 29 PageID #: 996
`
`EX 6, 8:63–9:2. In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to mean that
`
`vehicle of the ‘230 Patent automatically balances itself and an operator, and that the vehicle is
`
`statically unstable without intervention from a control loop.
`
`38.
`
`FIG. 5 of the ‘230 Patent (reproduced below) is a block diagram of “a control system 51
`
`[that] is used to control the motor drives and actuators of the embodiments of FIGS. 1–3 to achieve
`
`locomotion and balance.” EX 6, 11:66–12–2.
`
`The ‘230 Patent, FIG. 5
`
`
`
`39.
`
`The control system 51 includes:
`
`[m]otor drives 531 and 532 for left and right wheels respectively…The
`control system has data inputs including user interface 561, pitch sensor 562 for
`sensing force-aft pitch, and wheel rotation sensors 563, ad pitch rate sensor 564.
`Pitch rate and pitch may be derived through the use of gyroscopes or inclinometers,
`for example.
`
`EX 6, 12:2–9.
`
`40.
`
`The ‘230 Patent explains:
`
`the pitch of the vehicle is sensed and may be used to govern operation of
`the control loop, so that if the subject leans forward, the vehicle will move forward
`to maintain a desired velocity or to provide desired acceleration. Accordingly, a
`forward lean of the subject will cause the vehicle to pitch forward and produce
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1024
`Page 0014
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46-15 Filed 02/08/22 Page 16 of 29 PageID #: 997
`
`forward movement; a backward lean will cause the vehicle to pitch backward and
`produce backward movement.
`
`EX 6, 12:21–28. In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to mean that
`
`the vehicle of the ‘230 Patent uses sensors to gather information relating to vehicle pitch, and the
`
`control loop processes this information to cause the motors to drive the wheels in a manner that
`
`maintains self-balance of the vehicle.
`
`41.
`
`The vehicle of the ‘230 Patent must take into consideration several forces when operating
`
`the motors to drive the wheels and maintain self-balancing. FIG. 16 of the ‘230 Patent (reproduced
`
`below, with annotations) is a diagram showing the forces acting on a vehicle when its chassis is
`
`tipped forward. EX 1, 7:61–8:19.
`
`The ‘230 Patent, FIG. 16, with annotations
`
`
`
`42.
`
`The ‘230 Patent states that “[w]heel 160…rotates with respect to chassis 162 about axle
`
`164 and contacts the underlying surface at point P. For purposes of illustration only, it is assumed
`
`that wheel 160 contacts the surface at a point.” EX 6, 8:5–9 In my opinion, one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would understand this to mean that the wheel rotates relative to the chassis about a point
`
`that is centered at the location of the axle. Additionally, it is my opinion that one of ordinary skill
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1024
`Page 0015
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46-15 Filed 02/08/22 Page 17 of 29 PageID #: 998
`
`in the art would understand that the ‘230 Patent has illustrated the wheel being in contact with the
`
`ground at only a single point in order to simplify the explanation of the forces acting on the vehicle.
`
`43.
`
`The ‘230 Patent explains:
`
`The wheel is driven with respect to the vehicle by a torque T (supplied by a
`motor, for example) which in turn creates a reaction torque -T on the vehicle. Since
`the torque acts about the axle 164, the reaction torque corresponds to a force Fb
`acting at the center of gravity (CG) of the system, including the vehicle and
`payload, where Fb=T/RCG, where RCG is the distance between the axle and the CG
`of the system.
`
`EX 6, 8:10–17. This passage describes how the reaction torque acts about the axle 164 and
`
`corresponds to a reaction force Fb (arrow highlighted in blue) acting at the center of gravity CG of
`
`the overall system, the overall system including the vehicle itself and any payload (e.g., the user
`
`riding the vehicle). In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to mean
`
`a force is applied to this center of gravity of the system when the motors cause the wheels to rotate
`
`relative to the chassis.
`
`44.
`
`The ‘230 Patent further explains:
`
`The rolling friction, f, acting on the wheel at point P, is proportional to the
`velocity v of the rim of the wheel, with the proportionality expressed as f=μv. For
`constant velocity to be maintained, this force f must be exactly canceled.
`Consequently, with gravity providing the force, the condition that must be satisfied
`
`(Eqn. 1)
`
`is: 𝑓𝑓𝑏𝑏 cos𝜃𝜃𝑠𝑠=𝑓𝑓[]
`
`where fb is the component of the reaction force acting transverse to axis 174
`between the CG and point P. In order to prevent the vehicle from falling, a stability
`condition must also exist, namely that no net force acts on the CG in a direction
`transverse to line 170, i.e., there is no net torque about the point of contact P during
`motion at constant velocity (i.e., in an inertial frame of reference where the point P
`is fixed). This condition may be expressed as:
`
`𝐹𝐹𝑔𝑔 sin𝜃𝜃𝑠𝑠=𝑓𝑓𝑏𝑏
`
`(Eqn. 2)
`
`where Fg sin θs is the “tipping” component of gravity, and fb is the counter-
`tipping component of the reactive force on the vehicle caused by wheel rotation
`(fb=Fb cos γ), and where γ is the angle shown line 170 and line 174.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1024
`Page 0016
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46-15 Filed 02/08/22 Page 18 of 29 PageID #: 999
`
`Eqns. 1 and 2 may be combined to yield Fg sin θs cos θs=f=μv, thus, in the
`limit of small angles (where sin θ≈θ),
`
`
`
`
`
`(Eqn. 3)
`
`𝜃𝜃𝑠𝑠≈�𝜇𝜇𝐹𝐹𝑔𝑔� �𝑣𝑣
`
`showing that increasing velocity requires increased lean to overcome the
`effects of friction. Additionally, a control loop that imposes stability on the system
`will respond to an increased lean by increasing velocity of the system. While the
`preceding discussion assumed constant velocity, additional lean beyond that
`required to overcome the effects of friction will result in acceleration since an
`additional forward-directed force acts on the CG. Conversely, in order to achieve
`acceleration (or deceleration) of the vehicle, additional leaning (forward or
`backward) must be provided.
`
`EX 6, 8:19–57. I note a typographical error in Eqn. 1. In my opinion, Eqn. 1 should actually read
`
`“𝑓𝑓𝑏𝑏 cos𝜃𝜃𝑠𝑠=𝑓𝑓”, where the subscript “b” to the right of the equal sign has been deleted. This
`
`deletion has been identified in the above block quotes by brackets. With this understanding, in my
`
`opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand these equations as discussing the forces
`
`that are taken into consideration by the control system of the vehicle of the ‘230 Patent to maintain
`
`self-balancing. These forces include the force of friction acting on the wheel, various forces acting
`
`on the center of gravity of the system (which, as explained above includes the vehicle and the
`
`operator riding the vehicle) such as gravitational force and the force resulting from rotation of the
`
`wheel, with the tipping component of gravity and the force of friction being key forces.
`
`Additionally, it is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the foregoing
`
`text and equations to mean that the control loop maintains self-balancing of the vehicle by causing
`
`the motors to rotate the wheels to cause the vehicle to travel at a certain velocity, and the velocity
`
`that must be maintained in order to maintain self-balancing is a function of how far the vehicle is
`
`leaning (i.e., pitched). Applying these concepts to the force diagram of FIG. 16, the torque T is
`
`calculated such that the reaction force Fb (blue arrow) counteracts both the force of friction f
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1024
`Page 0017
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46-15 Filed 02/08/22 Page 19 of 29 PageID #:
`1000
`
`(orange arrow) and the tipping component of gravity (green arrow), causing the vehicle to tilt to
`
`an upright position and move forward at a constant speed.
`
`45.
`
`As discussed above, the vehicle calculates a torque value that counteracts the force of
`
`friction and the tipping point of gravity. The ‘230 Patent explains this torque value:
`
`[i]s governed by the following simplified control equation:
`
`
`
`
`
`(Eqn. 4)
`
`𝑇𝑇=𝐾𝐾1(𝜃𝜃+𝜃𝜃0)+𝐾𝐾2𝜃𝜃̇+𝐾𝐾3(𝑥𝑥+𝑥𝑥0)+𝐾𝐾4𝑥𝑥̇
`
`where:
`
`T denotes a torque applied to a ground-contacting element about its axis of
`rotation;
`
`θ is a quantity corresponding to the lean of the entire system about the
`ground contact, with θ0 representing the magnitude of a system pitch offset, all as
`discussed in detail below;
`
`x identifies the fore-aft displacement along the surface relative to a fiducial
`reference point, with x0 representing the magnitude of a specified fiducial reference
`offset;
`
`a dot over a character denotes a variable differentiated with respect to time;
`
`and
`
`a subscripted variable denotes a specified offset that may be input into the
`system as described below; and
`
`K1, K2, K3, and K4 are gain coefficients that may be configured, either in
`design of the system or in real-time, on the basis of a current operating mode and
`operating conditions as well as preferences of a user. The gain coefficients may be
`of a positive, negative, or zero magnitude, affecting thereby the mode of operation
`of the vehicle, as discussed below. The gains K1, K2, K3, and K4 are dependent upon
`the physical parameters of the system and other effects such as gravity. The
`simplified control algorithm of FIG. 3 maintains balance and also proximity to the
`reference point on the surface in the presence of disturbances such as changes to
`the system's center of mass with respect to the reference point on the surface due to
`body motion of the subject or contact with other persons or objects.
`
`
`EX 6, 10:12–46. In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this text and
`
`accompanying equation (in combination with the previously discussed equations) to mean that the
`
`torque that must be applied to the wheel to maintain self-balancing is a function of the lean (i.e.,
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
` DGL Exhibit 1024
`Page 0018
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46-15 Filed 02/08/22 Page 20 of 29 PageID #:
`1001
`
`pitch) of the vehicle, how quickly the lean of the vehicle is changing, and the vehicle velocity.
`
`Applying this concept to the force diagram shown in FIG. 16, based on the tipping angle of the
`
`axis 174 (highlighted in red), the control loop calculates a torq