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
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00730
`U.S. Patent No. 7,584,071
`
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT H. STURGES, JR., PH.D., P.E. IN
`RESPONSE TO THE PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,584,071
`
`February 11, 2014
`
`

`
`
`
`Contents
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.(cid:3)
`
`II.(cid:3)
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1(cid:3)
`
`Qualifications .................................................................................................................. 2(cid:3)
`
`III.(cid:3) Materials Considered ....................................................................................................... 3(cid:3)
`
`IV.(cid:3)
`
`Relevant Legal Standards ................................................................................................ 3(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3)
`
`Field of the invention ........................................................................................... 3(cid:3)
`
`Person having ordinary skill in the art .................................................................. 4(cid:3)
`
`Claim Construction .............................................................................................. 4(cid:3)
`
`V.(cid:3)
`
`Technical Background of the Art ..................................................................................... 5(cid:3)
`
`VI.(cid:3)
`
`Overview of the Claimed Invention of the ‘071 Patent ..................................................... 8(cid:3)
`
`VII.(cid:3) Overview of the Asserted Prior Art ................................................................................ 14(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3)
`
`General comments on the cited prior art ............................................................. 15(cid:3)
`
`1.(cid:3)
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`3.(cid:3)
`
`Smith ...................................................................................................... 15(cid:3)
`
`Spirov ..................................................................................................... 21(cid:3)
`
`Shkolnikov ............................................................................................. 24(cid:3)
`
`Rejection of claims 1-5 and 10-14 as anticipated by Smith ................................. 25(cid:3)
`
`Rejection of claims 6 and 7 as obvious over Smith and Barr ............................... 29(cid:3)
`
`Rejection of claims 8 and 9 as obvious over Smith and Fouche .......................... 29(cid:3)
`
`Rejection of claim 15 as obvious over Smith, Spirov, Bathiche, and
`Shkolnikov ......................................................................................................... 30(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3)
`
`D.(cid:3)
`
`E.(cid:3)
`
`VIII.(cid:3) Concluding remarks ....................................................................................................... 31(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`Introduction
`
`I have been engaged by counsel for Patent Owner, Drone
`
`Technologies, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) to provide my expertise in this inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) proceeding, in which Parrot S.A. and Parrot, Inc. (together
`
`“Petitioners”) have challenged the validity of Patent Owner’s U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,584,071 (“the ’071 Patent”). All statements are either made of my own
`
`knowledge are true, or are statements made on information and belief that are
`
`believed to be true.
`
`2.
`
`Specifically, I have been asked to evaluate prior art cited and the
`
`invalidity arguments set forth in (1) the “Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,584,071 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.”
`
`dated May 6, 2014 (“Petition”); (2) the accompanying declaration of Dr. Raffaello
`
`D’Andrea regarding the ‘071 Patent (“D’Andrea Declaration”); and (3) the
`
`decision to institute inter partes review of the ‘071 Patent (“Decision to Institute”)
`
`issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on October 28, 2014.
`
`Here, I offer my opinion as to whether Petitioners have proven, by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence, that the claims of the ’071 Patent are invalid. For the reasons set
`
`forth herein, I conclude that they have not.
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`II. Qualifications
`
`3.
`
`I am a Professor in the Departments of Mechanical Engineering and
`
`Industrial & Systems Engineering at Virginia Tech.
`
`4.
`
`I have been in the Mechanical Engineering field for over 40 years.
`
`My academic credentials include a Ph. D. in Mechanical Engineering from
`
`Carnegie Mellon University, and Masters and Bachelors of Science degrees from
`
`M.I.T. I am also a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Pennsylvania.
`
`5.
`
`I have approximately 18 years industrial experience working as a
`
`mechanical engineer, first with the Charles Stark Draper Laboratories in
`
`Cambridge, Mass, and later with the Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
`
`6.
`
`In 1987, I moved from industry to academia. I spent about nine years
`
`as a member of the faculty of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at
`
`Carnegie Mellon University. In 1997, I joined the faculty of Virginia Polytechnic
`
`Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) in a joint position in the Departments
`
`of Mechanical Engineering and Industrial & Systems Engineering at Virginia
`
`Tech, where I am currently a Professor and Director of the Robotics and
`
`Automation Laboratory.
`
`7.
`
`One of the focal points of my teaching and research is robotic
`
`controls, and I have done extensive research and work in the area of mobile robotic
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`
`
`systems including sensing and navigation. I am the sole author of a new textbook
`
`on practical field robotics, which covers mobile robot sensing and control in depth.
`
`8.
`
`I am a named inventor in 16 U.S. Patents and have authored over 190
`
`journal and conference publications, two book chapters, and a new book. A
`
`complete list of my patents and publications is set forth in my curriculum vitae,
`
`which is attached at Attachment A.
`
`
`
`III. Materials Considered
`
`9.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I considered the Petitions, the art cited
`
`therein, Dr. D’Andrea’s declaration and testimony, the PTAB decision to institute
`
`trial, and any other materials that are referenced below.
`
`
`
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards
`
`A.
`
`Field of the invention
`
`10. The field of the invention for the ‘071 Patent relates to a remote-
`
`controlled motion apparatus that includes a remote-controlled device and a remote
`
`controller. ‘071 Patent, col. 1, lines 17-20. Described generally, the field of the
`
`invention for the ‘071 Patent is a control system used for controlling the motion of
`
`a remote-controlled vehicle.
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`
`
`B.
`
`11.
`
`Person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`I disagree with Dr. D’Andrea’s choice of a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art. Dr. D’Andrea believes that a person of ordinary skill in the art of
`
`control systems may have had an undergraduate degree in an engineering
`
`discipline such as mechanical, electrical, or chemical engineering and would have
`
`and two to three years of experience designing and implementing control systems.
`
`D’Andrea Decl. at ¶¶20, 21, Ex. 1010. Chemical engineering has no part in this
`
`technology. For my understanding of the ‘071 Patent, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical, industrial, or
`
`mechanical engineering, and at least two years of experience in mechatronics,
`
`which is the study of systems that comprise both mechanical and electronic
`
`aspects. This field directly relates to the ‘071 Patent and the cited prior art.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`12.
`
`I understand that the claim terms of a patent under consideration in an
`
`IPR should be afforded their broadest reasonable construction. To the extent the
`
`claims include language that the PTAB has not construed, I have applied the
`
`broadest reasonable construction that the claim language would have had to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification of the patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`
`
`V. Technical Background of the Art
`
`13. All remote-controlled systems include two basic components – a
`
`remote-controlled device and a remote controller. A user provides input to the
`
`remote controller, and that input is used to control some aspect of the remote-
`
`controlled device. Relevant to the ‘071 Patent, input from the user may be used to
`
`control some component of the motion or orientation of a remote-controlled
`
`vehicle.
`
`14. To describe the state of a rigid body, a reference coordinate system
`
`will be employed. Perhaps the most common reference system is Cartesian space.
`
`The reference frame for a Cartesian coordinate system is set through establishing
`
`three perpendicular axes – commonly called the X-, Y-, and Z-axes. For ease of
`
`reference, Cartesian coordinate systems may be aligned with the Earth’s magnetic
`
`field so that the Y-axis runs in a plane parallel to the Earth’s surface along a line in
`
`the North-South direction. The X-axis would then be perpendicular to the Y-axis
`
`and extend again in the plane parallel to the Earth’s surface along a line in the
`
`West-East direction. In this coordinate system, the Z-axis would be perpendicular
`
`to both the X- and Y-axes and extend above and below the plane defined by the X-
`
`and Y-axes.
`
`15. This coordinate system may be used to define an object’s position,
`
`orientation, and motion. An object’s position can be described by its location with
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`
`
`respect to the X-, Y-, and Z-axes as a set of coordinates – (X, Y, Z). That set of
`
`three values provides a snapshot of where an object is located in space at a
`
`particular point in time.
`
`16. Similarly, the coordinate system can be used to specify an object’s
`
`orientation. While position defines where the object is located, orientation
`
`specifies in what direction an object is pointing. A Cartesian coordinate system
`
`can be used to specify an object’s orientation by identifying the object’s rotational
`
`orientation around each of the X-, Y-, and Z-axes. Rotational orientation around
`
`the Y-axis reflects the degree of “roll” displayed by an object. Rotational
`
`orientation around the X-axis reflects whether the object is pointing upwards or
`
`downwards and is called “pitch” for flying objects. Rotational orientation around
`
`the Z-axis may be thought of as the angular deviation from magnetic North and is
`
`called “yaw” for flying objects. That set of three values (roll, pitch, and yaw)
`
`provide a snapshot of the direction in which an object is pointing in space at a
`
`particular point in time.
`
`17. These six variables – three for position (X, Y, and Z) and three for
`
`orientation (roll, pitch, and yaw) – represent six degrees of freedom for an object.
`
`If these six variables are specified for a rigid object, then the object’s location and
`
`orientation are fully defined.
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`
`
`18. When an object undergoes motion, at least one (but up to all six) of
`
`those six variables changes over time. Consider the simple circumstance where an
`
`object remains pointing in the same direction (orientation remains the same), but
`
`changes its position. An example of this is where an object resting on a table is
`
`moved to another point on the table. There, the X- and Y-coordinates change
`
`(though Z remains the same) over time. This kind of motion is called translational
`
`motion and is captured by measuring changes in the (X, Y, Z) coordinates of an
`
`object over time.
`
`19.
`
`In a similar way, an object can change its orientation over time. The
`
`hands of an analog clock provide an example of where an object’s orientation
`
`changes over time, but its location remains the same. This kind of motion is called
`
`rotational motion and is captured by measuring changes in roll, pitch, and yaw of
`
`an object over time.
`
`20. Position, orientation, and motion are three distinct concepts. Position
`
`is not a kind of motion. Nor is orientation a kind of motion. Position provides a
`
`snapshot of an object’s location at a single point in time. Orientation provides a
`
`snapshot of the direction that an object is pointing at a single point in time. By
`
`measuring changes in an object’s location, orientation, or both, over time, the
`
`translational and/or rotational motion of an object can be detected.
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`
`
`21. A single measurement of an object’s location or orientation provides
`
`no information about an object’s motion. A picture of a compass will provide
`
`information only on the direction in which the compass is pointing (i.e., specifies
`
`the orientation with respect to magnetic North), but it will not provide information
`
`whether the compass is spinning (i.e., whether it is undergoing rotational motion).
`
`If, however, you undertake at least two measurements of a compass, with some
`
`basic assumptions one is able to measure the rotational motion of the compass. In
`
`summary, motion necessarily includes a temporal component, that is measurements
`
`of position and/or orientation must be undertaken at different points in time to
`
`detect motion.
`
`22. Numerous tools exist that allow the measurement of position and
`
`orientation of an object, including accelerometers, magnetometers, gyroscopes, and
`
`flux gate compasses. The ‘071 Patent describes and claims a system that includes
`
`magnetometers.
`
`
`
`VI. Overview of the Claimed Invention of the ‘071 Patent
`
`23. The ‘071 Patent discloses a remote control system that includes
`
`modules in both the remote controller and the remote-controlled device that work
`
`together to: (i) detect the motion of the remote controller; (ii) sense the motion of
`
`the remote-controlled device; (iii) compare the motion of the remote controller and
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`
`
`remote-controlled device; and (iv) adjust the motion of the remote-controlled
`
`device based on that comparison. ‘071 Patent, col. 2, lines 3-20, Ex. 1001. The
`
`remote controller uses a set of magnetometers to generate a “target motion signal”
`
`(“STAR”). Id. at col. 4, lines 47-63. This target motion signal corresponds to the
`
`motion that the user intends the remote-controlled device to adopt. Id. at col. 3, line
`
`61-col. 4, line 4. Using its own magnetometers, the remote-controlled device
`
`generates a signal corresponding to its actual motion (“SACC”). Id. at col. 4, lines
`
`20-23. A processing module on the remote-controlled device compares the two
`
`motion signals to generate a driving signal (“SDRV”), id. at col. 4, lines 23-31,
`
`which is used to adjust the motion of the remote-controlled device to mimic the
`
`motion of the remote controller. Id.
`
`24. Turning to the claimed invention, the fifteen claims of the ‘071 Patent
`
`are directed to a remote control system, with claim 1 being the only independent
`
`claim. Claim 1 specifies that the remote controller includes two modules: 1) a
`
`motion detecting module; and 2) a first communication module. Id. at col. 7, line
`
`62-col. 8, line 4. The motion detecting module detects the remote controller’s
`
`motion and outputs a motion detecting signal (called “SG” in the description). Id. at
`
`col. 7, lines 62-67. The description of the ‘071 Patent discusses the terrestrial
`
`magnetism sensing module of the remote controller, stating that “[t]he terrestrial
`
`magnetism sensing module 31 [of the remote controller] consists of a magnetic
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`
`
`sensor to detect the remote controller’s terrestrial magnetism in the X, Y and Z
`
`axes.” Id. at col. 3, lines 61-63. With this context, I read the “motion detecting
`
`module” of claim 1 to include magnetic sensors capable of detecting the remote
`
`controller’s terrestrial magnetism around the X, Y, and Z-axes.
`
`25. The first communication module connects to motion detecting
`
`module. Id. at col. 8, lines 1-4. The first communication module receives the
`
`motion detecting signal transmits a target motion signal (called “STAR” in the
`
`description) to the remote controlled device. Id.
`
`26. The remote-controlled device is also recited in claim 1 and is
`
`controlled by the remote controller. The remote-controlled device includes four
`
`modules: 1) a second communication module; 2) a terrestrial magnetism sensing
`
`module; 3) a processing module; and 4) a driving module. Id. at col. 8, lines 5-24.
`
`The second communication module receives the target motion signal from the
`
`remote controller. Id. at col. 8, lines 7-8. The terrestrial magnetism sensing
`
`module detects the remote-controlled device’s terrestrial magnetism and outputs
`
`terrestrial magnetism sensing signal (called “SACC” in the description). Id. at col. 8,
`
`lines 9-11. The processing module receives two inputs: the first is the terrestrial
`
`magnetism sensing signal (SACC) from the remote-controlled device’s terrestrial
`
`magnetism sensing module and the second is the target motion signal (STAR) from
`
`the second communication module. Id. at col. 8, lines 12-19. The processing
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`
`
`module processes those two signals and outputs a driving control signal (called
`
`“SDRV” in the description). Id. The driving module receives the driving control
`
`signal and adjusts the remote controlled device’s motion according the driving
`
`control signal. Id. at col. 8, lines 21-24.
`
`27. Claim 2 specifies that the processing module of the remote-controlled
`
`device processes the terrestrial magnetism sensing signal and compares it with the
`
`target motion signal. Id. at col. 8, lines 24-28. That comparison is used to generate
`
`the driving control signal. Id.
`
`28. Claim 3 states that the remote controlled device’s terrestrial
`
`magnetism sensing module includes a magnetic sensor that detects the remote-
`
`controlled device’s terrestrial magnetism to output the terrestrial magnetism
`
`sensing signal. Id. at col. 8, lines 29-33.
`
`29. Claim 4 provides further limitations on the processing module of the
`
`remote-controlled device. The processing module uses the terrestrial magnetism
`
`sensing signal to calculate the current motion of the remote-controlled device. Col.
`
`8, lines 34-41. The processing module then uses that calculated result to compare
`
`with the target motion signal to obtain the difference of motion between the
`
`remote-controlled device and the remote controller. Id. That calculated result is
`
`used to compare with the target motion signal to get the difference of motion
`
`between the remote controlled device and the remote controller. Id. I understand
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`
`
`that the PTAB has preliminarily determined that “difference of motion” means
`
`“relative motion.” Paper No. 8, at 9-10.
`
`30. Claims 5-9 are tied to particular implementations, for example, for a
`
`model helicopter, a model car, or a model airplane, or model robot. ‘071 Patent,
`
`col. 8, lines 42-63, Ex. 1001. Claim 10 specifies the nature of the radio signal
`
`transmission. Claim 11 provides specific examples of electronic components that
`
`could serve as the processing module of the remote-controlled device. Id. at col. 8,
`
`line 64 – col. 9, line 4. Claim 12 states that the motion detecting module includes a
`
`magnetic sensor that detects the terrestrial magnetism of the remote controller to
`
`generate the motion detecting signal. Id. at col. 9, lines 5-8.
`
`31. Claim 13 specifies that the motion detecting signal (which is
`
`generated from the remote controller’s motion detecting module) “represents the
`
`information of the remote controller’s motion in the 3D space.” Id. at col. 9, lines
`
`9-11. To me, “the 3D space” is a clear reference to the three-dimensional world
`
`all around us. All motion of objects occurs in 3D space. If claim 13 only added
`
`the limitation that the motion of the remote controller occurred in 3D space, it
`
`would add nothing to the claimed invention. However, claim 13 does more. It
`
`requires that the motion detecting signal represent information about the motion of
`
`the remote controller in 3D space. To represent information about motion in 3D
`
`space, a system needs to generate an abstraction of that motion, in other words a
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`
`
`limited data set that captures the aspects of the motion that are relevant for the
`
`computational problem at hand. This concept is common in the art of control
`
`systems and for control systems for flying vehicles in particular.
`
`32. Claim 14 states that the motion detecting module also includes a
`
`manual input module. ‘071 Patent, col. 10, lines 1-4, Ex. 1001. The manual input
`
`module has at least one direction input device used to generate the motion
`
`detecting signal. Id.
`
`33. Finally, claim 15 specifies that the motion detecting module also
`
`includes a configuration switch module. Id. at col. 10, lines 5-9. The
`
`configuration switch module allows the user to select between the terrestrial
`
`magnetism detecting module and/or the manual input module as the input of the
`
`communication module. Id. The use of “and/or” in claim 15 merely indicates that
`
`the input can be (1) the terrestrial magnetism detecting module; (2) the manual
`
`input module; or (3) a combination of both the terrestrial magnetism sensing
`
`module and the manual input module.
`
`34.
`
`In summary, the system as claimed in the ‘071 Patent allows a user to
`
`manipulate a remote controller to control the motion of a remote-controlled vehicle
`
`in a very intuitive way. The user moves the remote controller and the remote-
`
`controlled vehicle mimics that motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`
`
`VII. Overview of the Asserted Prior Art
`
`35. The PTAB instituted the current IPR proceeding for the ‘071 Patent
`
`relying on the following prior art.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,043,646 to Smith III et al. (“Smith”);
`
`• U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0144994 to Spirov et al.
`(“Spirov”);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,219,861 to Barr;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,751,529 to Fouche;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,145,551 to Bathiche et al. (“Bathiche”); and
`
`• U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0263479 to Shkolnikov
`(“Shkolnikov”).
`
`36. Relying on this prior art, the PTAB instituted the current IPR
`
`proceeding for the ‘071 Patent on the basis of the following rejections. Paper No.
`
`8, at 19.
`
`• Claims 1-5 and 10-14 as anticipated by Smith;
`
`• Claims 6 and 7 as obvious over Smith and Barr;
`
`• Claims 8 and 9 as obvious over Smith and Fouche; and
`
`
`
`37.
`
`• Claim 15 as obvious over Smith, Spirov, Bathiche, and
`Shkolnikov.
`
`I note that the current IPR proceeding is limited to these grounds and
`
`no others. Paper No. 8, at 19.
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`
`
`A. General comments on the cited prior art
`
`1.
`
`Smith
`
`38. Smith discloses a remote-control system for controlling a hobby
`
`vehicle, such as a toy truck or car, using a remote controller. Smith, col. 3, lines
`
`51-60, Ex. 1002. The remote controller included a joystick that allowed a user to
`
`specify the direction for the car to move and a switch to control the thrust of the
`
`car’s engine (forward, reverse, and turbo). Id. at col. 3, lines 21-30.
`
`39. Smith addressed a specific problem found in the prior art, namely, the
`
`non-intuitive situation that arises for the user when operating these type of systems.
`
`When the car is moving away from the user, the orientation of the user is aligned
`
`with the orientation of the car. In those circumstances, a “left” command for the
`
`user aligns with “left” for the car and the car would go to the left. In contrast,
`
`when the car is moving towards the user, a “right” command for the user would
`
`have the car turn to the left. Id. at col. 1, lines 57-64. In essence, this problem
`
`arises because the directional command sent to the car is sent from the user’s
`
`perspective, but interpreted by the vehicle from its own perspective. Id. at col. 3,
`
`lines 39-44.
`
`40. To address this problem, Smith changed the nature of the signal that
`
`was sent to the remote-controlled car. Instead of the directional command signal
`
`being relative to the user or the car, Smith mapped the signal onto an external,
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`
`
`absolute reference frame through the use of a flux gate compass on the remote
`
`controller and another on the car. Id. at col. 2, lines 5-9; col. 3, line 61-col.4, line 2;
`
`col. 5, lines 48-61. A flux gate compass can be thought of as an electronic
`
`compass that allows a user to detect an object’s orientation relative to magnetic
`
`North. In terms of my background discussion above, a flux gate compass allows a
`
`user to detect the rotational orientation of an object around the Z-axis and, thus, a
`
`flux gate compass allows one to detect only one of the six degrees of freedom. A
`
`single flux gate compass, as disclosed in Smith, cannot detect changes in
`
`orientation in the X-, Y-, and Z-axes.
`
`41. Using a flux gate compass located on the remote controller, Smith
`
`detected the orientation of the remote controller with respect to magnetic North,
`
`i.e., Smith measured one of the six degrees of freedom. Id. at col. 5, lines 10-12.
`
`Smith only detects that one degree of freedom and does not detect the remote
`
`controller’s terrestrial magnetism in the X-, Y-, and Z-axes. Smith then combined
`
`that angle with the direction that the joystick was pressed with respect to the
`
`remote controller’s housing. Id. at col. 5, lines 14-31. That sum indicated the
`
`direction that the joystick was pressed with respect to magnetic North.
`
`42. This provided Smith with a “direction command signal” that was not
`
`relative to either the user’s or the car’s reference frame, but was instead placed
`
`onto an external reference frame – with respect to magnetic North. Id. at col. 5,
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`
`
`lines 10-12. Importantly for Smith, this new direction control signal did not
`
`contain any information about the orientation of the remote controller. See id. at
`
`Figure 5. Information about the remote controller’s orientation was not useful to
`
`Smith, because the direction control signal was generated in the absolute reference
`
`frame relative to magnetic North.
`
`43. This direction control signal was sent to the remote-controlled car as
`
`part of a larger, four-byte signal, as I discuss below. Id. at col. 5, lines 27-31 and
`
`Figure 5. Using a microprocessor, the car compared its current heading to the
`
`direction control signal (that is, the direction that the joystick was pressed with
`
`respect to magnetic North). Id. at col. 6, lines 1-11. By changing the direction that
`
`its wheels were pointing, the car brought its heading into alignment with the
`
`direction control signal. Id. Smith provides a graphical example of how his system
`
`works in Figures 2a and 2b. Id.
`
`44.
`
`In this way, Smith’s system allowed the user to “control the car
`
`without being concerned about the direction the car is travelling prior to or while
`
`manipulating the direction controls, without being concerned about the orientation
`
`of the remote control transmitter 100, and without having to release the joystick
`
`shaft at the precise moment that the car has achieved the desired direction.” Id. at
`
`col. 3, lines 51-60.
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`

`
`
`
`45. Petitioner and Dr. D’Andrea incorrectly describe Smith. For example,
`
`in paragraph 70, Dr. D’Andrea states that Smith uses a flux gate compass to “sense
`
`the motion (changes in orientation) of both the remote and the vehicle in one or
`
`more dimensions.” D’Andrea Decl. at ¶70, Ex. 1010. Smith does not sense
`
`motion because it does not determine changes in orientation of the remote
`
`controller. To determine changes in orientation, one requires historical data; to
`
`assess a change, the current reading needs to be compared to another, past reading.
`
`Smith does not undertake the comparison, nor could it. No historical data about
`
`the orientation of the remote controller are stored in Smith’s system.
`
`46. Dr. D’Andrea reiterated this misunderstanding in his deposition
`
`testimony by stating that “Smith senses a change in orientation.” D’Andrea Dep.,
`
`page 153, line 25 – Page 154, line 3, Ex. 2012. He went on to explain that Smith
`
`somehow “inherently” determines differences in orientation, because “once you
`
`have the orientation, the difference is nothing but the change in values.” Id. at
`
`page 154, line 25 – page 155, line 4. Even though he acknowledges that Smith
`
`does not care about changes in orientation, Dr. D’Andrea maintains that Smith
`
`“implicitly” determines the change in orientation. Id. at page 155, lines 5-18.
`
`While I agree that Smith does not care about and was not designed to determine
`
`changes in orientation, Smith neither discloses nor suggests that such a change is
`
`calculated – either explicitly or implicitly.
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`

`
`
`
`47.
`
`In fact, Smith’s disclosure demonstrates that such a determination of a
`
`change in orientation does not occur. To calculate such changes in orientation,
`
`Smith’s system would have needed to store historical data about the remote
`
`controller’s orientation. Smith does not disclose that. To opine that Smith
`
`determines changes in orientation, Dr. D’Andrea resorts to unfounded speculation.
`
`For example, Dr. D’Andrea, supposing that a digital signal filter could possibly
`
`retain historical data, asserted that Smith’s system included a filter. Id. at page
`
`160, lines 1-25. Smith does not disclose an analog filter or a digital filter. Dr.
`
`D’Andrea’s efforts to insert such a filter into Smith only reflect how important this
`
`concept is to Petitioner’s invalidity theory.
`
`48. Dr. D’Andrea relied on further speculation to justify his unfounded
`
`conclusion that Smith determines changes in orientation. When probed about this
`
`concept at his deposition, Dr. D’Andrea speculated that such historical data “could
`
`be stored in the microcontroller,” but later conceded that he didn’t know that any
`
`data were actually stored. Id. at page 156, col. 13-24. That is because Smith does
`
`not disclose any such storage.
`
`49. Dr. D’Andrea speculated even further and suggested that Smith
`
`alludes “to the fact that it might want to store that information” through the
`
`following passage from Smith. Id. at page 157, line 4 – page 158, line 8.
`
`The present invention further includes a remotely controlled
`device that includes a third measuring means for measuring the
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`

`
`
`
`orientation of the remotely controlled device relative to the
`external reference direction and a means for controlling a
`direction related feature of the remotely controlled device based
`upon a component signal output by the third measuring means
`and a control signal received from a remote control transmitting
`device. Col. 2, lines 38-46, Ex. 1002.
`
`50. Dr. D’Andrea’s speculation is unfounded and incorrect. I note
`
`initially that this passage refers to components on the remotely controlled car.
`
`Given that Smith’s system never sends information about the orientation of the
`
`remote controller to the remotely controlled car, it is impossible for any electronic
`
`component of the remote controlled car to contain (or retain) information about the
`
`orientation of the remote controller.
`
`51. Dr. D’Andrea places great weight on the phrase “a direction related
`
`feature of the remote controlled device.” See, e.g., D’Andrea Dep., page 158, lines
`
`9-14, Ex. 2012. That simply refers to the direction that the car is traveling. If one
`
`has an understanding of how the system disclosed in the Smith patent functions,
`
`the passage above clearly refers to using a flux gate compass to measure the
`
`orientation of the car with respect to magnetic North (“a third measuring means for
`
`measuring the orientation of the remotely controlled device relative to the external
`
`reference direction”) and a mechanism for controlling the direction that the car
`
`travels (“a means for controlling a direction related feature of the remotely
`
`controlled device”). To speculate that the phrase “a direction related feature of the
`
`remote controlled device” could possibly refer to the measurement of motion of
`
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`

`
`
`
`either the remote controller or the car reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of
`
`how Smith’s system operates.
`
`2.
`
`Spirov
`
`52. Spirov’s application is entitled “Homeostatic Flying Hovercraft,” and
`
`the application discloses a flying hovercraft that is stable and controlled by a hand-
`
`held rem