Trials@uspto.gov Paper 27
`571-272-7822
` Date Entered: October 20, 2015
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`Parrot S.A. and Parrot, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a petition
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,584,071 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’071 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319.
`Paper 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). The Board instituted an inter partes review of
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`claims 1–15 on asserted grounds of unpatentability for anticipation and
`obviousness. Paper 8 (“Dec. on Inst.”).
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner Drone Technologies, Inc.
`filed a patent owner response (Paper 15, “PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a
`reply to the Patent Owner Response (Paper 18, “Pet. Reply”).
`Oral hearing was held on July 1, 2015.1
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). 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 Petitioner has shown by
`a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3 and 5–14 of the ’071 patent
`are unpatentable. Petitioner has not shown that claims 4 and 15 are
`unpatentable.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`According to Petitioner, the ’071 patent is involved in the following
`lawsuit: Drone Technologies, Inc. v. Parrot S.A., No. 2:05-mc-02025 (W.D.
`Pa.). Pet. 4.
`
`B. The ’071 Patent
`The ’071 patent relates to a remote control system in which a remote
`control apparatus transmits a target motion signal to a remote-controlled
`motion apparatus. Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`Figure 2 of the ’071 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`1 The record includes a transcript of the oral hearing. Paper 25 (“Tr.”).
`2
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a system diagram of a remote control system. Ex. 1001,
`col. 3, ll. 13–14. Remote-controlled device 4 consists of communication
`module 41, terrestrial magnetism sensing module 42, processing module 43,
`and driving module 44. Communication module 41 receives target motion
`signal STAR from remote controller 3. Id. at col. 3, ll. 28–35. Remote
`controller 3 consists of terrestrial magnetism sensing module 31 and
`communication module 33. The terrestrial magnetism module detects the
`terrestrial magnetism of the remote controller and outputs terrestrial
`magnetism sensing signal SG. Communication module 33 connects to
`terrestrial magnetism module 31 and transmits target motion signal STAR
`according to the terrestrial magnetism sensing signal. Target motion signal
`STAR is used to control remote-controlled device 4 to keep its detected
`terrestrial magnetism aligned with the target motion signal. Id. at col. 3,
`ll. 47–58.
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is illustrative and reproduced
`
`below.
`
`1. A remote control system, comprising:
`a remote controller, comprising:
`
`
`
`a motion detecting module, which detects the remote
`controller’s motion and outputs a motion detecting signal; and
`
`
`
`a first communication module, which connects to the
`motion detecting module and receives the motion detecting
`signal, and transmits a target motion signal according to the
`motion detecting signal; and
`
`
`
`a remote-controlled device, which is controlled by the
`remote controller, comprising:
`
`
`
`a second communication module, which receives the
`target motion signal from the remote controller;
`
`
`
`
`
`a terrestrial magnetism sensing module, which detects the
`remote-controlled device’s terrestrial magnetism and outputs a
`terrestrial magnetism sensing signal;
`
`a processing module, which has a first input connected to
`the terrestrial magnetism sensing module and receives the
`terrestrial magnetism sensing signal, and a second input
`connected to the second communication module and receives
`the target motion signal, and processes the terrestrial magnetism
`sensing signal and the target motion signal to output a driving
`control signal; and
`
`
`
`a driving module, which connects to the processing
`module and receives the driving control signal, and adjusts the
`remote-controlled device's motion according to the driving
`control signal.
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art
`Smith, III et al. (“Smith”)
` (Ex. 1002)
`
`
`
`Barr
` (Ex. 1005)
`
`
`Fouche
` (Ex. 1006)
`
`Spirov et al. (“Spirov”)
` (Ex. 1007)
`
`Bathiche et al. (“Bathiche”)
` (Ex. 1008)
`
`Shkolnikov
` (Ex. 1009)
`
`E. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`The Board instituted inter partes review on the following asserted
`grounds of unpatentability against claims 1–15 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)
`and 103(a) (Dec. on Inst. 19):
`
`Reference(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`US 5,043,646
`
`US 7,219,861 B1
`
`US 6,751,529 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Aug. 27, 1991
`
`May 22, 2007
`
`June 15, 2004
`
`US 2006/0144994 A1
`
`July 6, 2006
`
`US 7,145,551 B1
`
`
`
`Dec. 5, 2006
`
`US 2004/0263479 A1 Dec. 30, 2004
`
`
`Basis (35 U.S.C.)
`
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Smith
`Smith and Barr
`Smith and Fouche
`Smith, Spirov, Bathiche,
`and Shkolnikov
`
`1–5 and 10–14
`6 and 7
`8 and 9
`
`15
`
`
`§ 102(b)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, the Board construes claim terms in an
`unexpired patent using their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In
`re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`The claim language should be read in light of the specification, as it would
`be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
`Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Office must apply the
`broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any
`definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d
`575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). There is a “heavy presumption” that a claim
`term carries its ordinary and customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The “ordinary and
`customary meaning” is that which the term would have to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art in question. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`
`1. Detecting the Remote Controller’s Motion
`Illustrative claim 1 recites “a motion detecting module, which detects
`the remote controller’s motion and outputs a motion detecting signal.” At
`the preliminary stage of the proceeding, we determined that the phrase
`“detect[ing] the remote controller’s motion” does not require any
`construction beyond our finding that it is broad enough to include detecting
`the orientation of a remote controller with respect to magnetic North. Dec.
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`on Inst. 9. That is because we concluded that determining a change in
`orientation is within the scope of the claimed “detect[ing] the remote
`controller’s motion,” based on the ’071 patent’s description of the operation
`of the motion detecting module.
`The ’071 patent provides:
`In the preferred embodiment of the invention, the remote
`controller 3 [Fig. 2] consists of a terrestrial magnetism sensing
`module 31 and a communication module 33, the terrestrial
`magnetism module 31 detects the terrestrial magnetism of the
`remote controller 3 and outputs [a] terrestrial magnetism
`sensing signal SG, the communication module 33 connects to
`the terrestrial magnetism module 31 and transmits a target
`motion signal STAR according to the terrestrial magnetism
`sensing signal SG, the target motion signal STAR is used to
`control the remote-controlled device 4 to keep its detected
`terrestrial magnetism to align with the target motion signal
`STAR. The terrestrial magnetism sensing signal SG is used to
`represent the terrestrial magnetism information of the remote
`controller 3.
`The terrestrial magnetism sensing module 31 consists of
`a magnetic sensor to detect the remote controller’s terrestrial
`magnetism in the X, Y and Z axes. Since the terrestrial
`magnetism of the earth directs to a fixed direction parallel to
`the horizontal ground surface, when the remote controller 3 is
`held by the user and is moved with a motion related to the
`horizontal ground surface, the terrestrial magnetism sensing
`module 31 will detect a change in the terrestrial magnetism
`since the remote controller body’s angle or position to the
`ground has been changed, so
`the resulting
`terrestrial
`magnetism sensing signal SG will be changed.
`In the user’s operation, the user holds the remote
`controller 3 and moves it or rotate[s] it, the terrestrial
`magnetism sensing module 31 in the remote controller 3 will
`detect a change in terrestrial magnetism, and accordingly
`outputs an terrestrial magnetism sensing signal SG, the
`terrestrial magnetism
`sensing
`signal SG provides
`the
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`communication module 33 a reference to transmit the target
`motion signal STAR to control the remote-controlled device 4.
`For example, the terrestrial magnetism sensing signal SG
`contains three voltage levels to represent the terrestrial
`magnetism of X, Y and Z axes, the three voltage levels can be
`converted and transmitted by the communication module 33
`(such as using radio transmission with the PCM coding
`technique). The user can even use only one [h]and to operate
`the remote controller 3 and generate the 3-D X, Y and Z axes
`target [motion] signal STAR.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 3, l. 47 – col. 4, l. 19 (emphasis removed, remaining emphasis
`added).
`The ’071 patent, thus, makes clear that, in the preferred embodiment
`of the invention, “detecting” the remote controller’s motion is detecting the
`change in terrestrial magnetism relative to the horizontal ground surface as
`the controller is moved or rotated, with the resulting terrestrial magnetism
`sensing signal SG changing accordingly. The “terrestrial magnetism” of the
`Earth “directs to a fixed direction parallel to the horizontal ground surface.”
`Id. at col. 3, ll. 63–65. Detecting the orientation of a remote controller with
`respect to magnetic North is, at the least, within the scope of “detect[ing] the
`remote controller’s motion” as claimed. “A claim construction that excludes
`the preferred embodiment ‘is rarely, if ever, correct and would require
`highly persuasive evidentiary support.’” Adams Respiratory Therapeutics,
`Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Vitronics
`Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583–84 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`
`
`
`2. Difference of Motion
`Petitioner submits that “difference of motion,” a phrase in claim 4,
`should be interpreted as “calculations related to motion that causes a change
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`in orientation.” Pet. 17. As Petitioner indicates (id.), the ’071 patent does
`not provide a definition of the relevant terms different from the ordinary
`meaning of the words. At the preliminary proceeding stage, we interpreted
`“difference of motion” simply to mean, under the required broadest
`reasonable interpretation, relative motion. Dec. on Inst. 10. That
`interpretation is consistent with the language of claim 4. Claim 4 recites that
`the “calculated result” — the calculated current motion of the remote-
`controlled device — is compared with the target motion signal to get the
`“difference of motion” (relative motion) between the remote-controlled
`device and the remote controller. In relation to Petitioner’s proffered
`interpretation, because a change in orientation is a type of motion, relative
`orientation would be a type (or species) of “difference of motion.”
`
`
`
`3. Information of the Remote Controller’s Motion
`
`In the 3D Space
`
`
`
`Petitioner submits that the phrase “information of the remote
`controller’s motion in the 3D space,” which appears in claim 13, should be
`interpreted as “any motion in three dimensional space, including motion in
`one or two dimensions.” Pet. 17.
`Again, we find no definition in the ’071 patent that would depart from
`the ordinary meaning of the words. Claim 13 recites “wherein the motion
`detecting signal represents the information of the remote controller’s motion
`in the 3D space.” Claim 13 depends from claim 1. Neither claim sets forth
`an antecedent for “the 3D space.” Consistent with Petitioner’s position,
`information of motion in the 3D space, under its broadest reasonable
`interpretation, does not require complete information of motion in each of
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`
`the three dimensions. Although the motion is in “the 3D space,” information
`of the motion may be information relating to motion in one, two, or three
`dimensions. Our interpretation of “information of the remote controller’s
`motion in the 3D space is unchanged from the preliminary stage. Dec. on
`Inst. 10–11.
`
`
`Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`B. Prior Art — Smith
`Smith relates to a remote control transmitter/receiver system in which
`the transmitter can generate an absolute direction command relative to
`magnetic North, in accordance with an internal compass signal. Ex. 1002,
`Abstract.
`Figure 3 of Smith is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3 is a schematic block diagram of a remote control transmitting
`device. Ex. 1002, col. 3, ll. 1–3. Remote control transmitter 100 contains
`10
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`microcontroller 24, which is provided with inputs from three momentary
`pushbutton control switches 28, 30, and 32, eight-position joystick 26, and
`flux gate compass 10 (via A/D converter 13). Id. at col. 3, ll. 61–66. Flux
`gate compass 10 outputs sine and cosine voltages 14 and 12. The magnitude
`of the voltages at the sine and cosine outputs corresponds to the sine and
`cosine of the earth’s magnetic field. The data necessary to interpret the
`orientation of the flux gate compass and the remote control transmitter is
`obtained by determining the ratio of the sine and cosine voltages. Id. at
`col. 4, ll. 17–32.
`
`C. Anticipation by Smith — Claims 1–3, 5, and 10–14
`Petitioner contends that Smith anticipates claims 1–3, 5, and 10–14.
`The Petition maps the language of the claims to the structures in Smith that
`are deemed to correspond with the limitations. Pet. 19–28. Petitioner also
`relies on the testimony of Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea. Ex. 1010 (“D’Andrea
`Decl.”).
`Patent Owner lists allegations in its response why it believes Dr.
`D’Andrea’s testimony should be given little or no weight. PO Resp. 21– 22.
`The only testimony pointed out that may be relevant to the particular facts of
`this case, however, is the answer at the deposition indicating that he used
`“multiple references” for anticipation of the ’071 patent claims. Id. at 22.
`As pointed out by Petitioner, however, the answer is accurate, and does not
`reflect a misunderstanding of the law of anticipation, because his
`Declaration (Ex. 1010) addressed both Smith and a French patent
`publication (“Potiron”) as anticipatory prior art. Pet. Reply 12; Ex. 1010
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`¶¶ 113–126; Dec. on Inst. 5–6 (Petitioner’s asserted grounds); Ex. 2012
`(D’Andrea Depo.) 312:21–313:7.
`Patent Owner, in addition, argues that Smith does not determine
`changes in orientation. PO Resp. 5–9. According to Patent Owner, Smith
`discloses “determining orientation” but does not disclose “determining
`changes in orientation.” Id. at 7. Patent Owner relies, in part, on the
`Declaration of a co-inventor of Smith (Ex. 2014) (Jay Smith, III
`Declaration). Mr. Smith testifies that “[t]o determine changes in orientation
`of the remote controller [in Smith], the system would need to calculate a
`difference between the remote controller’s orientation at different points in
`time.” Ex. 2014 ¶ 21. “Nothing in [Smith] discloses that.” Id. Another of
`Patent Owner’s declarants, Dr. Robert H. Sturges, concurs that Smith does
`not detect motion of any component of its system. Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 63–64.
`Patent Owner goes so far as to allege that in order to determine “changes” in
`orientation of a remote controller the controller must “retain” the orientation
`after it sends a signal. PO Resp. 8.
`Patent Owner does not, however, address how the supposed
`requirement of storing a previous orientation for comparison with the current
`orientation is consistent with the disclosure of the ’071 patent. In particular,
`Patent Owner does not address the portion of the ’071 patent, reproduced in
`§ II.A.1 supra, that describes and provides support for “detect[ing] the
`remote controller’s motion” as claimed. We again reproduce a pertinent
`portion of the ’071 patent:
`In the user’s operation, the user holds the remote
`controller 3 [Fig. 2] and moves it or rotate[s] it, the terrestrial
`magnetism sensing module 31 in the remote controller 3 will
`detect a change in terrestrial magnetism, and accordingly
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`outputs an terrestrial magnetism sensing signal SG, the
`terrestrial magnetism
`sensing
`signal SG provides
`the
`communication module 33 a reference to transmit the target
`motion signal STAR to control the remote-controlled device 4.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 5–12 (emphasis removed, remaining emphasis added).
`When the remote controller is moved with a motion relative to the horizontal
`ground surface, the terrestrial magnetism sensing module will detect a
`change in the terrestrial magnetism because the remote controller body’s
`angle or position to the ground has been changed; the resulting terrestrial
`magnetism sensing signal SG will be changed. Id. at col. 3, l. 65 – col. 4,
`l. 4.
`
`Thus, “detecting” the remote controller’s motion is detecting the
`change in terrestrial magnetism relative to the horizontal ground surface as
`the controller is moved or rotated, with the resulting terrestrial magnetism
`sensing signal SG changing accordingly. Patent Owner has not pointed to
`any disclosure in the ’071 patent of the remote controller storing a previous
`orientation for comparison with a present orientation to effect “detect[ing]
`the remote controller’s motion” as claimed. We, therefore, remain
`convinced that detecting the orientation of a remote controller with respect
`to magnetic North — which Patent Owner admits Smith to disclose — is, at
`the least, within the scope of “detect[ing] the remote controller’s motion” as
`claimed.
`Although placed under the heading regarding a “difference of motion”
`limitation that is relevant only to claim 4, Patent Owner argues in its
`Response that “[b]ecause Smith does not disclose a comparison of the ‘071
`Patent’s target motion signal with the remote-controlled device’s terrestrial
`magnetism sensing signal (Ex. 2014 (Smith Decl.), ¶¶ 18, 21), it cannot
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`anticipate claim 2 of the ‘071 Patent.” PO Resp. 12. We do not find the
`lack of “comparison” argument persuasive because Patent Owner’s
`Declarant states that, upon receipt of the direction control signal, “the
`microcontroller [in Smith] compared the car’s current heading (relative to
`magnetic North) to the direction control signal heading to determine if the
`car needed to turn.” Ex. 2014 ¶ 19 (emphasis added).
`We also are not persuaded that the claims require that the remote
`controller detect motion in all of the (three-dimensional) X, Y, and Z axes.
`Patent Owner argues that requiring fewer than all three axes would exclude
`the preferred embodiment of the invention. PO Resp. 12–13. We agree with
`Petitioner, however, that a broader construction that does not require all the
`details of a preferred embodiment cannot “exclude” the preferred
`embodiment. Pet. Reply 9.
`With respect to claim 13, we also are not persuaded that the recited
`“information” requires information about all of the X, Y, and Z axes. PO
`Resp. 14–18; see § II.A.3 supra. If the claim was intended to be so limited
`then the claim is a drafting error, or represents “the fault of the draftsman,
`not the Board.” Pet. Reply 10. Even in proceedings where the claims
`cannot be amended and the presumption of validity applies, our reviewing
`court has repeatedly and consistently recognized that “courts may not redraft
`claims, whether to make them operable or to sustain their validity.” Chef
`Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`(citations omitted). “[I]n accord with our settled practice we construe the
`claim as written, not as the patentees wish they had written it.” Id.
`In consideration of the Petition and supporting evidence, and Patent
`Owner’s arguments and evidence in response, we conclude that Petitioner
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–3, 5,
`and 10–14 are unpatentable for anticipation by Smith.
`
`D. Anticipation by Smith — Claim 4
`Claim 4 of the ’071 patent recites that the processing module uses the
`terrestrial magnetism sensing signal to calculate the current motion of the
`remote-controlled device, and uses the calculated result to compare with the
`target motion signal to get the difference of motion between the remote-
`controlled device and the remote controller, and according to the difference
`to output the driving control signal. Petitioner submits that the “difference
`of motion” is inherent in Smith because the target motion signal is the
`desired orientation and the comparison for the target motion signal
`necessarily involves calculating a difference with respect to the current
`orientation and the target orientation. Pet. 27. For the showing of
`inherency, Petitioner refers to the Declaration of Dr. D’Andrea and to
`Fouche. Id. at 27–28; Ex. 1010 ¶ 91; Ex. 1006, col. 7, ll. 36–42. Fouche
`discloses that, in the remote control of a model aircraft, pitch attitude error is
`the difference between a commanded pitch attitude and a measured (actual)
`pitch attitude error. Ex. 1006, col. 7, ll. 36–42.
`Patent Owner responds that Smith does not consider the “difference of
`motion” between the remote-controlled device and the remote controller.
`PO Resp. 9–12. Patent Owner argues that the Smith remote controller sends
`an “absolute direction” that is the sum of the orientation of the remote
`control transmitter relative to magnetic North and the orientation of the
`joystick shaft relative to the remote control transmitter. Id. at 10.
`Smith discloses:
`
`15
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`The user selects a desired direction (D) with the joystick
`shaft 26j [Fig. 2b] (“selected direction”) while simultaneously
`depressing either the forward 28 [Fig. 3] or reverse switch 32.
`The absolute direction (“absolute” meaning relative to magnetic
`North) corresponding to the selected direction is obtained by
`summing the orientation of the remote control transmitter 100
`relative to magnetic north with the orientation of the shaft 26j
`relative to the remote control transmitter 100. For example, if
`the user moves the joystick shaft 26j so that it is oriented 90°
`relative to the remote control transmitter 100 while holding the
`remote control transmitter 100 so that it is oriented 60° from
`North, the user has selected an absolute direction of 150°
`relative to North. A direction control signal containing
`information about the absolute direction relative to magnetic
`North can then be provided to an ordinary radio transmitter 36
`via line 34 and then transmitted over antenna 38 to the car 200.
`
`Ex. 1002, col. 5, ll. 14– 31 (emphasis added).
`Patent Owner acknowledges that we have construed the claim 4
`phrase “difference of motion,” in accordance with its broadest reasonable
`interpretation, as meaning “relative motion.” PO Resp. 9; Dec. on Inst. 9–
`10; § II.A.2 supra. But because after the summation in Smith the orientation
`of the remote controller is “no longer relevant” and not included in the signal
`being transmitted, Patent Owner submits that Smith cannot disclose a
`comparison of the target motion signal with the remote-controlled device’s
`motion to get the “relative motion.” PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2013 (Sturges
`Decl.) ¶¶ 40–44).
`
`As explained by another of Patent Owner’s Declarants:
`Consider two users – back to back – one facing due east and
`one facing due west. Each user wants his car to turn north. The
`user facing east would move his joystick to the left (North).
`The user facing west would move his joystick to the right (also
`
`16
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`North). The direction control signal sent from both remote
`controllers would be the same – namely, 0° (i.e., magnetic
`North). Even though the orientations of the users’ remote
`controllers were directly opposite, under the invention disclosed
`in my Patent, the exact same direction control signal would be
`sent by the remote controllers to the remote-controlled cars
`because the orientations of the joysticks relative to magnetic
`North would be the same.
`
`PO Resp. 11 (quoting Ex. 2014 (Smith Decl.) ¶ 17).
`Petitioner in its Reply acknowledges, as does Patent Owner, that we
`construe “difference of motion” in claim 4 as relative motion. Pet. Reply 5–
`6. Petitioner in its Reply does not, however, provide a persuasive
`explanation with respect to how the signal sent by the remote controller in
`Smith, or its “target motion signal” in the terms of claim 4, may contribute
`to getting the relative motion between the remote controller and the remote-
`controlled device.2 Petitioner submits that “[i]t bears noting, moreover, that
`the ‘target motion signal’ (STAR3) of Fig. 5 of the ’071 Patent, also is a
`combination of the remote-controller’s measured orientation and the angle of
`the joystick, just as in Smith. Ex. 1001, 6:39-51. In that embodiment, it is
`‘STAR3’ that is used to calculate the ‘difference of motion.’” Pet. Reply. 7.
`Petitioner refers to no evidence of record, however, to establish that this
`“third operation mode” described by the ’071 patent necessarily sends, as in
`Smith, a target motion signal that is the summation of the terrestrial
`magnetism signal and the orientation of the joystick relative to the remote
`
`
`2 Although we did not institute trial on the alternative ground that claim 4
`would have been obvious over Smith and Fouche (or the knowledge of a
`person of ordinary skill in the art) (Pet. 29), the alternative ground for
`obviousness would suffer from the same deficiency as the anticipation
`ground.
`
`17
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`controller. Although attorney arguments are helpful when directing us to
`evidence in the record, the arguments themselves do not constitute evidence.
`Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See,
`e.g., Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977); In re Pearson,
`494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).
`In consideration of the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner has not
`demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 4 is
`unpatentable as anticipated by Smith.
`
`E. Obviousness over Smith and Barr — Claims 6 and 7
`Petitioner contends that the combination of Smith and Barr renders
`obvious the subject matter of claims 6 and 7. The claims add further
`limitations to claim 1 regarding a driving unit that receives the driving
`control signal and adjusts the pitch of an airplane wing. Barr describes a
`radio-controlled flight system that includes aircraft 30 (Ex. 1005, Fig. 1) that
`receives signals fed through flight control circuitry in order to control set of
`ailerons 35A, 35B, rudder 40, and elevator 45. Id. at col. 4, ll. 18–26, Fig. 2;
`Pet. 29–30.
`Petitioner submits there is express suggestion in Smith to combine its
`teachings with the wing of the aircraft disclosed in Barr. Pet. 30–31.
`Although Smith’s preferred embodiment is directed to remote control of a
`“small scale remotely controlled car” (Ex. 1002, col. 3, ll. 21–24), the
`reference teaches that remote-controlled hobby vehicle systems include
`planes, boats, and cars (id. at col. 1, ll. 18–21). Moreover, Smith teaches
`that “the present invention is adaptable to other hobby vehicles such as
`planes and boats.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 39–41.
`
`18
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner in its Response does not provide any separate
`arguments or evidence directed to the ground asserted against claims 6 and
`7. Upon review of the Petition and supporting evidence, as well as the
`Patent Owner Response and supporting evidence, we conclude Petitioner has
`demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 6 and 7 are
`unpatentable for obviousness over Smith and Barr.
`
`F. Obviousness over Smith and Fouche — Claims 8 and 9
`Petitioner contends that the subject matter of claims 8 and 9 would
`have been obvious over the combination of Smith and Fouche. The claims
`further limit the subject matter of claim 1 with respect to receiving the
`driving control signal and adjusting the rotation speed or pitch of a rotor of a
`helicopter. Fouche describes a remotely controlled helicopter with drivers
`for controlling the helicopter’s rotor. Ex. 1006, Figs. 2, 3, col. 7, ll. 53–56.
`Petitioner relies on Smith’s teachings with respect to hobby vehicles, in
`addition to its described embodiment of a car, as showing motivation to
`apply Smith’s control system to a remotely controlled helicopter as
`described by Fouche. Pet. 32–33. Smith refers to remote-controlled hobby
`vehicle systems “such as remote control planes, boats, cars, etc.” Ex. 1002,
`col. 1, ll. 19–21. Petitioner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`“would have been motivated to combine Smith with known art teaching
`drivers for the rotor of a helicopter to adjust speed or pitch of the rotor
`blades.” Ex. 1010 (D’Andrea Decl.) ¶ 105.
`Patent Owner in its Response does not provide any separate
`arguments or evidence directed to the ground asserted against claims 8 and
`9. Upon review of the Petition and supporting evidence, as well as the
`
`19
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00730
`Patent 7,584,071 B2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Response and supporting evidence, we conclude Petitioner has
`demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 8 and 9 are
`unpatentable for obviousness over Smith and Fouche.
`
`G. Obviousness over Smith, Spirov, Bathiche, and Shkolnikov
`
`1. Prior Art – Spirov, Bathiche, and Shkolnikov
`Spirov describes a remotely controlled hovercraft in which the remote
`controller may provide a thumb-activated throttle and yaw control 20 and
`one or more finger-operated trigger controls 22 and 24. Ex. 1007 ¶ 82,
`Fig. 3. The remote controller also may provide one-handed operation with
`pitch and roll control by mimicking the pitch and roll of controlled
`hovercraft 10 by means of XY axis transducers in the controller. Id. ¶ 87,
`Fig. 3.
`Bathiche teaches a computer input device that may be operated in a
`first mode whereby X and Y axis tilt sensors generate orientation
`information. Ex. 1008, col. 8, ll. 37–44. In a second mode, input is from
`switches rather than the X and Y tilt sensors. Id. at col. 8, ll. 48–55. A
`mode switch selects between the different modes. Id.
`Shkolnikov (Ex. 1009) teaches an active keyboard system for
`handheld electronic devices, such as remote controllers (id. ¶¶ 27, 87, 94),
`that may include first selector 216 and second selector 218 (id. at Fig. 2) to
`select between manual input and motion (via movement sensors) as an input.
`Id. ¶¶ 24–25. Shkolnikov also teaches that the motion input may be
`provided as an alternative or “in addition to” the manual input.