IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Parrot S.A. and Parrot, Inc.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`Drone Technologies, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`Filed: March 19, 2008
`Issued: Jan. 31, 2012
`Inventor: Yu-Tuan Lee
`Assignee: Drone Technologies, Inc.
`Title: Remote-Controlled Motion Apparatus With Acceleration Self-Sense And
`Remote Control Apparatus Therefor
`
`Inter Partes Review No. _____________
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`
`
`
`Parrot – Ex.1011
`
`

`

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

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Engagement .......................................................................................... 1
`
`Background And Qualifications .......................................................... 1
`
`Compensation and Prior Testimony .................................................... 2
`
`D.
`Information Considered ....................................................................... 3
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY .......................................... 3
`
`II.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Prior Art ........................................................................................ 4
`
`The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ............................................ 5
`
`C. Obviousness ......................................................................................... 6
`
`D.
`The State of the Art – Description of Background Technology ........11
`III. THE ’748 PATENT .......................................................................................15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Technical Overview Of The ’748 Patent ...........................................15
`
`The Claims of the ’748 patent............................................................19
`
`Prosecution History Of The ’748 Patent ............................................20
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................21
`
`Patentability Analysis of the ’748 Patent ...........................................22
`
`1.
`
`Discussion of Relevant Patents and Publications ....................22
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2006/0144994
`(“Spirov”) ......................................................................22
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,219,861 (“Barr”) ..............................23
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,751,529 (“Fouche”) ..........................23
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,145,551 (“Bathiche”) .......................24
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0263479
`(“Shkolnikov”) ..............................................................24
`
`2.
`
`The obviousness of the claimed invention ..............................24
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 5, 11 and 12 are obvious over Spirov in
`view of Bathiche and/or Shkolnikov ............................26
`
`Claim 2 is obvious over Spirov in view of Bathiche
`and/or Shkolnikov .........................................................31
`
`c.
`
`Claim 4 is obvious over Spirov in view of Bathiche
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`iii
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`and/or Shkolnikov and/or Fouche .................................32
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Claims 6 and 7 are obvious over Spirov in view of
`Shkolnikov and/or Bathiche and Barr ...........................33
`
`Claims 8 and 9 are obvious over Spirov in view of
`Shkolnikov and/or Bathiche and Fouche ......................35
`
`f.
`
`Claim 10 is obvious over Spirov in view of Bathiche
`and/or Shkolnikov and the knowledge of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art ..................................................36
`IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................38
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`iv
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`TABLE OF APPENDICES
`
`Appendix A:
`
`List of Materials Considered
`
`Appendix B:
`
`Curriculum Vitae
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`v
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Engagement
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Parrot S.A. and Parrot, Inc., as an
`
`expert witness in the above-captioned proceeding. I have been asked to render an
`
`opinion regarding the obviousness of claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`
`(“the ’748 patent”), which is submitted concurrently with Parrot’s Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review as Petition Exhibit 10011. This declaration includes my
`
`observations, conclusions, and opinions on those topics.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`Background And Qualifications
`
`I am currently a professor of dynamic systems and control at ETH
`
`Zürich, one of the two Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology. My experience
`
`includes teaching and research in the field of dynamic systems and control at both
`
`the graduate and undergraduate level. I also have worked in the fields of systems
`
`architecture, robot design, navigation and coordination and control algorithms,
`
`including as a co-founder (2003-07) and chief technical advisor (2008-12) at Kiva
`
`Systems, now owned by Amazon.com. I also was an assistant and associate
`
`1
`
`
` In this declaration, citations to “Pet. Ex. [No.]” refer to exhibits to Parrot’s
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748. Citations to
`“Att. [A, B, C, etc.]” refer to documents attached to this declaration that are not
`cited as exhibits in Parrot’s Inter Partes Review Petition of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,106,748.
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`1
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Cornell University from
`
`1997-2007.
`
`3.
`
`I have a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the California Institute of
`
`Technology, which I received in 1997. I also received a masters of electrical
`
`engineering from the California Institute of Technology in 1992. I received my
`
`B.S. in engineering science from the University of Toronto in 1991.
`
`4.
`
`I have received numerous awards and honors. I have published over
`
`180 papers in the field of engineering, most relating to dynamic systems and
`
`control. My honors, awards, publications and additional information about my
`
`experience and qualifications are set forth in detail in my curriculum vitae,
`
`attached to this declaration as Appendix B.
`
`C. Compensation and Prior Testimony
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of 750 CHF per hour for my study
`
`and testimony in this matter. I also am being reimbursed for reasonable and
`
`customary expenses associated with my work and testimony in this investigation.
`
`My compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics
`
`of my testimony.
`
`6.
`
`During the previous four years, I have not testified as an expert in any
`
`litigation matters.
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`2
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`D.
`
`Information Considered
`
`7. My opinions are based on my years of education, research, and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials referred to herein or listed in
`
`Appendix A.
`
`8.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to rebut
`
`arguments raised by the patentee. Further, I may also consider additional
`
`documents and information in forming any necessary opinions – including
`
`documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`9. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This report
`
`presents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`
`10.
`
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`claims of the ’748 patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that
`
`counsel has explained to me.
`
`11. First, I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be
`
`found patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious in light of
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`3
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`what came before it. That which came before an invention is generally referred to
`
`as “prior art.”
`
`12.
`
`I understand that a party asserting that a patent is unpatentable in an
`
`Inter Partes review proceeding has the burden to prove invalidity by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a preponderance of the
`
`evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more likely than not.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that in an Inter Partes review proceeding, terms within a
`
`patent claim that do not have a plain and ordinary meaning in the English language
`
`must be construed so that they are given their broadest reasonable interpretations
`
`consistent with the patent’s specification before a comparison can be made to
`
`information in the prior art.
`
`A. The Prior Art
`
`14.
`
`I understand that the information that may be evaluated in this
`
`proceeding is limited to prior art that consists of patents and/or printed
`
`publications.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that prior art includes technical references, such as
`
`patents, patent applications, technical papers, and other publications that either are
`
`public or in some circumstances caused to be made public prior to the date the
`
`alleged invention of the ’748 patent was made. I further understand that the prior
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`4
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`art includes that which was known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time the alleged invention of the ’748 patent was made.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the ’748 patent issued from an application
`
`(No. 12/051,683) filed on March 19, 2008, and claims foreign priority to a Taiwan
`
`application filed on March 23, 2007. Pet. Ex. 1001. Accordingly, I have used
`
`March 23, 2007 as the “date the invention was made” in my analyses. A reference
`
`qualities as prior art if dated on or before March 23, 2007.
`
`17.
`
`I am using this date for analysis based on the assumption that there is
`
`a proper claim to priority within the chain of continuation application to which the
`
`’748 patent claims benefit. If this assumption is incorrect, then my analyses may
`
`change.
`
`18.
`
`I have been provided with, and have reviewed, publications which I
`
`understand to be prior art. Those publications include those listed in Appendix A.
`
`B.
`
`19.
`
`The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`I have been informed that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`art” is a hypothetical person considered to have the normal skills and knowledge in
`
`a particular technical field, without being a genius. This person is one to whom an
`
`expert in the relevant field could assign a routine task with reasonable confidence
`
`that the task would be successfully carried out.
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`5
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`20.
`
`I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the
`
`’748 patent would be someone who was familiar with control systems. Relevant
`
`literature on control systems would have included books such as “Modern Control
`
`Engineering” by Katsuhiko Ogata.
`
`21. The person of ordinary skill in the art may have had an undergraduate
`
`degree in an engineering discipline such as mechanical, electrical, or chemical
`
`engineering and would have had two to three years of experience designing and
`
`implementing control systems.
`
`22. Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. I have supervised and directed
`
`many such persons over the course of my career. Further, I had those capabilities
`
`myself as of the priority date for the ’748 patent (March 23, 2007).
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time
`
`the invention was made.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious. I have applied these standards in my
`
`evaluation of whether claims 1-12 of the ’748 patent would have been considered
`
`obvious at the time of the invention.
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`6
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`25.
`
`I understand that a claim in a patent is obvious when the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains, at the time the invention was
`
`made.
`
`26.
`
`I also understand that the relevant inquiry into obviousness requires
`
`consideration of four factors (although not necessarily in the following order):
`
`a. The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`b. The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`c. The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art;
`
`and,
`
`d. Whatever objective factors
`
`indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may be present in any particular case.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that obviousness may be shown by combining two or
`
`more items of prior art. I understand that elements missing from a prior art
`
`document may be supplied by the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art at the relevant time.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be done in
`
`hindsight, but should be done through the eyes of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art at the time the invention claimed in the subject patent was “made,”
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`7
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`which for the ’748 patent is the earliest priority date to which the ’748 patent
`
`claims benefit (i.e., March 23, 2007).
`
`29.
`
`I understand that, when combining references, there must be some
`
`reason in the prior art for the combination, along with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success that the combination would work for purposes of the alleged invention. I
`
`understand that a reason to combine may include a suggestion, motivation, or
`
`teaching to combine, though these are not formally required. It is my
`
`understanding that any motivation that would have been known to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, including common sense, or derived from the nature of the
`
`problem to be solved, is sufficient to explain why references would have been
`
`combined.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that sometimes it will be necessary to look to interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
`
`community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. I understand that all these
`
`factors may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that a reason to combine references may be found
`
`expressly in the prior art references themselves, or it may come from knowledge
`
`by those skilled in the art that certain prior art references, or disclosures in those
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`8
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`references, are known to be of special interest or importance in the particular field.
`
`I further understand that a reason to combine may also come from the nature of the
`
`problem to be solved, leading inventors to look to references relating to possible
`
`solutions to that problem.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that the prior art considered can be directed to any need
`
`or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention and can
`
`provide a reason for combining the elements of the prior art in the manner claimed.
`
`In other words, the prior art does not need to be directed towards solving the same
`
`problem that is addressed in the patent. Further, the individual prior art references
`
`themselves need not all be directed towards solving the same problem.
`
`33.
`
`I further understand that in many fields, including the field of remote
`
`controlled systems, it may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or
`
`combination, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than
`
`scientific literature or knowledge, will drive design trends. When there is such a
`
`design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to
`
`pursue the known options within their technical grasp. If this leads to the
`
`anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill
`
`and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try
`
`might show that it was obvious. The fact that a particular combination of prior art
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`9
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious even
`
`if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try
`
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it
`
`is likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that an invention that might be considered an obvious
`
`variation on, or modification of, the prior art may nonetheless be considered non-
`
`obvious if one or more prior art references discourage or lead away from the line of
`
`inquiry disclosed in the reference(s). A reference does not “teach away” from an
`
`invention simply because the reference suggests that another embodiment of the
`
`invention is optimal or preferred. My understanding is that the doctrine of
`
`“teaching away” requires some clear discouragement of that combination in the
`
`prior art – such as expressly stated reasons why one should not make the claimed
`
`combination or invention.
`
`35.
`
`I understand the objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may include: commercial success of products covered by the patent
`
`claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by others to make the
`
`invention; copying of the invention by others in the field; unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by the infringer or others in the
`
`field; the taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`10
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee
`
`proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`36.
`
`I am not aware of any objective factors supporting the non-
`
`obviousness of any claim of the ’748 patent. Accordingly, I did not include any
`
`objective factors in my analysis. My analysis may change if I am provided
`
`evidence of such factors, either supporting or refuting non-obviousness.
`
`D. The State of the Art – Description of Background Technology
`
`37. The ’748 patent is directed to a remote control system for remotely
`
`controlled devices. Pet. Ex. 1001 at Abstract2.
`
`38. Hand-held remote controlled devices have existed for decades. For
`
`example, more than 100 years ago Nikola Tesla demonstrated a remote control
`
`boat at a public exhibition and was granted U.S. Patent No. 613,809 (“Tesla”,
`
`Att. A) for this invention. Remotely controlled devices typically have included
`
`model or toy cars, boats, and airplanes.
`
`39.
`
`In early embodiments of remotely controlled devices, the remote
`
`control was connected by wire to the remotely controlled device. See, e.g.,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,101,569 (“Giardina”, Att. B) (airplane toy). By approximately
`
`
`
`2
`
` In this declaration, citations to “Pet. Ex. [No.]” refer to exhibits to Parrot’s
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748. Citations to
`“Att. [A, B, C, etc.]” refer to documents attached to this declaration that are not
`cited as exhibits in the Parrot’s petition.
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`11
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`the late 1990’s to early 2000’s, the cost and size of components required for
`
`wireless control of remote devices had reduced, and wireless control had become
`
`commonplace.
`
`40. At first, remote controls deployed manual input devices such as
`
`joysticks, trackballs, triggers, pushbuttons, and the like, in various combinations, to
`
`allow the user to control the movement and actions of a remotely controlled
`
`device. U.S. patent no. 7,219,861 (“Barr”, Pet. Ex. 1007), discloses, for example,
`
`an airplane remotely controlled by joysticks and buttons.
`
`41. As remotely controlled devices became more common, more
`
`sophisticated control systems were developed. These included control systems in
`
`which both the remote controller and the remote controlled device included some
`
`means to detect their motion in space.
`
`42. To accomplish sensed-motion control, the sensed motion of the
`
`remote controller was translated into an instruction, which was transmitted
`
`wirelessly to the remote controlled device, which then used that instruction to
`
`perform some action.
`
`43. An early example of a sensed-motion controlled device is described in
`
`U.S. patent no. 5,043,646 (“Smith”, Pet. Ex. 1002), which
`
`issued on
`
`August 27, 1991. Smith discloses a remotely controlled hobby vehicle. Both the
`
`remote control and the hobby vehicle include magnetometers (flux gate
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`12
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`compasses) to sense the orientation of both the remote and the vehicle. By sensing
`
`the orientation of the remote control and sending a wireless signal to the hobby
`
`vehicle, which in turn senses its current orientation, the motion of the vehicle is
`
`controlled. This allows the user to give absolute direction commands regardless of
`
`the orientation or position of the user. See Pet. Ex. 1002 at 3:51-60.
`
`44. Sensed motion-control supplemented manual (e.g. joystick) control
`
`and became commonplace. See, for example, French Patent No. 9901683
`
`(“Potiron”, Pet. Ex. 1003 and English Translation Pet. Ex. 1004) (sensed motion
`
`control of boat); and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0144994 (“Spirov”,
`
`Pet. Ex. 1005) (sensed motion control of flying hovercraft).
`
`45. An object in three-dimensional space has six degrees of freedom:
`
`three translational components and three rotational components. Translational
`
`motion is often referred to as motion along the X, Y, and Z axes (back and forth,
`
`left and right, up and down), while rotational motion can be described by roll,
`
`pitch, and yaw (rotations about the X, Y, and Z axes, respectively). By the mid-
`
`2000s, remote controllers included the ability to detect motion in three dimensions
`
`and translate that movement into instructions that could be used to control a
`
`computer or, in the case of the video game industry, a computer display. The
`
`Nintendo Wii, which included this capability, was introduced in 2006.
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`13
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`46. U.S. Patent No. 8,072,417 (“Jouanet”, Att. C) (which I understand is
`
`the U.S. National Phase application of PCT
`
`International Application
`
`No. PCT/FR2005/002623, which published as International Publication No. WO
`
`2006/045934 (“the ’934 Publication”)) describes a remote controller capable of
`
`sensing and directing movement of a remote vehicle in three dimensions. To
`
`accomplish sensing motion in three dimensions, including roll, pitch, and yaw,
`
`Jouanet (and, thus, the ’934 Publication) teaches the use of a combination of three
`
`accelerometers and three magnetometers. Att. C at 5:26-45; Fig. 2. Jouanet (and,
`
`thus, the ’934 Publication) further teaches that three-dimensional sensing could be
`
`used to control a remotely controlled aircraft, such as a drone. Att. C at 25:40-41;
`
`Fig. 20.
`
`47. Spirov describes the remote control of a flying hovercraft. Both the
`
`remote controller and the hovercraft include accelerometers to detect their motion
`
`in space. The remote controller further has buttons and a joystick for manual
`
`control. The hovercraft could be operated in either of two modes. In the first
`
`mode, control is accomplished by using the accelerometers and other sensors in the
`
`remote control to sense motion of the remote control (roll, pitch, and yaw), sending
`
`a signal to the hovercraft to move based on the sensed motion, the hovercraft
`
`receiving the signal and using its accelerometers to detect its own motion, and
`
`using the signal to move in accordance with the instructions sent by the remote
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`14
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`control. In the second mode, control is accomplished by a combination of sensed
`
`motion of the remote and manipulation of the joystick or other controls on the
`
`remote. Pet. Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 0072-0078.
`
`48. Remote controllers and their remotely controlled devices often operate
`
`in multiple modes of operation. To choose among multiple modes of operation for
`
`a single device, a switch must be deployed. Such switches have long been
`
`deployed in the art.
`
` See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 7,145,551 (“Bathiche”,
`
`Pet. Ex. 1009) (video game controller including configuration or mode switch to
`
`switch between sensed orientation based control and joystick control) and U.S.
`
`Patent Publication No. 2004/0263479 (“Shkolnikov”, Pet. Ex. 1010) (device,
`
`including remote control device, configured to use sensed movement of the remote
`
`control, manual control, or both).
`
`III. THE ’748 PATENT
`
`A. Technical Overview Of The ’748 Patent
`
`49. The ’748 patent generally describes a remote-controlled motion
`
`device, such as an airplane or helicopter, and its remote controller. The claimed
`
`remote controller has a motion detecting module that detects the motion of the
`
`controller and a communication module that communicate with the remote
`
`controlled device. The remote controlled device has a communication module to
`
`communicate with the remote control, a sensor module that detects acceleration, a
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`15
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`processing module connected to the communication and acceleration sensing
`
`modules, and a driving module connected to the processing module.
`
`50. The ’748 patent does not explain the structure or operation of the
`
`acceleration sensing module in either the remote controller or remote-controlled
`
`device. The ’748 patent states only that the module would include an
`
`accelerometer for detecting acceleration in the “X, Y, and Z” axes (Pet. Ex. 1001 at
`
`3:48-50), and can detect a change in acceleration due to the “motion” of the remote
`
`controlled device. Pet. Ex. 1001 at 4:4-9. The ’748 patent does not specify what
`
`“motion” of the remote would be sensed. The patent further states that the sensed
`
`motion in these three axes can be used to generate a three-dimensional target
`
`motion signal. Pet. Ex. 1001 at 3:57-4:3.
`
`51. Accelerometers are incapable, by themselves, of detecting all motion
`
`in three dimensional space, because there are only three possible measurements
`
`(accelerations along the X, Y, and Z axes) but there are six degrees of freedom
`
`(three translational and three rotational). In addition, they cannot distinguish
`
`between acceleration due to Earth’s gravity and acceleration due to changes in
`
`translational velocity over time. As a result, accelerometers can sense acceleration
`
`solely due to gravity only when the object is not accelerating due to translation.
`
`Because of these limitations, accelerometers cannot, by themselves, be used to
`
`detect yaw, or motion around the Z axis of the earth. As an object is rotated about
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`16
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`the Z-axis of the earth, accelerometers cannot distinguish one position from
`
`another. Moreover, accelerometers cannot be used to detect roll and pitch (motion
`
`about the X and Y axes of the Earth) unless the object is not accelerating along the
`
`X and Y axes of the Earth.
`
`52.
`
`In addition, because accelerometers cannot distinguish between the
`
`two types of acceleration (gravity and translational), an infinite number of different
`
`motions in space can give the same reading in an accelerometer. An accelerometer
`
`in a remote control and a remotely controlled device could give identical readings
`
`while performing two different motions in space.
`
`53. The ’748 patent does not discuss how to distinguish between
`
`acceleration due to gravity and acceleration due to translation. It does not discuss
`
`or recognize the limitations of using an accelerometer by itself to sense and control
`
`motion in three-dimensional space.
`
`54. According to the ’748 patent, the roll and pitch of a remotely
`
`controlled device is “adjusted” and “synchronized” with the motion of the remote
`
`controller. Pet. Ex. 1001 at 5:15-18. Because accelerometers cannot distinguish
`
`between acceleration due to gravity and acceleration due to translation, in any
`
`reasonable interpretation of what “synchronization” means, synchronization cannot
`
`be accomplished without additional technology that is not disclosed or discussed in
`
`the ’748 patent.
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,106,748
`17
`
`Parrot – Ex. 1011
`
`

`

`55. Because accelerometers are incapable of detecting all motions of the
`
`remote controller in three-dimensional space, a remote control deploying only
`
`accelerometers (such as the remote control taught by the ’748 patent) could not be
`
`used to control the movement of a remote-controlled device without some other
`
`instructions, circuitry, and/or structures, either to obtain the missing positional
`
`information or to operate the remotely controlled aircraft in its absence. The ’748
`
`patent does not discuss or teach how to account for the positional information not
`
`sensed by accelerometers. Nor does it teach how to account for the possibility that
`
`identical accelerometer readings in the remote control and remotely controlled
`
`device could nonetheless be consistent with two different motions. A remotely
`
`controlled device such as an aircraft including only accelerometers, as taught by
`
`the ’748 patent, could not fly without additional instructions, circuitry, and/or
`
`structures not taught in the ’748 patent.
`
`56. The ’748 patent further teaches a mode of operation in which control
`
`of the aircraft is accomplished by a combination of control using the
`
`accelerometers and control using manual inputs, such as a joystick. Pet. Ex. 1001
`
`at 6:39-51. The ’748 patent does not teach or explain how such control would be
`
`accomplished, particularly in view of the limitations of accelerometers to detect
`
`motion in three-dimensional space.
`
`Declaration of Prof. Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Regarding U.S. Paten