`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: January 8, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PARROT S.A. and PARROT, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DRONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00732
`Patent 8,106,748 B2
`____________
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
`CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`Parrot S.A. and Parrot, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Request
`for Rehearing (Paper 30, “Request” or “Req. Reh’g”) of the Board’s Final
`Written Decision entered October 20, 2015 (Paper 29, “Decision”). The
`requirements for a rehearing are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which
`provides in relevant part:
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00732
`Patent 8,106,748 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for
`rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The
`burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the
`party challenging the decision. The request must specifically
`identify
`all matters
`the party believes
`the Board
`misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each
`matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or
`a reply.
`
`In our Decision we found that Petitioner had not met its burden in
`showing that Shkolnikov1 is analogous art. Decision 8–13. In its Request
`Petitioner presents numerous new arguments in an effort to show that
`Shkolnikov is analogous art, with the arguments including citations to
`previously uncited portions of the reference and to previously uncited
`testimony. We need not determine whether the new arguments would have
`been timely if presented in Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 18) to the Patent Owner
`Response, because they were not. The new arguments are, manifestly, not
`timely in a request for rehearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). We could
`not have misapprehended or overlooked arguments that were not presented.
`In our Decision we addressed Petitioner’s arguments in support of
`analogous art that Petitioner presented in its Reply (Paper 18). Decision 10–
`11. Petitioner in its Reply did not refer to the Petition (Paper 1) as
`containing any allegation that Shkolnikov is analogous art. See Paper 18, 6.
`In its Request, the only citation to the Petition that might be relevant to the
`question of analogous art is the statement that “[f]irst, Shkolnikov is in the
`same field as the ’748 Patent: remote controls. Paper 1, 22, 24.” Req. Reh’g
`5. We find no indication, however, at the cited pages of the Petition that the
`“field” of the ’748 patent is “remote controls.” Moreover, on the next page
`
`1 US 2004/0263479 A1 (Ex. 1010).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00732
`Patent 8,106,748 B2
`
`
`
`of the Request, Petitioner submits that Petitioner’s expert explained that “the
`relevant art is that of ‘control systems.’” Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 20–21).
`Because Petitioner has not shown where the Petition addressed the issue of
`why Shkolnikov might be considered analogous art, we reject the notion that
`we “incorrectly allocated the burden of production, effectively requiring
`Petitioner to meet its burden twice: once in its petition requesting IPR, and a
`second time on reply after the Patent Owner has filed its response.” Id. at
`12.
`
`Finally, Petitioner submits that we overlooked or failed to address so-
`called independent grounds asserted against the claims that did not rely on
`the teachings of Shkolnikov. Id. at 13–14. We did, however, address any
`such “independent grounds” in the Decision, as quoted from the Decision by
`Petitioner in its Request. “The Board’s decision states that ‘Shkolnikov is
`critical to the asserted ground of unpatentability because that reference
`provides the teaching of three modes of operation, including “the
`combination of the first acceleration sensing module and the manual input
`module,” as recited in illustrative claim 1.’” Id. at 13 (quoting Decision 13).
`Moreover, Shkolnikov was included in all grounds of unpatentability for
`which inter partes review was instituted. See Paper 8, 14. Petitioner was,
`thus, provided notice that Patent Owner’s challenge with respect to the
`application of Shkolnikov as prior art could be determinative as to each
`challenged claim.
`Petitioner’s request for rehearing is denied.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00732
`Patent 8,106,748 B2
`
`For Petitioner:
`James E. Hopenfeld
`hopenfeld@oshaliang.com
`
`Tammy J. Terry
`terry@oshaliang.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`Gene A. Tabachnick
`gtabachnick@beckthomas.com
`
`James G. Dilmore
`jdilmore@beckthomas.com
`
`
`4
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
