IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Parrot S.A. and Parrot, Inc.
`Petitioners
`v.
`Drone Technologies, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`Filed: March 19, 2008
`Issued: September 1, 2009
`Inventor: Yu-Tuan Lee
`Assignee: Drone Technologies, Inc.
`Title: Remote-Controlled Motion Apparatus With Sensing Terrestrial Magnetism
`And Remote Control Apparatus Therefor
`
`Inter Partes Review No. _____________
`
`Declaration of Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`
`PARROT EX. 1010
`Parrot, Inc. v. Drone
`Technologies, Inc.
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`IPR2014-00730
`
`

`
`I, Raffaello D’Andrea, do hereby declare and state, that all statements made
`
`herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information
`
`and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with
`
`the knowledge that willfiml false statements and the like so made are punishable by
`
`fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States
`
`Code.
`
`Dated: April 30, 2014
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`
`ii
`
`Petitioner Parrot — Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Engagement .......................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Background And Qualifications .......................................................... 1
`C.
`Compensation and Prior Testimony .................................................... 2
`D.
`Information Considered ....................................................................... 3
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY ........................................ 3
`A.
`The Prior Art ........................................................................................ 4
`B.
`The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ............................................ 5
`C. Anticipation .......................................................................................... 6
`D. Obviousness ......................................................................................... 7
`E.
`The State of the Art – Description of Background Technology ........12
`III. THE ’071 PATENT .....................................................................................16
`A.
`Technical Overview Of The ’071 Patent ...........................................16
`B.
`The Claims of the ’071 patent............................................................19
`C.
`Prosecution History Of The ’071 Patent ............................................20
`D.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................20
`E.
`Patentability Analysis of the ’071 Patent ...........................................22
`1.
`Discussion of Relevant Patents and Publications ....................22
`a.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,043,646 (“Smith”) ............................22
`b.
`French Patent No. 2,789,765 (“Potiron”) ......................23
`c.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2006/0144994
`(“Spirov”) ......................................................................23
`U.S. Patent No. 7,219,861 (“Barr”) ..............................24
`U.S. Patent No. 6,751,529 (“Fouche”) ..........................24
`U.S. Patent No. 7,145,551 (“Bathiche”) .......................24
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0263479
`(“Shkolnikov”) ..............................................................25
`The anticipation and obviousness of the claimed invention ...25
`a.
`Claims 1, 3, 5 and 11-14 are anticipated by and/or
`obvious in view of Smith. .............................................26
`
`d.
`e.
`f.
`g.
`
`2.
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`iii
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`f.
`g.
`h.
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`m.
`
`Claim 2 is anticipated and/or obvious in view of Smith
` .......................................................................................27
`Claim 4 is anticipated and/or obvious over Smith, or
`Smith in view of Fouche ...............................................29
`Claim 10 is anticipated and/or obvious in view of Smith
` .......................................................................................31
`Claim 6 is obvious over Smith in view of Barr ............32
`Claim 7 is obvious over Smith in view of Barr ............34
`Claim 8 is obvious over Smith in view of Fouche ........34
`Claim 9 is obvious over Smith in view of Fouche ........35
`Claim 15 is obvious over Smith in view of Spirov and/or
`Bathiche and/or Shkolnikov ..........................................35
`Claims 1, 3, 5 and 11-13 are anticipated by and/or
`obvious in view of Potiron ............................................37
`Claim 2 is anticipated and/or obvious in view of Potiron
` .......................................................................................39
`Claim 10 is anticipated and/or obvious in view of
`Potiron ...........................................................................40
`Claim 4 is obvious over Potiron, or Potiron in view of
`Fouche ...........................................................................42
`Claim 6 is obvious over Potiron in view of Barr ..........43
`Claim 7 is obvious over Potiron in view of Barr ..........45
`Claim 8 is obvious over Potiron in view of Fouche ......45
`Claim 9 is obvious over Potiron in view of Fouche......46
`Claim 14 is obvious over Potiron in view of Smith,
`Spirov, Bathiche, or Shkolnikov ...................................46
`Claim 15 is obvious over Potiron in view of Spirov
`and/or Bathiche and/or Shkolnikov ...............................47
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................49
`
`n.
`o.
`p.
`q.
`r.
`
`s.
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`iv
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`TABLE OF APPENDICES
`
`Appendix A:
`
`List of Materials Considered
`
`Appendix B:
`
`Curriculum Vitae
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`v
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Engagement
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Parrot S.A. and Parrot, Inc., as an
`
`expert witness in the above-captioned proceeding. I have been asked to render an
`
`opinion regarding the novelty and obviousness of claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,584,071 (“the ’071 patent”), which is submitted concurrently with Parrot’s
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review as Petition Exhibit 10011. This declaration
`
`includes my observations, conclusions, and opinions on those topics.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`Background And Qualifications
`
`I am currently a professor of dynamic systems and control at ETH
`
`Zürich, one of the two Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology. My experience
`
`includes teaching and research in the field of dynamic systems and control at both
`
`the graduate and undergraduate level. I also have worked in the fields of systems
`
`architecture, robot design, navigation and coordination and control algorithms,
`
`including as a co-founder (2003-07) and chief technical advisor (2008-12) at Kiva
`
`Systems, now owned by Amazon.com. I also was an Assistant and Associate
`
`
`ϭ In this declaration, citations to “Pet. Ex. [No.]” refer to exhibits to Parrot’s
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071. Citations to
`“Att. [A, B, C, etc.]” refer to documents attached to this declaration that are not
`cited as exhibits in Parrot’s Inter Partes Review Petition of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,584,071.
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`1
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Cornell University from
`
`1997-2007.
`
`3.
`
`I have a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the California Institute of
`
`Technology, which I received in 1997. I also received a masters of electrical
`
`engineering from the California Institute of Technology in 1992. I received my
`
`B.S. in engineering science from the University of Toronto in 1991.
`
`4.
`
`I have received numerous awards and honors. I have published over
`
`180 papers in the field of engineering, most relating to dynamic systems and
`
`control. My honors, awards, publications and additional information about my
`
`experience and qualifications are set forth in detail in my curriculum vitae,
`
`attached to this declaration as Appendix B.
`
`C.
`
`5.
`
`Compensation and Prior Testimony
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of 750 CHF per hour for my study
`
`and testimony in this matter. I also am being reimbursed for reasonable and
`
`customary expenses associated with my work and testimony in this investigation.
`
`My compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics
`
`of my testimony.
`
`6.
`
`During the previous four years, I have not testified as an expert in any
`
`litigation matters.
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`2
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`D.
`
`7.
`
`Information Considered
`
`My opinions are based on my years of education, research, and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials referred to herein or listed in
`
`Appendix A.
`
`8.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to rebut
`
`arguments raised by the patentee. Further, I may also consider additional
`
`documents and information in forming any necessary opinions – including
`
`documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`9.
`
`My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This report
`
`presents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`
`10.
`
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`claims of the ’071 patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that
`
`counsel has explained to me.
`
`11.
`
`First, I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be
`
`found patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious in light of
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`3
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`what came before it. That which came before an invention is generally referred to
`
`as “prior art.”
`
`12.
`
`I understand that a party asserting that a patent is unpatentable in an
`
`Inter Partes review proceeding has the burden to prove invalidity by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a preponderance of the
`
`evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more likely than not.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that in an Inter Partes review proceeding, terms within a
`
`patent claim that do not have a plain and ordinary meaning in the English language
`
`must be construed so that they are given their broadest reasonable interpretations
`
`consistent with the patent’s specification before a comparison can be made to
`
`information in the prior art.
`
`A.
`
`14.
`
`The Prior Art
`
`I understand that the information that may be evaluated in this
`
`proceeding is limited to prior art that consists of patents and/or printed
`
`publications.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that prior art includes technical references, such as
`
`patents, patent applications, technical papers, and other publications that either are
`
`public or in some circumstances caused to be made public prior to the date the
`
`alleged invention of the ’071 patent was made. I further understand that the prior
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`4
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`art includes that which was known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time the alleged invention of the ’071 patent was made.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the ’071 patent issued from an application
`
`(No. 12/051,662) filed on March 19, 2008, and claims foreign priority to a Taiwan
`
`application filed on March 23, 2007. Petition Exhibit 1001. Accordingly, I have
`
`used March 23, 2007 as the “date the invention was made” in my analyses. A
`
`reference qualities as prior art if dated on or before March 23, 2007.
`
`17.
`
`I am using this date for analysis based on the assumption that there is
`
`a proper claim to priority within the chain of continuation application to which the
`
`’071 patent claims benefit. If this assumption is incorrect, then my analyses may
`
`change.
`
`18.
`
`I have been provided with, and have reviewed, publications which I
`
`understand to be prior art. Those publications include those listed in Appendix A
`
`as references.
`
`B.
`
`The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`art” is a hypothetical person considered to have the normal skills and knowledge in
`
`a particular technical field, without being a genius. This person is one to whom an
`
`expert in the relevant field could assign a routine task with reasonable confidence
`
`that the task would be successfully carried out.
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`5
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`20.
`
`I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the
`
`’071 patent would be someone who was familiar with control systems. Relevant
`
`literature on control systems would have included books such as “Modern Control
`
`Engineering” by Katsuhiko Ogata.
`
`21.
`
`The person of ordinary skill in the art may have had an undergraduate
`
`degree in an engineering discipline such as mechanical, electrical, or chemical
`
`engineering and would have had two to three years of experience designing and
`
`implementing control systems.
`
`22. Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. I have supervised and directed
`
`many such persons over the course of my career. Further, I had those capabilities
`
`myself as of the priority date for the ’071 patent (March 23, 2007).
`
`C.
`
`23.
`
`Anticipation
`
`I understand that if a claimed invention is “anticipated” by the prior
`
`art, it is not novel and should not be entitled to patent protection.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art. I have applied these
`
`standards in my evaluation of whether the claims asserted in this investigation are
`
`anticipated.
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`6
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`25.
`
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior
`
`art, each and every limitation of the claim must be found, expressly or inherently,
`
`in a single prior art reference as recited in the claim. I understand that a claim
`
`limitation that is not expressly found in a prior art reference is inherent if the prior
`
`art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claim limitation.
`
`Mere probability that the limitation is included is not sufficient to establish
`
`inherency.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to examine evidence outside the prior
`
`art reference (extrinsic evidence) in determining whether a feature, while not
`
`expressly discussed in the reference, is necessarily present within that reference.
`
`27.
`
`I applied these standards in determining that claims 1-5 and 10-14 of
`
`the ’071 patent are anticipated either by U.S. Patent No. 5,043,646 (“Smith”) or
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,789,765 (“Potiron”).
`
`D.
`
`28.
`
`Obviousness
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time
`
`the invention was made.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious. I have applied these standards in my
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`7
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`evaluation of whether claims 1-15 of the ’071 patent would have been considered
`
`obvious at the time of the invention.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a claim in a patent is obvious when 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 to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains, at the time the invention was
`
`made.
`
`31.
`
`I also understand that the relevant inquiry into obviousness requires
`
`consideration of four factors (although not necessarily in the following order):
`
`a. The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`b. The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`c. The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art;
`
`and,
`
`d. Whatever objective factors
`
`indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may be present in any particular case.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that obviousness may be shown by combining two or
`
`more items of prior art. I understand that elements missing from a prior art
`
`document may be supplied by the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art at the relevant time.
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`8
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`33.
`
`I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be done in
`
`hindsight, but should be done through the eyes of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art at the time the invention claimed in the subject patent was “made,”
`
`which for the ’071 patent is the earliest priority date to which the ’071 patent
`
`claims benefit (i.e., March 23, 2007).
`
`34.
`
`I understand that, when combining references, there must be some
`
`reason in the prior art for the combination, along with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success that the combination would work for purposes of the alleged invention. I
`
`understand that a reason to combine may include a suggestion, motivation, or
`
`teaching to combine, though these are not formally required. It is my
`
`understanding that any motivation that would have been known to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, including common sense, or derived from the nature of the
`
`problem to be solved, is sufficient to explain why references would have been
`
`combined.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that sometimes it will be necessary to look to interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
`
`community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. I understand that all these
`
`factors may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`9
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`36.
`
`I understand that a reason to combine references may be found
`
`expressly in the prior art references themselves, or it may come from knowledge
`
`by those skilled in the art that certain prior art references, or disclosures in those
`
`references, are known to be of special interest or importance in the particular field.
`
`I further understand that a reason to combine may also come from the nature of the
`
`problem to be solved, leading inventors to look to references relating to possible
`
`solutions to that problem.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that the prior art considered can be directed to any need
`
`or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention and can
`
`provide a reason for combining the elements of the prior art in the manner claimed.
`
`In other words, the prior art does not need to be directed towards solving the same
`
`problem that is addressed in the patent. Further, the individual prior art references
`
`themselves need not all be directed towards solving the same problem.
`
`38.
`
`I further understand that in many fields, including the field of remote
`
`controlled systems, it may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or
`
`combination, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than
`
`scientific literature or knowledge, will drive design trends. When there is such a
`
`design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to
`
`pursue the known options within their technical grasp. If this leads to the
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`10
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill
`
`and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try
`
`might show that it was obvious. The fact that a particular combination of prior art
`
`elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious even
`
`if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try
`
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it
`
`is likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that an invention that might be considered an obvious
`
`variation on, or modification of, the prior art may nonetheless be considered non-
`
`obvious if one or more prior art references discourage or lead away from the line of
`
`inquiry disclosed in the reference(s). A reference does not “teach away” from an
`
`invention simply because the reference suggests that another embodiment of the
`
`invention is optimal or preferred. My understanding is that the doctrine of
`
`“teaching away” requires some clear discouragement of that combination in the
`
`prior art – such as expressly stated reasons why one should not make the claimed
`
`combination or invention.
`
`40.
`
`I understand the objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may include: commercial success of products covered by the patent
`
`claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by others to make the
`
`invention; copying of the invention by others in the field; unexpected results
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`11
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by the infringer or others in the
`
`field; the taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by
`
`experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee
`
`proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`41.
`
`I am not aware of any objective factors supporting the non-
`
`obviousness of any claim of the ’071 patent. Accordingly, I did not include any
`
`objective factors in my analysis. My analysis may change if I am provided
`
`evidence of such factors, either supporting or refuting non-obviousness.
`
`E.
`
`The State of the Art – Description of Background Technology
`
`42.
`
`The ’071 patent is directed to a remote control system for remotely
`
`controlled devices. Pet. Ex. 1001 at Abstract2.
`
`43. Hand-held remote controlled devices have existed for decades. For
`
`example, more than 100 years ago Nikola Tesla demonstrated a remote control
`
`boat at a public exhibition and was granted U.S. Patent No. 613,809 (“Tesla”,
`
`Att. A) for this invention. Remotely controlled devices typically have included
`
`model or toy cars, boats, and airplanes.
`
`
`Ϯ In this declaration, citations to “Pet. Ex. [No.]” refer to exhibits to Parrot’s
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071. Citations to
`“Att. [A, B, C, etc.]” refer to documents attached to this declaration that are not
`cited as exhibits in the Parrot’s petition.
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`12
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`44.
`
`Early embodiments of remotely controlled devices were controlled by
`
`a remote control connected to the remotely controlled device by wire. See, e.g.,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,101,569 (“Giardina”, Att. B) (airplane toy). By approximately
`
`the late 1990’s-early 2000’s, the cost and size of components required for wireless
`
`control of remote devices had reduced, and wireless control had become
`
`commonplace.
`
`45. At first, remote controls deployed manual input devices such as
`
`joysticks, trackballs, triggers, pushbuttons, and the like, in various combinations, to
`
`allow the user to control the movement and actions of a remotely controlled
`
`device. U.S. patent 7,219,861 (“Spirov”, Pet. Ex. 1007), discloses, for example, an
`
`airplane remotely controlled by joysticks and buttons.
`
`46. As remotely controlled devices became more common, more
`
`sophisticated control systems were developed. These included control systems in
`
`which both the remote controller and the remote controlled device included some
`
`means to detect their motion in space.
`
`47.
`
`To accomplish sensed-motion control, the sensed motion of the
`
`remote controller was translated into an instruction, which was transmitted
`
`wirelessly to the remote controlled device, which then used that instruction to
`
`perform some action.
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`13
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`48. An early example of a sensed-motion controlled device is described in
`
`U.S. patent no. 5,043,646 (“Smith”, Pet. Ex. 1002), which
`
`issued on
`
`August 27, 1991. Smith discloses a remotely controlled hobby vehicle. Both the
`
`remote control and the hobby vehicle include magnetometers (flux gate
`
`compasses) to sense the orientation of both the remote and the vehicle. By sensing
`
`the orientation of the remote control and sending a wireless signal to the hobby
`
`vehicle, which in turn senses its current orientation, the motion of the vehicle is
`
`controlled. This allows the user to give absolute direction commands regardless of
`
`the orientation or position of the user. See Pet. Ex. 1002 at 3:51-60.
`
`49.
`
`Sensed motion-control supplemented manual (e.g. joystick) control
`
`and became commonplace. See, for example, French Patent No. 9901683
`
`(“Potiron”, Pet. Ex. 1003 and English Translation Pet. Ex. 1004) (sensed motion
`
`control of boat); and U.S. Publication No. 2006/0144994 (“Spirov”, Pet Ex. 1007)
`
`(sensed motion control of flying hovercraft).
`
`50. An object in three-dimensional space has six degrees of freedom:
`
`three translational components and three rotational components. Translational
`
`motion is often referred to as motion along the X, Y, and Z axes (back and forth,
`
`left and right, up and down), while rotational motion can be described by roll,
`
`pitch, and yaw (rotations about the X, Y, and Z axes, respectively). By the mid-
`
`2000s, remote controllers included the ability to detect motion in three dimensions
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`14
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`and translate that movement into instructions that could be used to control a
`
`computer or, in the case of the video game industry, a computer display. The
`
`Nintendo Wii, which included this capability, was introduced in 2006.
`
`51. U.S. Patent No. 8,072,417 (“Jouanet” Att. C) (which I understand is
`
`the U.S. National Phase application of PCT
`
`International Application
`
`No. PCT/FR2005/002623, which published as International Publication No. WO
`
`2006/045934 (“the ’934 Publication”)) describes a remote controller capable of
`
`sensing and directing movement of a remote vehicle in three dimensions. To
`
`accomplish sensing motion in three dimensions, including roll, pitch, and yaw,
`
`Jouanet (and, thus, the ’934 Publication) teaches the use of a combination of three
`
`accelerometers and three magnetometers. Att. C at 5:26-34; Fig. 2. Jouanet (and,
`
`thus, the ’934 Publication) further teaches that three-dimensional sensing could be
`
`used to control a remotely controlled aircraft, such as a drone. Att. C at 25:21-25;
`
`Fig. 20.
`
`52. Remote controllers and their remotely controlled devices often operate
`
`in multiple modes of operation. To choose among multiple modes of operation for
`
`a single device, a switch must be deployed. Such switches have long been
`
`deployed in the art.
`
` See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 7,145,551 (“Bathiche”,
`
`Pet. Ex. 1008) (video game controller including configuration or mode switch to
`
`switch between sensed orientation based control and joystick control) and
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`15
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0263479 (“Shkolnikov”, Pet. Ex. 1009) (device,
`
`including remote control device, configured to use sensed movement of the remote
`
`control, manual control, or both).
`
`III. THE ’071 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`53.
`
`Technical Overview Of The ’071 Patent
`
`The ’071 patent generally describes a remote-controlled motion
`
`device, such as an airplane or helicopter, and its remote controller. The claimed
`
`remote controller has a motion detecting module that detects the motion of the
`
`controller and a communication module that communicates with the remote
`
`controlled device. The remote controlled device has a communication module to
`
`communicate with the remote control, a sensor module (i.e., a magnetometer) that
`
`detects “terrestrial magnetism” (i.e., the orientation of the device with respect to
`
`the earth’s magnetic field), a processing module connected to the communication
`
`and terrestrial magnetism sensing modules, and a driving module connected to the
`
`processing module.
`
`54.
`
`The ’071 patent does not explain the structure or operation of the
`
`“terrestrial magnetism sensing module” in either the remote controller or remote-
`
`controlled device. The ’071 patent states only that the module would include a
`
`magnetic sensor for detecting magnetism in the “X, Y, and Z” axes. The patent
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`16
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`further states that the sensed motion in these three axes can be used to generate a
`
`three-dimensional target motion signal. Pet. Ex. 1001 at 4:17-19.
`
`55.
`
`In fact, as described in the ’071 patent, the terrestrial magnetism
`
`sensor would not be capable of detecting motion of the remote control or remotely
`
`controlled device in all three dimensions so as to be able to control a remotely
`
`controlled aircraft. A magnetic sensor would not be capable of detecting
`
`translation of the object in any dimension (i.e., along the X, Y, or Z axes). Nor
`
`would it be capable of detecting rotation around the lines of a magnetic field.
`
`56. Of the six degrees of freedom of motion in three dimensional space,
`
`magnetometers are capable of recognizing only two.
`
`57. According to the ’071 patent, the roll and pitch of a remotely
`
`controlled device is “adjusted” and “synchronized” with the motion of the remote
`
`controller. Pet. Ex. 1001 at 5:34-37. The ’071 patent does not explain how such
`
`“adjustment” and “synchronization” would be accomplished, which is curious,
`
`given that magnetic sensors would not be capable of detecting all motion in three
`
`dimensional space.
`
`58.
`
`The magnetic sensor of the ’071 patent could not be used to control
`
`the pitch of the aircraft, for example, if the aircraft were to travel perpendicular to
`
`magnetic field lines. Similarly, roll could not be controlled if the aircraft were to
`
`travel along magnetic field lines. Synchronization of motion could not occur
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`17
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1010
`
`

`
`because the magnetic sensors would output the same sensed information even
`
`though the remote and the remotely controlled aircraft would be performing
`
`different movements.
`
`59. Because magnetic sensors are incapable of detecting all motions of the
`
`remote in three-dimensional space, a remote control deploying only magnetic
`
`sensors (such as the remote control taught by the ’071 patent) could not be used to
`
`control the movement of a remote-controlled device without some other
`
`instructions, circuitry, and/or structures,