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 IPR2014-00732
`U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT H. STURGES, JR., PH.D., P.E. IN
`RESPONSE TO THE PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 8,106,748
`
`February 11, 2014
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________
`
`PARROT S.A. and PARROT, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`DRONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00732
`U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT H. STURGES, JR., PH.D., P.E. IN
`RESPONSE TO THE PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 8,106,748
`
`February 11, 2014
`
`
`
`Contents
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
`
`Qualifications................................................................................................ 2
`
`III. Materials Considered .................................................................................... 3
`
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards .............................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Field of the invention .......................................................................... 3
`
`Person having ordinary skill in the art ................................................. 4
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 4
`
`V.
`
`Overview of the Claimed Invention of the ‘748 Patent.................................. 5
`
`VI. Overview of the Asserted Prior Art ............................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`General comments on the cited prior art............................................ 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Spirov ..................................................................................... 10
`
`Shkolnikov .............................................................................. 13
`
`Rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 10-12 as obvious over
`Spirov, Bathiche, and Shkolnikov ..................................................... 14
`
`Rejection of claims 4, 8, and 9 as obvious over Spirov,
`Bathiche, Shkolnikov, and Fouche .................................................... 18
`
`Rejection of claims 6 and 7 as obvious over Spirov,
`Bathiche, Shkolnikov, and Barr ........................................................ 18
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`VII. Concluding remarks .................................................................................... 19
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`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.
`
`8,106,748 (“the ’748 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 the prior art cited, and
`
`invalidity arguments set forth, in (1) the “Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,106,748 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 ‘748 Patent (“D’Andrea Declaration”); and (3) the
`
`decision to institute inter partes review of the ‘748 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 ’748 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 might be referenced below.
`
`
`
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards
`
`A.
`
`Field of the invention
`
`10. The field of the invention for the ‘748 Patent relates to a remote-
`
`controlled motion apparatus that includes a remote-controlled device and a remote
`
`controller. ‘748 Patent, col. 1, lines 9-12, Ex. 2000. Described generally, the field
`
`of the invention for the ‘748 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.
`
`Ex. 1011, ¶¶20, 21. Chemical engineering has no part in this technology. For my
`
`understanding of the ‘748 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
`
`‘748 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. Overview of the Claimed Invention of the ‘748 Patent
`
`13. The ‘748 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
`
`remote-controlled device; and (iv) adjust the motion of the remote-controlled
`
`device based on that comparison. ‘748 Patent, col. 7, lines 24-29, Ex. 1001. The
`
`remote controller uses a set of accelerometers to generate a “target motion signal”
`
`(“STAR”). Id. at col. 3, lines 48-56. This target motion signal corresponds to the
`
`motion that the user intends the remote-controlled device to adopt. Id. at col. 3,
`
`lines 36-47. Using its own accelerometers, the remote-controlled device generates
`
`a signal corresponding to its actual motion (“SACC”). Id. at col. 4, lines 4-6. A
`
`processing module on the remote-controlled device compares the two motion
`
`signals to generate a driving signal (“SDRV”), id. at col. 4, lines 26-29, which is
`
`used to adjust the motion of the remote-controlled device to mimic the motion of
`
`the remote controller. Id. at col. 4, lines 30-37.
`
`14. Turning to the claimed invention, the twelve claims of the ‘748 Patent
`
`are directed to a remote control system, with claim 1 being the only independent
`
`claim. Claim 1 specifies that the remote controller includes four modules: 1) a first
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`acceleration sensing module; 2) a manual input module; 3) a first communication
`
`module; and a 4) configuration switch module. Id. at col. 7, line 41 – col. 8, line
`
`14. The first acceleration sensing module detects the remote controller’s motion
`
`and outputs a motion detecting signal (called “SACC” in the description). Id. at col.
`
`7, lines 43-45. The manual input module has at least one direction control unit
`
`that generates a direction control signal. Id. at col. 7, lines 46-47. The first
`
`communication module connects to both the first acceleration sensing module and
`
`the manual input module. Id. at col. 7, lines 48-53. The first communication
`
`module receives the motion detecting signal and the direction control signal and
`
`transmits a target motion signal (called “STAR” in the description) to the remote
`
`controlled device. Id. The configuration switch module selects input among the
`
`first acceleration sensing module, the manual input module, and a combination
`
`input of both of those modules. Id. at col. 7, lines 54-59.
`
`15. The remote-controlled device is also recited in claim 1 and is
`
`controlled by the remote controller. The remote-controlled device also includes
`
`four modules: 1) a second communication module; 2) a second acceleration
`
`sensing module; 3) a processing module; and 4) a driving module. Id. at col. 7, line
`
`59 – col. 8, line 14. The second communication module receives the target motion
`
`signal from the remote controller. Id. at col. 7, lines 62-63. The remote
`
`controller’s acceleration module detects the remote-controlled device’s
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`acceleration and outputs an acceleration sensing signal (called “SACC” in the
`
`description). Id. at col. 8, lines 1-3. The processing module receives two inputs:
`
`the first is the acceleration sensing signal (SACC) from the remote-controlled
`
`device’s acceleration sensing module and the second is the target motion signal
`
`(STAR) from the second communication module. Id. at col. 8, lines 4-10. The
`
`processing 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 11-14.
`
`16. Claim 2 specifies that the processing module of the remote-controlled
`
`device processes the acceleration sensing signal and compares it with the target
`
`motion signal. Id. at col. 8, lines 15-18. That comparison is used to generate the
`
`driving control signal. Id.
`
`17. Claim 3 states that the remote controlled device’s acceleration sensing
`
`module includes an accelerometer that detects the remote-controlled device’s
`
`acceleration. Id. at col. 8, lines 19-22.
`
`18. Claim 4 provides further limitations on the processing module of the
`
`remote-controlled device. The processing module uses the acceleration sensing
`
`signal to calculate the current motion of the remote-controlled device. Id. at col. 8,
`
`lines 23-29. That calculated result is used to compare with the target motion
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`signal to get the difference of motion between the remote controlled device and the
`
`remote controller. Id. I understand that the PTAB has preliminarily determined
`
`that “difference of motion” means “relative motion.” Paper No. 8, at 7-8.
`
`19. Claims 5-9 are tied to particular implementations, for example for a
`
`model helicopter, a model car, or a model airplane, or model robot. ‘748 Patent,
`
`col. 8, lines 30-50, Ex. 1001. Claim 10 specifies the nature of the radio signal
`
`transmission. Id. at col. 8, lines 51-54. Claim 11 provides specific examples of
`
`electronic components that could serve as the processing module of the remote-
`
`controlled device. Id. at col. 8, lines 55-58.
`
`20. Finally, Claim 12 specifies that the motion detecting signal (which is
`
`generated from the remote controller’s acceleration sensing module) “represents
`
`the information of the remote controller’s motion in the 3D space.” Id. at col. 8,
`
`lines 59-61. 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 12 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 12 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, a
`
`system needs to generate an abstraction of that motion, in other words a limited
`
`data set that captures the aspects of the motion that are relevant for the
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`computational problem at hand. This concept is common in the art of control
`
`systems and for control systems for flying vehicles in particular.
`
`21.
`
`In summary, the system as claimed in the ‘748 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.
`
`
`
`VI. Overview of the Asserted Prior Art
`
`22. The PTAB instituted the current IPR proceeding for the ‘748 Patent
`
`relying on the following prior art.
`
`• 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”).
`
`23. Relying on this prior art, the PTAB instituted the current IPR
`
`proceeding for the ‘748 Patent on the basis of the following rejections. Paper No.
`
`8, at 14.
`
`
`
`
`• Claims 1-3, 5, and 10-12 as obvious over Spirov, Bathiche, and
`Shkolnikov;
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• Claims 4, 8, and 9 as obvious over Spirov, Bathiche, Shkolnikov,
`and Fouche; and
`
`• Claims 6 and 7 as obvious over Spirov, Bathiche, Shkolnikov, and
`Barr.
`
`I note that the current IPR proceeding is limited to these grounds and
`
`24.
`
`no others. Paper No. 8, at 14.
`
`A. General comments on the cited prior art
`
`1.
`
`Spirov
`
`25. Spirov’s application is entitled “Homeostatic Flying Hovercraft,” and
`
`the application discloses a flying hovercraft that is stably controlled by a hand-held
`
`remote controller. Spirov, ¶¶25-26, Ex. 1005. While the disclosure is disjointed
`
`and somewhat confusing (as discussed below), the background of the invention (id.
`
`at ¶¶2-24) provides a clear picture of the motivation for the disclosed invention.
`
`26.
`
`“Flying saucers” differ from more conventional flying machines like
`
`airplanes and helicopters in how they accomplish lift. Through thrust, air flows
`
`over the wings of an airplane to achieve lift. For helicopters, the central rotor
`
`provides lift while the tail rotor stabilizes the vehicle. In contrast, flying hovercraft
`
`(such as toy flying saucers) commonly use ducted fans, instead of jets and rotors,
`
`to achieve lift and thrust. Id. at ¶5. Such systems, however, encounter stability
`
`problems; if the ducted fans become unbalanced, the flying device becomes very
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`difficult to control. Id. at ¶13. Spirov details various navigational reference
`
`systems to overcome this instability, but concludes that none of them is cost
`
`effective and appropriate for use in model hovercraft applications. Id. at ¶¶18-23.
`
`27. Spirov’s goal, then, was to provide a flying hovercraft that employed
`
`ducted fans to generate lift, while also being stable and easily controlled. Id. at ¶25.
`
`To achieve this stability, Spirov disclosed a homeostatic control system that
`
`“provides true homeostasis of the craft. . .” Id. This invention was claimed in
`
`claim 1.
`
`28. Generally, Spirov discloses a toy flying saucer controlled by a one-
`
`handed “bee” remote controller. Id. at ¶30. The toy flying saucer includes a
`
`homeostatic control system that is used to stabilize the toy flying saucer during
`
`operation. Id. at ¶28. It is this homeostatic control system that allows the toy
`
`flying saucer to fly stably, “to achieve homeostasis or self-stabilization.” Id. at ¶28.
`
`The homeostatic control system includes XYZ sensors that can keep the flying
`
`saucer at a desired orientation. Id. at ¶¶32, 72, 73. The flying saucer’s homeostatic
`
`control system is described further in paragraphs 76-81 and Figure 28-31. Id.
`
`29. Spirov’s system also includes a remote controller. The remote
`
`controller includes XY sensors (id. at ¶30) and a control stick that allows thumb
`
`control (id. at ¶70). The XY sensors are “XY axis transducers” that can capture the
`
`remote controller’s rotation in those two planes. Id. at ¶¶87, 95. The thumb control
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`stick is used to control thrust and yaw (orientation around the Z-axis). Id. at ¶82.
`
`The remote controller includes one or more finger-operated trigger controls (22
`
`and 24). Id. at ¶82. The finger-operated trigger controls are used to provide
`
`operational comments such as “fire laser” and “engage shields” when the device is
`
`used in game play. Id. at ¶93.
`
`30. The remote controller also includes a homeostatic control system that
`
`is used to sense an orientation of the remote controller desired by the user and to
`
`“determine an inertial gravitational reference for use in sensing the desired
`
`orientation.” Id. at ¶72.
`
`31. There is no indication, however, that Spirov’s system operates in two
`
`modes. For example, paragraph 93 of Spirov describes the operation onboard the
`
`hovercraft. Id. at ¶93. To implement commands from the remote controller, the
`
`flying saucer includes a “signal interpreter chip 70 [that] communicates with XY
`
`axis mercury tilt switch transducers 52, XYZ piezo gyros 56 and any other I/O
`
`devices 72.” Id. This demonstrates that the various control systems – XY tilt
`
`switch transducers and XYZ piezo gyros – work together during operation of the
`
`remote controller-hovercraft system. The simple disclosure of the various control
`
`systems (e.g., homeostatic control systems, XY tilt switches, and a control thumb
`
`stick) in Spirov does not demonstrate that these systems operate independently of
`
`one another in different modes. Further, Spirov does not disclose separate
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`embodiments where the systems operate independently. In short, Spirov’s system
`
`functions in only one mode of operation, with all systems engaged at all times.
`
`2.
`
`Shkolnikov
`
`32. The PTAB also employs Shkolnikov in its rejection of the claims of
`
`the ‘748 Patent. Paper No. 8, at 9-13. Shkolnikov is entitled, “Active Keyboard
`
`System for Handheld Electronic Devices” and is used for “handheld data entry.”
`
`Shkolnikov, ¶3, Ex. 1010. The system is used to receive input from a user as
`
`through a keyboard, single or multiple selectors (e.g., a joystick or trackball), or
`
`motion of the device. Id. at ¶¶20, 24, 25. Shkolnikov is used to enter
`
`alphanumeric text. Id. at ¶20. In a separate sense, Shkolnikov’s system can be
`
`used with a cell phone, personal digital assistant, global positioning receiving
`
`device, remote control, computer mouse, pager, walkie-talkie, scanner, or multi-
`
`meter. Id. at ¶¶27, 87, 94. I interpret these passages to mean that Shkolnikov’s
`
`system can be used as a remote control for controlling such things as a television or
`
`a computer where alphanumeric input may be useful – just as I can use my cell
`
`phone to control my cable box and search for programs to view.
`
`33. Nothing in Shkolnikov indicates that it can be used in controlling
`
`model vehicles. Indeed, the use of alphanumeric input during operation of a flying
`
`vehicle would be prohibitively complicated. For these reasons, I have never used
`
`an alphanumeric input device like Shkolnikov in my own research efforts with
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`control systems for moving vehicles. I cannot envision a circumstance where I
`
`would use such a reference in my own work.
`
`B. Rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 10-12 as obvious over Spirov,
`Bathiche, and Shkolnikov
`
`34. Spirov, either taken alone or in combination with Bathiche and
`
`Shkolnikov, does not render claims 1-3, 5, and 10-12 obvious.
`
`35. As I discussed above, Spirov does not disclose a system that operates
`
`in separate modes, let alone a mode switching mechanism used during operation.
`
`In their petition, Petitioners state that the hovercraft taught by Spirov could be
`
`operated in either of two modes, citing to D’Andrea Decl. (Ex. 1011) at ¶47.
`
`D’Andrea, in turn, cites to paragraphs 72-78 of Spirov as support for the idea that
`
`Spirov operates in two modes. Petitioners and Dr. D’Andrea are incorrect.
`
`36. Paragraph 72 discusses the “hand-held bee [remote] controller,”
`
`including a homeostatic control system for determining “an inertial gravitational
`
`reference for use in sensing the desired orientation.” Spirov, ¶72, Ex. 1005.
`
`Whereas paragraphs 73-80 of Spirov unequivocally describe the homeostatic
`
`control systems in the flying saucer. For example, paragraph 73 begins by stating
`
`that the “[radio controlled] aircraft includes at least one motor . . . A homeostatic
`
`control system is operably connected to the at least one motor. . .” Id. at ¶73
`
`(emphasis added). Paragraphs 74 and 75 discuss the ducted fan assembly that is
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`part of the flying saucer. Id. at ¶74-75. Paragraph 76 describes the homeostatic
`
`control system that is operably connected to the thrusters. Id. at ¶76. Clearly,
`
`there are no thrusters on the remote controller, so that paragraph describes the
`
`homeostatic control system of the flying saucer. That discussion continues into
`
`paragraphs 77, 78, 79, and 80. Id. at ¶¶77-80. Instead of two modes of operation,
`
`those sections simply describe the control systems that are employed by the
`
`various components of Spirov’s system.
`
`37. Petitioners and Dr. D’Andrea assert that Spirov “inherently” discloses
`
`a configuration switch to switch between the alleged two modes of operation
`
`disclosed in Spirov. Paper No. 1, at 21; D’Andrea Decl., ¶¶78, Ex. 1011. This is
`
`incorrect. This paragraph continues the discussion of the flying saucer’s control
`
`systems. No disclosure in Spirov supports the idea that it operates in multiple
`
`modes. Further, as I understand the legal concept, to establish “inherency,” the
`
`reference must always operate in that way. Inherency cannot be established
`
`through probabilities or possibilities. With that context, there is no inherent
`
`disclosure of a switch in Spirov. Indeed, Spirov does not disclose different
`
`embodiments operating in different modes, or even a single embodiment operating
`
`in multiple modes. Without such a disclosure, there is no implicit motivation to
`
`include a switch – there are no multiple configurations, embodiments, or modes to
`
`switch between.
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`38. Petitioners and Dr. D’Andrea say that Spirov operates in two modes.
`
`They specifically assert that “Spirov describes two configurations each
`
`implemented using the same remote controller.” Paper No. 1, at 20; D’Andrea
`
`Decl., ¶¶77, Ex. 1011. That assertion is demonstrably incorrect. As I will discuss,
`
`Spirov describes two separate components of its system – not two configurations.
`
`Figure 29 of Spirov (below) shows X and Y accelerometers (left stack of boxes),
`
`the thumb control stick (central box entitled “yaw”), and XYZ gyros all feeding
`
`their signals into the same multiplexer (“MUX”) and analog-to-digital converter
`
`(“12 bit A/D”). Spirov at Fig. 29, Ex. 1005. Thus, the system operates using all of
`
`that input.
`
`39.
`
`If the system were designed to switch modes, the block diagram
`
`would include additional components that would enable switching of input. Since
`
`those components are lacking from Figure 29, I conclude that Spirov’s system does
`
`
`
`not switch modes.
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`40.
`
`In support for their flawed assertion, Petitioners and Dr. D’Andrea
`
`cite to paragraphs 77 and 87 of Spirov. Paper No. 1, at 20; D’Andrea Decl. at ¶77,
`
`Ex. 1011. As I discuss above, paragraph 77 describes the system for the flying
`
`saucer, whereas paragraph 87 describes the system for the remote controller.
`
`Spirov at ¶¶77, 87, Ex. 1005.
`
`41. Petitioners’ and Dr. D’Andrea repeat such errors numerous times. For
`
`example, Petitioners and Dr. D’Andrea cite to Figure 28 and paragraph 63 of
`
`Spirov as disclosing “a first acceleration module” of the remote controller from
`
`claim 1. Claim chart at 1-3, Ex. 1012. Petitioners and Dr. D’Andrea cite to the
`
`very same disclosure for the “second acceleration sensing module” of the remote-
`
`controlled vehicle of claim 1. Id. at 9-10. Petitioners present the same flawed
`
`analysis in the Petition (Paper No. 1, at 27, 34). Petitioners’ and Dr. D’Andrea’s
`
`repeated misattribution of systems of the flying saucer to the remote controller
`
`demonstrate, at best, a fundamental misunderstanding of Spirov.
`
`42. Returning to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 10-12, the wholly
`
`inadequate nature of the rejection becomes clear. Spirov discloses one mode of
`
`operation, so there is no implicit or explicit motivation to add a configuration
`
`switch to its system. Accordingly, there would be no reason to modify Spirov by
`
`combining it with Shkolnikov or Bathiche. The mode or configuration switches
`
`disclosed by Shkolnikov and Bathiche would not find any application in Spirov’s
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`disclosure. To combine Shkolnikov, Bathiche, and Spirov to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention would not be a modification of Spirov. It simply would not work.
`
`Further, one of skill in the art would not utilize Shkolnikov to modify Spirov,
`
`because Shkolnikov is a system for entering alphanumeric text – input that would
`
`not be useful for operation of a remote-controlled motion apparatus as disclosed
`
`and claimed in the ‘748 Patent. For all of these reasons, the rejection of claims 1-
`
`3, 5, and 1-12 fails.
`
`C. Rejection of claims 4, 8, and 9 as obvious over Spirov, Bathiche,
`Shkolnikov, and Fouche
`
`43. This rejection relies on the defective citations and analysis provided
`
`by Petitioners and Dr. D’Andrea, as I discussed above. Fouche is cited for the
`
`claim limitation of calculating a difference by subtraction (claim 4) and for
`
`helicopter-specific attributes (claims 8 and 9). Paper No. 1, at 41-43. Thus,
`
`Fouche has no application to, and does not resolve, any of the significant issues I
`
`described above. This rejection fails for the same reasons that I articulated above,
`
`i.e., Spirov does not disclose multiple configurations or modes of operation.
`
`D. Rejection of claims 6 and 7 as obvious over Spirov, Bathiche,
`Shkolnikov, and Barr
`
`44. This rejection relies on the faulty analysis provided by Petitioners and
`
`Dr. D’Andrea that I discussed above. Barr is cited for airplane-specific attributes
`
`recited in claims 6 and 7. Paper No. 1, at 43-45. Thus, Barr does not resolve any
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`of the issues I raised above. This rejection fails for the same reasons, i.e., Spirov
`
`does not disclose multiple configurations or modes of operation.
`
`VII. Concluding remarks
`
`45.
`
`In conclusion, the rejection of the claims of the ‘748 Patent are
`
`inappropriate. The defective citations and analysis provided by Petitioners and Dr.
`
`D’Andrea are inaccurate in view of what Spirov actually discloses.
`
`It is my
`
`opinion that the cited prior art does not, indeed cannot, render claims 1-12 of the
`
`‘748 Patent invalid as obvious.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed this I ({iday of February, 2015, in M3? Mt???Virginia.
`
`.
`
`.' \
`
`If),
`
`.
`
`0
`
`z
`
`\
`
`‘
`
`
`
`
`
`Robert H. Sturges, Jr.,U'Ph.D., P.E.
`
`-19-
`
`
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
