`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: January 8, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PARROT S.A. and PARROT, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DRONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`____________
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
`CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`Patent Owner, Drone Technologies, Inc., filed a Request for
`Rehearing (Paper 28, “Req. Reh’g”) of the Board’s Final Written Decision
`entered October 20, 2015 (Paper 27, “Decision”). The requirements for a
`rehearing are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant
`part:
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for
`rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The
`burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the
`party challenging the decision. The request must specifically
`identify
`all matters
`the party believes
`the Board
`misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each
`matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or
`a reply.
`
`In our Decision we concluded, based in principal part on
`consideration of the ’071 patent’s disclosure, that determining a change in
`orientation with respect to magnetic North is at least within the scope of
`“detect[ing] the remote controller’s motion” as recited in illustrative claim 1.
`Decision 6–8. Patent Owner argues that the Board erred by not reading a
`requirement of “storing or retaining” a previous orientation into the claimed
`“detect[ing] the remote controller’s motion.” Req. Reh’g 6–8.
`In our Decision, we noted Patent Owner’s argument that an applied
`reference, Smith,1 did not disclose retaining the orientation after it sends a
`signal. Decision 12. We noted, further, that Patent Owner did not address
`how the supposed requirement of storing a previous orientation might be
`consistent with the disclosure of the ’071 patent. Id. at 12–13. Patent
`Owner argues that our “observation that Patent Owner does not cite to
`support in the [’]071 Patent for the supposed requirement of storing a
`previous orientation for comparison in Smith is misplaced.” Req. Reh’g 7.
`Although we agree that Patent Owner does not “have the burden” of
`providing support in the challenged patent for the claimed subject matter
`(id.), in our Decision we evaluated Patent Owner’s arguments with respect
`to what the claims require, in light of the evidence before us, which includes
`
`1 US 5,043,646 (Ex. 1002).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`the disclosure of the ’071 patent. Patent Owner still makes no attempt to
`explain how the supposed requirement of “storing or retaining” a previous
`orientation is consistent with the invention that the ’071 patent describes.
`“A long line of cases indicates that evidence intrinsic to the patent—
`particularly the patent’s specification, including the inventors’ statutorily-
`required written description of the invention—is the primary source for
`determining claim meaning.” Astrazeneca AB v. Mut. Pharm. Co., 384 F.3d
`1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (The specification is “the single best
`guide to the meaning of a disputed [claim] term.”). We are not persuaded
`that we misapprehended or overlooked any matter in reaching our decision.
`Patent Owner’s request for rehearing is denied.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`For Petitioner:
`James E. Hopenfeld
`hopenfeld@oshaliang.com
`
`Tammy J. Terry
`terry@oshaliang.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`Gene A. Tabachnick
`gtabachnick@beckthomas.com
`
`James G. Dilmore
`jdilmore@beckthomas.com
`
`4
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
