`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PARROT S.A., PARROT DRONES, S.A.S., and PARROT INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`QFO LABS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`____________
`____________
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 15, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
`
`JAMES M. GLASS, ESQUIRE
`
` QUINN EMANUEL, ESQUIRE
`Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, New York 10010
`(212) 849-7000
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
` CHAZ DE LA GARZA, ESQUIRE
`Law Offices of Chaz De La Garza
`1810 Mount Curve Avenue
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403
`(612) 453-4590
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`
`November 15, 2017, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE JUNG: Good afternoon. Bear with us for a moment to
`verify Judge Moore is available.
`JUDGE MOORE: I'm here.
`JUDGE JUNG: The camera is pointing at the flags.
`JUDGE MOORE: They usually put the camera here when we do
`the "all rise" and then they put it on me.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. This is the oral hearing for cases
`IPR2016-01550 and IPR2016-01559 between Petitioners, Parrot S.A.,
`Parrot Drones, S.A.S., and Parrot, Incorporated and Patent Owner, QFO
`Labs, Incorporated. To specify for the record in the 1550 case, Petitioner
`has challenged Claim 10 of U.S. Patent Number 7,931,239. In the 1559
`case, Petitioner challenges Claims 8 through 14 of U.S. Patent Number
`9,073,532. Starting with counsel for Petitioner followed by counsel for
`Patent Owner please stand at the podium and state your names for the
`record.
`MR. GLASS: Good afternoon, Your Honors,
`Jim Glass from Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, and Sullivan on behalf of
`Petitioners. With us today is my partner Matthew Traupman, Gregory
`Michael, and Rich Larry.
`JUDGE JUNG: Welcome.
`MR. DE LA GARZA: Good afternoon, Your Honor,
`Chaz De La Garza, and with my at counsel table is
`Charles Lemaire.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Welcome. As stated in the trial hearing order
`each party has 45 minutes to present its arguments. Petitioner will
`proceed first followed by Patent Owner and Petitioner may reserve
`rebuttal time. Will either Mr. Lemaire or Mr. De La Garza return to the
`podium. Patent Owner requested to enter demonstratives in an e-mail
`yesterday?
`MR. DE LA GARZA: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE JUNG: Is that correct, okay. Do you understand that
`demonstratives are just an aid to your presentation? They're not an
`opportunity to introduce new evidence and new arguments.
`MR. DE LA GARZA: I do understand that, yes, indeed, Your
`Honor.
`JUDGE JUNG: And by entering these demonstratives am I correct
`in assuming that no new evidence and no new arguments will be
`introduced into the record?
`MR. DE LA GARZA: That is certainly my understanding.
`JUDGE JUNG: All right, and Mr. Glass, do you object to
`Petitioner's entry of its demonstratives -- I'm sorry, Patent Owner's
`demonstratives?
`MR. GLASS: We do, Your Honor, there are two outstanding
`objections. We've met --
`JUDGE MOORE: Counsel, please step to the podium. I'm unable
`to hear from there.
`MR. GLASS: Apologize, Your Honor. We've met and confirmed,
`we've resolved most of our differences. We have two outstanding
`objections with respect to slide 22 and slide 24, I'll work backwards. On
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`slide 24 Patent Owner cites to the deposition testimony of Mr. John
`Condon. The deposition testimony is not cited in their briefs. There was
`no request for a motion for observation, it's not in evidence. The only
`way it can be brought in evidence now is through their slides and it's not
`inappropriate.
`Slide 22, we've had some back and forth on that slide. They
`originally had a citation, In re: Smith, they've taken that slide out.
`They've taken the quotation In re: Smith out. They've kept a title on top
`of the slide that says, I believe, The Proper Construction under BRI.
`There's no argument in the post-institution briefs on BRI. They have
`accepted the Board's construction over BRI and my concern is the title
`itself. My concern is also that with that title that will segway into a
`discussion of In re: Smith.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: I'm sorry, is that page 22?
`MR. GLASS: That's Patent Owner's slide 22 and Patent Owner's
`slide -- slide 3, excuse me, and slide 24.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you.
`MR. GLASS: Your Honors, also for the record we would like to
`request, as long as there are no objections to our slides, that they also be
`admitted into the record too.
`JUDGE JUNG: Mr. De La Garza and Lemaire, do you object to
`Petitioners’ request to enter its demonstratives?
`MR. DE LA GARZA: We've resolved all of our objections with
`Petitioners’ slides last night, so the current slides removed photographs
`of the experts and cleaned them up. We also cleaned up five other of our
`slides. Slide 3, this notion that BRI interpretation can't be on a title, I just
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`don't understand that. And on slide 24, the questions and answers are of
`-- from Mr. Glass to our expert and they are directly relevant to the
`presentation of what they say our expert, Mr. Condon said, and they're
`just five, four questions, four answers on intention.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. I think we understand both sides’ positions
`on the demonstratives. We will defer ruling on the objections to the
`demonstratives and issue an order regarding the entry of demonstratives
`after the hearing.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Judge Moore can't see the podium. Thank
`
`you.
`
`JUDGE JUNG: All right, just a few reminders. To ensure the
`transcript is clear please refer to demonstratives by slide number for the
`sake of Judge Moore, and if one party believes that something being
`argued by the other side is improper, please raise the issue at the end of
`the presentation instead of objecting and interrupting the presentation.
`All of that said, Mr. Glass, you may proceed when you're ready.
`MR. GLASS: Thank you, Your Honors. I do have hard copy
`printouts if Your Honors would like a copy.
`JUDGE JUNG: Did you provide a copy for the court reporter?
`MR. GLASS: I have a copy for the court reporter as well.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. I don't need a hard copy.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: I don't need one either.
`MR. GLASS: Your Honors, we'd like to reserve hopefully 15
`minutes on rebuttal.
`JUDGE JUNG: You may start.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`
`MR. GLASS: Just at a high level we've all looked at these patents,
`and I don't want to belabor the points. The patents at issue today, the
`'239 the '532 patents, very briefly, both relate to a flying hovercraft. Both
`relate to crafts that are controlled by a wireless controller that senses
`orientation, it's on slide 2. I'm going to skip slide 3. On slide 4 just,
`again, by way of background on a high level the grounds we're here today
`on, grounds from the '550 and the '559 patent, both rely on the
`combination of Louvel, Thomas, and Jimenez.
`Both rely on very similar arguments. PO has raised very similar
`arguments in opposition to our petition. The points I intend to focus on,
`unless Your Honors have any specific questions, the points I intend to
`focus on today apply to both the '559 and the '550 patents. Moving on to
`slide 5, again, just by way of background Louvel is one of our primary
`references. Louvel is just like the '532 and the '239 patents, a flying,
`remotely-controlled device. On slide 6, Louvel includes what it refers to
`as the closed-loop control system.
`We've mapped that onto the homeostatic control system, no
`dispute on that point. Louvel has a remote controller, it's not as clean as
`we'd like it to be as a disclosure or wireless control, which is why we've
`relied on additional arts on slide 7. We've relied on Thomas. Thomas is,
`again, a wireless handheld controller. It includes the exact same structure
`and the exact same configuration as the '239 and '532 patents. It
`includes, as shown in figure 1, it includes accelerometers that are
`perpendicular to each other.
`It senses orientation in the X, Y, and Z axes and transmits that
`information to a device that's in control. It's used to control things such
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`as video games, computers, et cetera. Slide 8, Jimenez is a patent -- we
`cited this purely just for purposes of showing the notion of wireless. It's
`a -- sorry, Thomas is a wireless controller. Jimenez is also wireless, it's a
`very robust description of the wireless controller and in the context of
`remote control aircraft. On slide 9, with that background unless there's
`any questions from Your Honors we'll get on to the substance of the
`positions.
`I'll walk through these -- given the time restraints I'll walk through
`these throughout the presentation, but I've highlighted here Claim 10.
`I've highlighted the language that I'd like to focus on today and the
`arguments on the right-hand side that PO has raised in response to our
`petition. Slide 8, again -- slide 10, is simply just Claim 8, it's the same
`language of the '532 patent, the same arguments. I mentioned this in
`connection with the objection issues on claim construction. Extensively
`there are no issues here. Patent Owner raised several issues in
`connection with orientation.
`They argued in preliminary response issues of detection whether
`the claims required gravitational reference. Those arguments were
`rejected by the Court in the institution decision for both the '559 and the
`'550 patents. Patent Owner stated in its response, I have their quote at the
`bottom of slide 11, for purposes of response Patentee accepts BRI
`construction. Is that it waives any claim construction arguments in their
`response. Moving on to the substance of the arguments on slide 12. The
`first point here raises whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`combined Louvel, Thomas, and Jimenez.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`
`I've cited here our affirmative proof. This is our expert, Dr.
`Chowdhary, this is just excerpts from his declaration. I'm not going to
`walk through all of this. He has highlights all the Graham factors in his
`opinion that apply here. He's walked through the similarity of the fields,
`the fact that combining the controllers of Louvel with Thomas and
`Jimenez would result in a much more user-friendly configuration and, of
`course, no one expected results.
`JUDGE JUNG: Mr. Glass, I want to ask you some questions about
`the rationale to combine Louvel, Thomas, and Jimenez. One of the
`asserted rationales is common sense. The second one is design choice,
`and the third one seems to be that Thomas itself discloses joystick
`designs. Is that all the rationales that the Petitioners are asserting?
`MR. GLASS: Well, it's also just a known -- they're known to be
`interchangable. We're talking -- really just talking about the notion of
`substituting prior art from the 90s, handheld controllers with a wired
`joystick control. So, it's a known, known to be interchangable. It is a
`routine design choice, it would result in a more user-friendly design
`because you don't have -- it's mentioned in the patents that the wire can
`get in the way. Having it wireless would be a more user-friendly design.
`JUDGE JUNG: Now I got to press you on that you have a more
`user-friendly design. So, hypothetically if I have the flying remote
`control aircraft of Louvel and I'm using Thomas's handheld controller, if
`that flying object of Louvel happens to go over my shoulder and I turn
`around to follow it what would happen to the flying object of Louvel?
`MR. GLASS: If I turn -- I'm trying to envision your hypothetical,
`Your Honor. If I turn around --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Let's say the flying object just flies over my
`shoulder as I turn around to chase --
`MR. GLASS: Well, I'll start with a wired configuration. In the
`wired configuration if it flies over your shoulder I would imagine it
`would get caught up in the wire and crash. My experience, honestly,
`with a flying hovercraft, if it flies over your shoulder it's gone. You're
`not going to be able to turn around and track it quickly enough. If you
`happen to be able to do that, you turn around and continue to control it.
`JUDGE JUNG: Does the handheld controller of Thomas pick up
`the motion of me turning around to follow the flying object?
`MR. GLASS: You know, that's a very good question. I think the
`way Thomas is described is that it senses the acceleration due to the
`movement of your hand. It doesn't expressly, I don't think in Thomas,
`describe cancelling out macro-movements like turning around. That's not
`something that's discussed in the claims but I do feel that that would be
`something well within the ordinary skill of the art.
`It happens all the time, it's something that is taken into account all
`the time with accelerometers. Accelerometers sense gravity to be able to
`sense movement. If I turn it in an orientation of the X axis, or the Y axis,
`or the Z axis, it has to be able to take into account other movements. So
`that would be a trivial calculation.
`JUDGE JUNG: There doesn't seem to be any expressed disclosure
`in Thomas that it does take care of -- compensate for that movement of
`the user, is there?
`MR. GLASS: If a user was forced into a situation where he had to
`wildly move around I would -- and if that was something that was
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`required by the claims -- I would say that that's something that's well
`within the ordinary skill of one of skill in the art. I don't --that particular
`hypothetical fact pattern is not expressly described in Thomas.
`JUDGE JUNG: Let's say for argument’s sake that the handheld
`controller of Thomas does pick up the user’s movement as he turns
`around to follow the flying object. Would it be common sense to
`combine, to use the handheld controller of Thomas in that situation?
`MR. GLASS: I'm sorry, Your Honor, can you repeat?
`JUDGE JUNG: Would it be common sense to use the handheld
`controller of Thomas in Louvel if the handheld controller of Thomas
`picks up the users movement as it just follows the ground around?
`MR. GLASS: Yes, I think it would because, again, to cancel out
`these movements, to cancel out the wild stratifications of turning around
`it's simple and it's trivial and, yes, I do agree -- I'm going from memory
`so you are putting me on a little bit of a spot here. I don't believe that
`Thomas expressly describes that, but that's a trivial variation. And if it
`was required by the claims, if it was something that we had to address,
`we would’ve either found art or we would’ve explained it that way that
`doing so is nothing more than a trivial variation well within the ordinary
`skill.
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Would you agree if it's not common sense it's
`probably not also design choice? Because if by common sense you
`decide that it's not an applicable choice, it's no longer a design choice, is
`it?
`
`MR. GLASS: I -- respectfully I don't agree that it is not common
`sense. I believe it is common sense, and whether it's -- in a hypothetical
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`if you have a notion of common sense versus a design choice you could
`have many different design choices that are not necessarily rooted in
`common sense. We're talking very hypothetical now but I don't think one
`necessarily excludes the other. Have I answered your questions, Your
`Honor?
`JUDGE JUNG: I believe so. That's all I have for the moment.
`MR. GLASS: All right, getting back on track. I don't -- this is not
`a point I want to belabor, we've discussed this in our briefs. Patent
`Owner relies on their expert, Mr. Condon. Mr. Condon is not the typical
`arms-length neutral expert we come to see in these proceedings. He is
`the CTO for PO, I mentioned this in the briefs. He has a substantial stake
`in the company, he's a substantial equity holder. He agreed with me
`during his deposition that he had a financial incentive to see that the
`patents are maintained valid.
`He has every incentive in the world to maintain validity of these
`patents. I'm not casting dispersions on Mr. Condon, this is purely from
`an objective perspective. He is not a neutral witness here. I've also cited
`to portions in his testimony where he discussed his basis for obviousness.
`He has no opinion on obviousness, and he set forth in his declaration --
`he did not articulate the standard for obviousness in his deposition, and
`that's all in the briefs, and that was on slide 13.
`On slide 14, stepping back from that and moving to the substance
`of the arguments, whether one of ordinary skill in the art would combine
`Louvel and Thomas and Jimenez. This is a big point in PO's briefs.
`They cite this in their -- in respect to the challenged claims, they cite this
`in respect to the amended claims, that the '580 prosecution is binding on
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`this or somehow compelling. And I don't think they use the word
`binding.
`The first point, it's just not relevant especially for the challenged
`claims. What they don't cite in the reasons for allowance in the '580
`patent was that the PTO, in that case, allowed the claims -- and I
`highlighted and underlined the language here -- because the claims in that
`case required bi-directional communications and determination of a
`gravitational reference, neither of which are required here. And the
`timing alone doesn't make sense. This is of greater importance with a
`motion to amend, but the institution decision, it was in February of 2016.
`The PTO instituted -- allowed their claims of the '580 in February.
`What PO is arguing is that a later in time decision that is contrary to
`PTAB. They found Thomas doesn't disclose, they disagreed with the
`PTAB, they found Thomas doesn't disclose a gravitational reference
`should be binding, that just doesn't make sense. That doesn't logically
`make sense from a timing perspective. The PTO -- if anything the PTO
`should’ve been bound by the PTAB's decision, not the other way around,
`and it just -- from a substantive perspective it's just a completely different
`case.
`
`On slide 15, again, on this motivation PO argues that Thomas is
`not relevant because one of ordinary skill in the art would’ve ignored
`what we cited. We cited to potions of Thomas, Figures 1 and 2, that
`relate to the remote control of video games, of computers, of other
`devices. They focus on Figure 3, which is the local controller of an
`airplane. In their characterization the user sits in an airplane and controls
`the aircraft. Well, first that's just incorrect as a matter of law.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`
`This is in MPEP, it's stated throughout many decisions. We cited
`In re Mouttet case. A reference may be read for all that it teaches not just
`portions. One of ordinary skill in the art, just under the law, would not
`have ignored two-thirds of Thomas. On slide 16 our expert, Dr.
`Chowdhary, looked at Thomas. He agreed with us he would’ve looked at
`the entire thing. He also raised a very good point, not only would one of
`ordinary skill in the art have looked to the entirely of the disclosure of
`Thomas, one of ordinary skill in the art would’ve also paid very close
`attention to Figures 1 and 2.
`These claims are not about the controlling aircraft, they're about
`the remote control of a toy which happens to be an aircraft. Figures 1
`and 2 of Thomas are about remote controls. They are of particular
`relevance to the claims. Figure 3, just because it's an aircraft does not
`make it more relevant than the other two figures. So, one of ordinary
`skill in the art would of considered the entirely of the disclosure and
`would of paid, contrary to what PO's says, specific attention to the
`embodiments in
`figures 1 and 2.
`JUDGE JUNG: Mr. Glass, what's the difference between the
`embodiments of Figures 1 and 2 and 3?
`MR. GLASS: So, Your Honors, Figures 1 and 2 focus on the
`control of video games. I believe it talks about the control of a cursor on
`a computer.
`JUDGE JUNG: Besides the use what's the actual physical
`difference?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`
`MR. GLASS: The physical difference I believe in Figure 3 there is
`some physical connections between the device and the aircraft.
`JUDGE JUNG: Do you remember what the purpose of those
`connections were?
`MR. GLASS: Your Honor, I'd have to look, I'm not entirely sure.
`I've been told that the external connections, and this does refresh my
`recollection, they're used to sense the external motion of the aircraft.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. GLASS: Does that make sense?
`JUDGE JUNG: Yes.
`MR. GLASS: Where was I, slide 17. I'm going to close that
`position and move on to another issue as long as I've answered all of
`Your Honor’s questions.
`JUDGE JUNG: Yes, I think you have.
`MR. GLASS: Again, on the notion of orientation Patent Owner
`argues that the phrase itself excludes the notion of position and motion.
`Again, I addressed this earlier, that was an issue they raised -- and I'm on
`slide 17. That's an issue they raised in their preliminary response. It's an
`issue the Board flatly rejected, it's an issue that they accepted in their post
`institution response. Even if it wasn't a waiver, I'm on slide 18, even if it
`wasn't a waiver it's flatly contradicted by the specification. The
`specification uses the term synonymous. You can't separate out
`orientation, motion, and position they're all -- they're the same sides --
`well, they're part of the same phenomenon and the patent describes them
`in very much the same way. This is a cite from the specification where it
`states that the hovercraft mimics the position of the craft to the position
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`of the holder, other portions it talks about the orientation. Position and
`orientation and movement are all interrelated. On slide 19, their own
`expert, Mr. Condon, agreed with me during his cross examination. I
`asked him -- I was trying to just get out how are these interrelated. He
`went further than my question and said, they're derivatives of one
`another, and that makes perfect sense. You can't have a conversation and
`talk about orientation, how is something oriented, without discussing its
`position. In fact, I have a dictionary definition there that says it's
`position. You can't have orientation without movement. So when he
`says it's derivative, of course, you can't have orientation without
`movement and position. Separating them is purely artificial. On slide
`20, I'm not going to walk through all of this in the interest of time. This
`is our affirmative proof on orientation. Again, we've cited to Figure 1 of
`Thomas. It discloses again the very same accelerometers and the very
`same configuration as the patent, it senses orientation all through all three
`axes.
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Mr. Glass, I have another question about Thomas
`
`--
`
`MR. GLASS: Yes.
`JUDGE JUNG: -- in connection with the motion to amend. So in
`your opposition to the motion to amend, you did not apply Thomas
`against the proposed substitute claims. Is it because that Thomas does
`not sense gravitational reference, is that correct?
`MR. GLASS: No, Your Honor, that was something that was
`actually discussed extensively, and I have the Board's rationale and we
`almost did cite Thomas, but because purely of space reasons. And we
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`also had this quote from the Board where the Board expressly stated
`Thomas discloses sensing the gravitational reference -- we believe it
`does. We wanted to take a fresh look at the claims and use different arts
`that wasn't part of the original petition, that was the only reason. I think
`Sato and Thomas are very similar and I don't think PO would disagree
`with that. We do think that Thomas discloses the gravitational reference.
`Sato also has a clear disclosure of wireless, so that we did not have to
`rely so much on Jimenez on the motion to amend, so those were our
`rationales. Substantively, I think they both disclose it.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay.
`MR. GLASS: And that leads to my next point on slide 21, PO
`argues that orientation is not taught by the prior art because it doesn't
`teach a gravitational frame of reference. You've presaged my point, it's
`not required by these claims it's required by the amended claims. It was
`also expressly stated in the Board's institution decision that Thomas
`described a gravitational reference. Mr. Condon, again --
`JUDGE MOORE: Counsel, can you point us to that disclosure in
`Thomas?
`MR. GLASS: Excuse me?
`JUDGE MOORE: What part of Thomas do you contend discloses
`this gravitational reference?
`MR. GLASS: It's the accelerometers in Figure 1, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MOORE: And why would those accelerometers
`necessarily operate with respect to a gravitational reference?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`
`MR. GLASS: Because they are accelerometers, they are by
`definition measuring acceleration in connection with gravity in reference
`to gravity. That is how accelerometers work.
`JUDGE MOORE: So your contention is every accelerometer
`measures acceleration with respect to gravity?
`MR. GLASS: Yes, they do.
`JUDGE MOORE: Even if oriented, for example, in the X or Z
`axes depicted in Figure 1?
`MR. GLASS: Excuse me?
`JUDGE MOORE: Even with an accelerometer oriented along the
`X or Z axes as depicted in the component system of Figure 1, even those
`accelerometers --
`MR. GLASS: In those cases --
`JUDGE MOORE: -- measure gravity?
`MR. GLASS: It would measure a zero acceleration with respect to
`gravity.
`JUDGE MOORE: So is there anything in the disclosure that
`indicates that these accelerometers are measuring acceleration with
`respect to gravity?
`MR. GLASS: Let me back up, the accelerometers in Figure 1 on
`slide 20, that are expressly stated that they sense the acceleration in the
`X, Y, and Z orientations. So, to the extent that as you're holding this end
`the orientation, with respect to the earth, it would sense an acceleration
`pointing down.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Well, the acceleration with respect to the earth
`would be zero, I understand that. There's a gravitational acceleration,
`correct?
`MR. GLASS: Correct.
`JUDGE MOORE: But what we're talking about here it seems to
`be detecting the movement of this, right, so the movement of this device
`with respect to that coordinate system I have right there, and if you're
`holding that still, the acceleration with respect to that coordinate system
`is zero.
`MR. GLASS: The acceleration would be with respect if it's not
`being moved in that axis the acceleration would be zero. With respect to
`the downward pointing it would still measure the gravitational reference,
`which is 9.8 meters per second per second --
`JUDGE MOORE: I understood that. So your contention is that
`the acceleration sensed by this, if it was being held still, that this would
`read 9.8 meters per second per second?
`MR. GLASS: In the direction of gravity it would. That's my
`understanding of how accelerometers work and that's exactly how the
`patent describes it. In fact, actually, the patent doesn't describe what it
`means by gravitational reference. It does so by explaining that it uses
`accelerometers that are each perpendicular to each other. If you look
`through the patents there is exactly I believe three times the patent uses
`the word gravity and it's merely in passing. So the patent itself does not
`explain this in detail. It explains it by its application, by the use of
`accelerometers. And that's exactly how we mapped Thomas onto the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`patent. I could try to explain in more detail what Thomas is doing, but
`that would go far beyond what the patent itself explained.
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Thank you, you may continue.
`MR. GLASS: Again, just to close out this one point Mr. John
`Condon agreed with me during his deposition that neither Claim 10 or
`Claim 8 required a gravitational reference. One last point on the
`challenged claim, I want to try and leave some time to get to amended
`claims, PO further argues that Louvel does not teach maintaining its
`actual orientation. I'm not going to walk through all the proof I've cited.
`Some of it here discloses the circuitry, it discusses in the specification
`that it modifies the propellers and the engines in response to input from
`the controller.
`PO does not, as far as I can tell, does not dispute our technical
`description of Louvel on slide 24. What they argue is that the claims
`require mimicking and that Louvel does not mimic the controller and,
`again, that is a primary account of the amended claims, it's simply not a
`requirement of the challenged claims. The claims don't require
`mimicking. The claims simply require that the hovercraft maintain its
`orientation in response to desired orientation. Desired orientation is
`simply based on a sense of orientation. There's no requirement for
`mimicking in these clai
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
