Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 55
` Entered: February 15, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PARROT S.A., PARROT DRONES, S.A.S., and PARROT INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`QFO LABS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 55
` Entered: February 15, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PARROT S.A., PARROT DRONES, S.A.S., and PARROT INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`QFO LABS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Parrot S.A., Parrot Drones S.A.S., and Parrot Inc. (“Petitioners”) filed
`a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”), requesting institution of an inter partes review of
`claims 1–24 of U.S. Patent No. 9,073,532 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’532 patent”).
`QFO Labs, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response
`(Paper 6). Upon considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`instituted inter partes review of claims 8–14 of the ’532 patent. Paper 15
`(“Dec. on Inst.”).
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 25, “PO
`Resp.”)1 and a Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 26, “Mot.”). Petitioners
`filed a Reply (Paper 37, “Pet. Reply”) and an Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 38), to which Patent Owner filed a
`Reply to Petitioner Opposition to Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 39).
`Because of then-recently issued en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v.
`Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Aqua Products”), the parties
`requested, and we authorized, additional briefing regarding Patent Owner’s
`Contingent Motion to Amend. Paper 43. Petitioners thereafter filed a Brief
`in Opposition to Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 47),
`and Patent Owner filed a Reply to Petitioner Opposition to Contingent
`Motion to Amend (Paper 48), to which Petitioners filed a Sur-Reply Brief in
`Opposition to Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 51).
`Petitioners proffered a Declaration of Prof. Girish Chowdhary, Ph.D.
`in Support of Petition (Ex. 1003, “First Chowdhary Declaration” or “1st
`Chowdhary Decl.”), a Declaration of Prof. Girish Chowdhary, Ph.D. in
`
`
`11 See also Paper 27 (correcting certain citations from Ex. 1006 to Ex. 1005
`or from Ex. 1007 to Ex. 1006).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`Support of Petitioners’ Opposition to Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to
`Amend and Its Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (Ex. 1030, “Second
`Chowdhary Declaration”), and a Declaration of Prof. Girish Chowdhary,
`Ph.D. in Support of Petitioners’ Brief in Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`Contingent Motion to Amend (Ex. 1035, “Third Chowdhary Declaration” or
`“3d Chowdhary Decl.”). Patent Owner proffered a Declaration of John P.
`Condon (Ex. 2005, “1st Condon Decl.”) with its Preliminary Response and a
`Second Declaration of John P. Condon (Ex. 2013, “Second Condon
`Declaration” or “2d Condon Decl.”) with its Response. A deposition
`transcript for Mr. Condon (Ex. 1034) was filed, but no deposition transcript
`was filed for Prof. Chowdhary.
`A joint oral hearing in this proceeding and Case IPR2016-01550 was
`held on November 15, 2017; a transcript of the hearing is included in the
`record (Paper 54, “Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioners have shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that 8–14 of the ’532 patent are unpatentable.
`Also based on the entirety of the record, we deny Patent Owner’s Contingent
`Motion to Amend.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`
`A. Grounds of Unpatentability at Issue
`We instituted inter partes review on the grounds that, under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a):
`(1) claims 8–12 and 14 are unpatentable over Louvel2, Thomas3, and
`Jimenez4;
`(2) claims 10 and 11 are unpatentable over Louvel, Thomas, Jimenez,
`and Yavnai5; and
`(3) claim 13 is unpatentable over Louvel, Thomas, Jimenez, and
`Gabai6. Dec. on Inst. 36.
`B. Related Proceedings
`Patent Owner indicates that the ’532 patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,931,239
`B2 (“the ’239 patent”) (Ex. 2002), and U.S. Patent No. 9,645,580 B2 (“the
`’580 patent”) (Ex. 2012) are involved in case 1:16-cv-00682-GM in the U.S.
`District Court for the District of Delaware. Paper 4, 2; Paper 14, 3; PO
`Resp. 11; Paper 44, 3; Paper 52, 3; see also Pet. 76 (indicating intent to file
`an action in the District of Delaware). The parties indicate that the ’532
`patent issued from a continuation application of the ’239 patent, and the ’580
`patent issued from a continuation application of the ’532 patent. Pet. 76;
`Paper 14, 1–2; Paper 14, 1–2; Mot. 4–5; PO Resp. 9; Paper 44, 2; Paper 52,
`2.
`
`Patent Owner also indicates that the ’239 patent, the ’532 patent, and
`the ’580 patent were asserted against Petitioners in case 0:16-cv-03443-JRT-
`
`
`2 US 2002/0104921 A1, published Aug. 8, 2002 (Ex. 1004).
`3 US 5,128,671, issued July 7, 1992 (Ex. 1005).
`4 US 2002/0106966 A1, published Aug. 8, 2002 (Ex. 1006).
`5 US 6,588,701 B2, issued July 8, 2003 (Ex. 1007).
`6 US 2001/0021669 A1, published Sept. 13, 2001 (Ex. 1008).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`HB (D. Minn.) and in QFO Labs, Inc. v. Brookstone Stores, Inc., case 0:17-
`cv-01100-JNE-SR (D. Minn.), both of which were dismissed. Paper 14, 3–
`4; PO Resp. 11; Paper 44, 3–4; Paper 52, 3–4; Ex. 1027. Patent Owner
`further indicates that the ’239, ’532, and ’580 patents have been asserted in
`QFO Labs, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., case 0:17-cv-05014-DWF-HB (D.
`Minn.); QFO Labs, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., case 0:17-cv-5011-JNE-TNL
`(D. Minn.); and QFO Labs, Inc. v. Target Corp., case 0:17-cv-05012-JRT-
`DTS (D. Minn.). Paper 52, 4–5.
`The ’532 patent is also the subject of Case IPR2017-01090; the ’239
`patent is the subject of Cases IPR2016-01550 and IPR2017-01089; and the
`’580 patent is the subject of Case IPR2017-01400. Paper 4, 1–2; Paper 14,
`1–2; PO Resp. 11; Paper 44, 2–3; Paper 52, 2; Ex. 1026; Ex. 2014. We
`denied institution in IPR2017-01089, IPR2017-01090, and IPR2017-01400.
`C. The ’532 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’532 patent relates to a “homeostatic flying hovercraft and to a
`radio controlled flying saucer toy employing the [principles] of a
`homeostatic flying hovercraft.” Ex. 1001, 1:19–25. Figure 21 of the ’532
`patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`
`Figure 21 illustrates a “side cutaway view” of a “preferred
`embodiment of a homeostatic flying hovercraft.” Id. at 8:48–50, 58–59,
`9:18–20. Homeostatic flying craft 200 has upper surface 202, bottom
`surface 204, four duct openings 212 on bottom surface 204, and battery-
`powered ducted fan 214 mounted inboard from each duct opening 212. Id.
`at 9:20–33. Each fan 214 is powered from an internal pair of batteries 216.
`Id. at 9:45–46; see also id. at 12:35–13:7 (describing embodiment of Figs.
`1–3).
`Homeostatic control system 300 is “operably connected to thrusters
`. . . in order to maintain a desired orientation” and includes “XYZ sensor
`arrangement 302 and associated control circuitry 304 that dynamically
`determines an inertial gravitational reference.” Id. at 11:1–10; see also id. at
`10:35–45 (also describing a homeostatic control system and XYZ sensor
`arrangement before stating “[f]inally, the RC aircraft has . . .”). XYZ sensor
`arrangement 302 “comprises an X-axis sensor system, a Y-[axis] sensor
`system[,] and a Z-axis sensor system.” Id. at 11:20–23. “The X-axis sensor
`system is positioned in an X plane of the body and includes at least three
`first sensors that sense acceleration and gravity in the X plane and at least
`three second sensors that sense acceleration only in the X plane.” Ex. 1001,
`11:23–26. The Y-axis and Z-axis sensor systems are similarly configured.
`Id. at 11:26–32. “Preferably, the X-axis sensor system comprises two sets of
`active accelerometers and two sets of passive accelerometers oriented in the
`X plane,” and the Y-axis sensor system similarly comprises active and
`passive accelerometers. Id. at 11:33–37. Each set of active accelerometers
`has a pair of active accelerometers “oriented at 90 degrees with respect to
`each other in the respective plane,” and each set of passive accelerometers
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`has a pair of passive accelerometers also “oriented at 90 degrees with respect
`to each other in the respective plane.” Id. at 11:38–43. The pairs of active
`and passive accelerometers are “positioned at 45 degrees offset relative to a
`horizontal plane through a center of the body.” Id. at 11:44–47.
`Figure 22a of the ’532 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 22a is an isometric view of a hand-held “bee controller.” Ex.
`1001, 8:60–61, 9:53–54. A radio-controlled (“RC”) controller 220 “includes
`a body adapted to be held in one hand” and a “homeostatic control system IS
`positioned within the body.” Id. at 10:18–22. A user selectively positioning
`an orientation of RC controller 220 provides a “desired orientation.” Id.
`The homeostatic control system “includes an XYZ sensor arrangement and
`associated control circuitry” to sense the “desired orientation of the RC
`controller” and “dynamically determines an inertial gravitational reference
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`for use in sensing the desired orientation.” Id. at 10:22–26. RC controller
`220 also includes a “bidirectional radio frequency (RF) transceiver providing
`two-way RF communications between the RC aircraft and the hand-held RC
`controller that communicates the desired orientation to the RC aircraft.” Id.
`at 10:26–30; see also id. at 13:17–29 (describing embodiment of Figs. 1–3).
`D. Illustrative Claim
`The ’532 patent has 24 claims, of which claims 8–14 are at issue. Of
`those, claim 8, reproduced below, is the only independent claim.
`8.
`A system that includes a radio controlled (RC)
`flying hovercraft controlled by a handheld RC controller separate
`and remote from the RC flying hovercraft, the system
`comprising:
`an RC flying hovercraft that includes a set of generally
`downwardly directed thrusters, each thruster including at least
`one blade driven by an electrically powered motor to provide
`aerodynamic lift for the RC flying hovercraft;
`the flying
`to
`an electrical-power system attached
`hovercraft and electrically coupled to the set of thrusters;
`a control system that is attached to the RC flying
`hovercraft and operably connected to the thrusters and that
`automatically controls a thrust produced by each thruster in order
`to automatically maintain a desired orientation of the RC flying
`hovercraft, the control system including at least a three
`dimensional, three-axis sensor system and associated control
`circuitry that dynamically determines a gravitational reference
`other than by dead reckoning alone for use by the control system
`in automatic control of said thrusters to maintain stabilization of
`the RC flying hovercraft in the desired orientation that is
`responsive to radio frequency (RF) communications from the RC
`controller;
`a radio receiver configured to receive communications
`from the RC controller, the communications including a desired
`orientation of the RC flying hovercraft, wherein the desired
`orientation received from the RC controller is based on at least a
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`
`II.
`
`two dimensional, two-axis sensed orientation of the RC
`controller itself;
`a sensor system in the control system of the RC flying
`hovercraft configured to dynamically determine an actual
`orientation of the RC flying hovercraft, the sensor system
`including at least a three-dimensional, three-axis sensor; and
`wherein the control system in the RC flying hovercraft
`automatically and dynamically controls a thrust produced by
`each of the thrusters to achieve and selectively maintain the
`actual orientation of the RC flying hovercraft in response to the
`desired orientation received from the RC flying hovercraft by the
`RC controller and the actual orientation determined by the sensor
`system in the RC flying hovercraft without any additional
`communications being required for control of moment-to-
`moment balance and stabilization of the RC flying hovercraft.
`Ex. 1001, 16:19–64.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard).
`In the Decision on Institution, we determined that express
`interpretation of any term, including “homeostatic” and “orientation” for
`which Patent Owner proposed interpretations, was not necessary. Dec. on
`Inst. 8. See also Pet. 14 (stating that “for purposes of this IPR, no
`construction of any claim term is needed”).
`Patent Owner quotes from the Decision on Institution “[f]or purposes
`of this Decision, we determine that express interpretations of these terms or
`any other terms are not necessary” and states that “[f]or purposes of [Patent
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`Owner’s] Response, Patentee accepts this BRI construction.” PO Resp. 16
`(quoting Dec. on Inst. 8). Patent Owner also maintains that the “proper
`construction under the Markman standard [(Markman v. Westview
`Instruments, 116. S. Ct. 1384, (1996))] of the term ‘orientation’ as used in
`the ’532 patent does not encompass either ‘position’ control or ‘motion’
`control” and “expressly reserves the right to argue for such a claim
`construction under the Markman standard in any litigation proceedings.” Id.
`n.5.
`
`We understand Patent Owner to be agreeing that, if interpretation of
`claims terms was required, those terms should be interpreted according to
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the ’532
`patent. See Tr. 29:9–31:17, 32:14–25. We also understand Patent Owner to
`be accepting that express interpretations of “homeostatic” and “orientation”
`are not necessary for this proceeding.
`After reviewing the complete record, we agree with the parties that
`express interpretation of any claim term is not necessary for determining
`whether Petitioners have carried their burden of proving claims 8–14
`unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing only
`those terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy); see Pet. 14; PO Resp. 16; Tr. 29:9–31:17, 32:14–25.
`
`III. CHALLENGES TO CLAIMS 8–14
`Petitioners contend that (1) claims 8–12 and 14 are obvious in view of
`Louvel, Thomas, and Jimenez; (2) claims 10 and 11 are obvious in view of
`Louvel, Thomas, Jimenez, and Yavnai; and (3) claim 13 is obvious in view
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`of Louvel, Thomas, Jimenez, and Gabai. Pet. 40–42 (also referring to the
`same arguments made against claim 1 for the unpatentability of claim 8),
`44–59; see also id. at 30–39 (arguing claim 1 is unpatentable over Louvel,
`Thomas, and Jimenez). In support of these contentions, Petitioners cite to
`Louvel, Thomas, Jimenez, Yavnai, Gabai, and the First and Second
`Chowdhary Declarations (Exs. 1003, 1030). See Pet. 30–59; Pet. Reply 3–
`25. Patent Owner disputes the alleged unpatentability of independent claim
`8 supported by citations to the asserted references and the Second Condon
`Declaration (Ex. 2013). See PO Resp. 12 (stating that the “grounds
`instituted by the Decision all hinge upon whether independent system claim
`8 is unpatentable), 15–52, 53 (concluding that the “Petition has failed to
`show by a preponderance of the evidence that independent system claim 8 is
`unpatentable”).
`To prevail in their challenges, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, of (1) claims 8–
`12 and 14 as obvious in view of Louvel, Thomas, and Jimenez; (2) claims 10
`and 11 as obvious in view of Louvel, Thomas, Jimenez, and Yavnai; and (3)
`claim 13 as obvious in view of Louvel, Thomas, Jimenez, and Gabai,
`Petitioners must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`patented 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 having
`ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co.
`v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is
`resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the
`scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and
`(4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1996).
`As discussed below, the parties’ disputes are related to the scope and
`content of the prior art, differences between claim 8 and the prior art, and
`Petitioners’ rationales for combining the asserted references. The parties do
`not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art, and the parties have not
`directed us to any objective evidence of nonobviousness.
`After reviewing the complete record, we conclude that Petitioners
`have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Louvel, Thomas, and
`Jimenez with or without at least one of Yavnai and Gabai teach or suggest
`each limitation of claims 8–14, that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have had a reason to combine the teachings of the asserted references,
`and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable
`expectation of success in combining the teachings of the asserted references.
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill
`Petitioners contend that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a
`Bachelor of Science in Aerospace engineering, or a comparable degree, in
`combination with at least two years of practical experience in the field.” Pet.
`13–14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 46). Patent Owner states that it “generally agrees
`with Petitioners that a person of ordinary skill . . . would possess a
`Bachelor’s of Science degree in aeronautical or electrical engineering with at
`least two years of practical experience in the design and development of
`remote control aircraft.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Pet. 13; Ex. 2013 ¶ 13).
`We adopt the parties’ agreed to level of ordinary skill and find that
`one of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a Bachelor of Science
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`degree in Aerospace engineering, or a comparable degree, in combination
`with at least two years of practical experience in the field” (Pet. 13–14). We
`note that any differences in the parties’ asserted level of ordinary skill would
`not impact our analysis.
`B. Louvel (Ex. 1004)
`Louvel “relates to a light aircraft, like a flying saucer, remotely
`controlled and remotely powered.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 1. Figures 1 and 2 of Louvel
`are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 shows the invention of Louvel, including the exterior of
`aircraft 1; and Figure 2 shows a top view of an interior of aircraft 1. Ex.
`1004 ¶¶ 12, 13. Aircraft 1 “has a general shape looking like a flying
`saucer.” Id. ¶ 25. Aircraft 1 has four propellers 10, 11, 12, 13 with vertical
`axis to provide lift thrust, and each propeller 10–13 is driven independently
`by electric motor 20, 21, 22, 23. Id. ¶¶ 29, 30. Aircraft 1 is “fitted with
`three attitude sensors whose purpose is to provide information for the closed
`loop control,” and the sensors include roll tilt angle sensor 61, pitch tilt angle
`62, and yaw sensor 63. Id. ¶¶ 42–44, 46.
`Aircraft 1 is linked to control unit 3, which is also linked to handling
`unit 4. Id. ¶¶ 25, 26. Control unit 3 includes rechargeable battery 80 that
`supplies enough current to the electric motors of aircraft 1 for several
`minutes. Ex. 1004 ¶ 60.
`Figure 5 of Louvel is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`
`Figure 5 shows handling unit 4. Id. ¶¶ 16, 50. Handling unit 4
`includes handle 7 and is linked to the control unit. Id. ¶ 49. Pushing handle
`7 towards direction 70, 72, 71, or 73 causes aircraft 1 to tilt towards the front
`side, the rear side, the right side, or the left side, respectively, and turning
`handle 7 in direction 75 or 76 causes aircraft 1 to rotate towards the right or
`left. Id. ¶¶ 51–53.
`When there is no action on handle 7, a closed control loop uses data
`from sensors 60–63 “to converge towards the horizontal normal attitude of
`the aircraft and to cancel the yaw movement.” Id. ¶ 91. When there is
`action on handle 7, a “microcontroller corrects the present required values
`driven in each electric current to generate an imbalance in the direction
`required by the handle position,” and the imbalance is limited in order “to
`limit the displacement speed of the aircraft” and “to allow a quick
`stabilization as soon as the action on the handle stops.” Id. ¶ 93. For
`example, if sensor 62 indicates that aircraft 1 is tilting towards the rear, then
`speed of propeller 12 is increased, speed of propeller 10 is decreased, and
`speeds of propellers 11, 13 are unchanged. Id. ¶ 98.
`C. Thomas (Ex. 1005)
`Thomas relates to a “hand-held control device detecting multiple
`degrees of freedom of movement.” Ex. 1005, 1:7–9. According to Thomas,
`“[i]n the past joysticks of various kinds have been used” that “comprise a
`lever with a handle at one” and the “other end of the lever is attached to . . .
`potentiometers” so that “[m]ovement of the handle . . . generates electrical
`signals which stimulate an electrical object.” Id. at 1:11–17. Thomas
`utilizes “accelerometers of various kinds in small packages some of which
`incorporate electronic signal processing” in a “hand-held joystick able to
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`detect at least six degrees of freedom of movement.” Id. at 1:26–31. Figure
`1 of Thomas is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a “partly broken away” view of a “hand-held
`joystick using six accelerometers.” Ex. 1005 at 1:59–61. Hand-held
`enclosure 10 is “not mounted to swivel about some fixed anchor point” and
`“is held by the user as a pistol-grip type of hand-held device, free from any
`mechanical connection to a supporting structure.” Id. at 2:15–19. It
`supports two sets of three mutually-perpendicular accelerometers 11, 12, 13,
`14, 15, 16. Id. at 2:12–14. The geometric configuration of the
`accelerometers uniquely identifies any combination of translations or linear
`motions along X, Y, and Z axes and rotations about X, Y, and Z axes. Id. at
`2:60–3:3.
`For example, if housing 10 is moved linearly along the X axis,
`accelerometers 11, 14 “produce equal signals of the same sign, and all the
`other accelerometers produce no signal.” Id. at 3:3–6. Linear motion along
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`the Y axis causes accelerometers 12, 15 to generate signals, and linear
`motion along the Z axis causes accelerometers 13, 16 to generate signals.
`Id. at 3:6–10. The signals from accelerometers 11–16 are sent to
`conditioning circuitry 26 via cable 18. Id. at 2:24–29, 3:43–50.
`“Alternatively, the cable 18 may be omitted altogether and a wireless
`RF transmitter may be employed, transmitting the signals generated by the
`accelerometers 11–16 to a receiver in the computer 28.” Id. at 3:62–65. The
`hand-held joystick can replace “the joystick, pedals, throttle assembly, trim
`controls and other input devices on an aircraft such as a helicopter” or “may
`be used to control robots.” Id. at 4:9–13, 26–27.
`D. Jimenez (Ex. 1006)
`Jimenez relates to a “radio controlled toy blimp.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 2. “The
`blimp includes conventional radio frequency remote control means known to
`the art for controlling vertical and horizontal flight patterns.” Id. ¶ 14.
`Figure 3 of Jimenez is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is an electrical block diagram of printed circuit board 4. Id.
`¶ 25. A gondola is attached to an underside of the blimp, and the gondola
`includes printed wired circuit board 4. Id. ¶¶ 14, 23, 24, 31. It shows
`“remote control RF transmitter 25 which the pilot employs to transmit flight
`. . . commands to blimp 1.” Id. “The pilot uses joy stick 26 to change the
`direction and/or elevation of the blimp 1” and “remote control RF
`transmitter 25 . . . is used . . . to transmit flight . . . commands to the blimp
`1.” Id. ¶ 35. “The flight . . . commands are transmitted from antenna 32 to
`antenna 34” and “transformed into a series of binary ones and zeros by RF
`Receiver 35 and supplied via wire 36 to RF decoder 37 where they are
`assembled into distinctive binary codes representing flight . . . commands.”
`Id.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`
`E. Independent Claim 8
`Petitioners contend that the limitations of independent claim 8 are
`disclosed by Louvel, Thomas, and Jimenez. Pet. 40–42; see also id. at 8–10
`(assigning labels to limitations of claims 1 and 8).
`1. “A system that includes a radio controlled (RC) flying
`hovercraft controlled by a handheld RC controller separate
`and remote from the RC flying hovercraft”
`Petitioners persuade us that Louvel teaches a “system that includes a
`radio controlled (RC) flying hovercraft controlled by a handheld RC
`controller separate and remote from the RC flying hovercraft” (Ex. 1001,
`16:19–21). Pet. 9 (labeling this portion of claim 8 as “8a”), 30–32 (citing
`Ex. 1004 Abstract, ¶¶ 1, 24–26, 29, 30, 38, 49, 51–53, Figs. 1, 2, 5 for
`“[l]imitations 1a and 1b”), 40 (correlating arguments for “1a” with “8a”).
`In particular, we find that that Louvel teaches a “light aircraft, . . .
`remotely controlled” (Ex. 1004 Abstract), “a light aircraft, like a flying
`saucer, remotely controlled” (id. ¶ 1), “handling unit (4) . . . handled by the
`user and [] linked to the control unit (3)” (id. ¶ 26, Figs. 1, 5), “handling unit
`include[ing] a handle” (id. ¶ 49), “tilting of the aircraft towards the [front,
`rear, right, or left sides that] is achieved by pushing [or pulling] the handle
`towards [that] direction” (id. ¶¶ 51, 52, Fig. 5), and rotation of the aircraft
`that is achieved by turning the handle in the desired direction (id. ¶¶ 52, 53,
`Fig. 5). See also Ex. 1034, 28:24–25 (Patent Owner’s declarant stating “a
`hovercraft . . . generates lift using thrusters, downward-facing thrusters”),
`151: 20–23 (Patent Owner’s declarant agreeing that “remote controlled
`hovercraft were known way before ’239 and ’532 patents”), 153:8–22
`(stating “[Louvel] generally describes a . . . type of hovercraft). Thus, we
`determine that Louvel teaches a system that includes a flying hovercraft
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`controlled by a handheld controller separate and remote from the flying
`hovercraft, as required by claim 8. Ex. 1001, 16:19–21.
`The “radio controlled” and “RC controller” recitations are addressed
`below. See also Pet. 32 (stating “a radio controller is expressly disclosed by
`Jimenez, as described in connection with limitation 1e”).
`2. “an RC flying hovercraft that includes a set of generally
`downwardly directed thrusters, each thruster including at
`least one blade driven by an electrically powered motor to
`provide aerodynamic lift for the RC flying hovercraft”
`Petitioners persuade us that Louvel teaches “an RC flying hovercraft
`that includes a set of generally downwardly directed thrusters, each thruster
`including at least one blade driven by an electrically powered motor to
`provide aerodynamic lift for the RC flying hovercraft” (Ex. 1001, 16:23–27).
`Pet. 9 (labeling this portion of claim 8 as “8b”), 30–32 (citing Ex. 1004
`Abstract, ¶¶ 1, 24–26, 29, 30, 38, 49, 51–53, Figs. 1, 2, 5 for “[l]imitations
`1a and 1b”), 41 (referring to the “same reasons discussed in connection with
`limitation 1b” and citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 29).
`Specifically, we find that Louvel teaches an “aircraft include[ing] four
`propellers” (Ex. 1004 ¶ 29, Figs. 2, 3), “each propeller [] driven
`independently by an electric motor” (id. ¶ 30), and “air flow go[ing] through
`the aircraft” (id. ¶ 38, Figs. 1 (showing air flowing downwardly from aircraft
`1), 11, 12). See also Ex. 1034, 28:24–25 (Patent Owner’s declarant stating
`“a hovercraft . . . generates lift using thrusters, downward-facing thrusters”).
`Thus, we determine that Louvel teaches a flying hovercraft that includes a
`set of generally downwardly directed thrusters, each thruster including at
`least one blade driven by an electrically powered motor to provide
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`aerodynamic lift for the flying hovercraft, as required by claim 8. Ex. 1001,
`16:23–27.
`
`3. “an electrical-power system attached to the flying
`hovercraft and electrically coupled to the set of thrusters”
`Petitioners persuade us that Louvel teaches “an electrical-power
`system attached to the flying hovercraft and electrically coupled to the set of
`thrusters” (Ex. 1001, 16:28–29). Pet. 9 (labeling this portion of claim 8 as
`“8c”), 32 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 60 for “[l]imitation 1c”), 40 (correlating
`arguments for “1c” with “8c”).
`We find that Louvel teaches an “electric rechargeable battery (80)
`which allows to supply enough current to the five electric motors of the
`aircraft.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 60; see also id. ¶ 35 (stating that a “gyroscopic rotor is
`driven by a fifth electric motor (51)”). We, therefore, determine that Louvel
`teaches “an electrical-power system attached to the flying hovercraft and
`electrically coupled to the set of thrusters,” as recited by claim 8. Ex. 1001,
`16:28–29.
`
`4. “a control system that is attached to the RC flying
`hovercraft and operably connected to the thrusters and that
`automatically controls a thrust produced by each thruster in
`order to automatically maintain a desired orientation of the
`RC flying hovercraft”
`Petitioners persuade us that Louvel teaches “a control system that is
`attached to the RC flying hovercraft and operably connected to the thrusters
`and that automatically controls a thrust produced by each thruster in order to
`automatically maintain a desired orientation of the RC flying hovercraft”
`(Ex. 1001, 16:30–34). Pet. 9 (labeling this portion of claim 8 as “8d”), 32–
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01559
`Patent 9,073,532 B2
`
`33 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 42–44, 88–91, 98 for “[l]imitation 1d”), 40
`(correlating arguments for “1d” with “8d”).
`In particular, we find that Louvel teaches calculating “values of
`current to be driven through each electric motor” (Ex. 1004 ¶ 90), the
`“calculation is intended to perform the flight control on a stable attitude for
`the aircraft” (id.), “[t]hese calculations, intended to correct the required
`values, according to the handle position, are performed simultaneously
`altogether and the calculation limits the unbalance introduced by the
`information coming from the handle position sensors” (id. ¶ 118), and “if the
`information supplied by the sensor (62) indicates that the aircraft is tilting
`towards the rear, then the correction consists in increasing the speed of the
`propeller 12, decreasing the speed of the propeller 10” while “speeds of the
`propellers 11 and 13 remain unchanged” (id. ¶ 98; see also id. ¶¶ 97, 101,
`104, 105 (describing similar changes for tilts in other directions and
`rotations)).
`Therefore, we determine that Louvel teaches a control system that is
`attached to the flying hovercraft, operably connected to the thrusters and
`automatically controls a thrust produced by each thruster in order to
`automatically maintain a desired orientation of the flying hovercraft, as
`required by claim 8. Ex. 1001, 16:30–34.
`5. “the control system including at least a three dimensional,
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
