Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 60
` Entered: February 15, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PARROT S.A., PARROT DRONES, S.A.S. and PARROT INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`QFO LABS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 60
` Entered: February 15, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PARROT S.A., PARROT DRONES, S.A.S. and PARROT INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`QFO LABS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Parrot S.A., Parrot Drones S.A.S., and Parrot Inc. (“Petitioners”) filed
`a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”), requesting institution of an inter partes review of
`claims 1–10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,931,239 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’239 patent”).
`QFO Labs, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 10).
`Upon considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we instituted
`inter partes review of claim 10 of the ’239 patent. Paper 18 (“Dec. on
`Inst.”).
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 32, “PO
`Resp.”) and a Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 31, “Mot.”). Petitioners
`filed a Reply (Paper 41, “Pet. Reply”) and an Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 42), to which Patent Owner filed a
`Reply to Petitioner Opposition to Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 43).
`Because of the then-recently issued en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc.
`v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Aqua Products”), the parties
`requested, and we authorized, additional briefing regarding Patent Owner’s
`Contingent Motion to Amend. Paper 47. Petitioners thereafter filed a Brief
`in Opposition to Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 51),
`and Patent Owner filed a Reply to Petitioner Opposition to Contingent
`Motion to Amend (Paper 52), to which Petitioners filed a Sur-Reply Brief in
`Opposition to Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 56).
`Petitioners proffered a Declaration of Prof. Girish Chowdhary, Ph.D.
`in Support of Petition (Ex. 1003, “First Chowdhary Declaration” or “1st
`Chowdhary Decl.”), a Declaration of Prof. Girish Chowdhary, Ph.D. in
`Support of Petitioners’ Opposition to Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to
`Amend and Its Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (Ex. 1030, “Second
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`Chowdhary Declaration”), and a Declaration of Prof. Girish Chowdhary,
`Ph.D. in Support of Petitioners’ Brief in Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`Contingent Motion to Amend (Ex. 1037, “Third Chowdhary Declaration” or
`“3d Chowdhary Decl.”). Patent Owner proffered a Declaration of John P.
`Condon (Ex. 2005, “1st Condon Decl.”) with its Preliminary Response and a
`Second Declaration of John P. Condon (Ex. 2013, “Second Condon
`Declaration” or “2d Condon Decl.”) with its Response. A deposition
`transcript for Mr. Condon (Ex. 1035) was filed, but no deposition transcript
`was filed for Prof. Chowdhary.
`A joint oral hearing in this proceeding and Case IPR2016-01559 was
`held on November 15, 2017; a transcript of the hearing is included in the
`record (Paper 59, “Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioners have shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claim 10 of the ’239 patent is
`unpatentable. Also based on the entirety of the record, we deny Patent
`Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend.
`A. Ground of Unpatentability at Issue
`We instituted inter partes review on the ground that, under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103, claim 10 is unpatentable over Louvel1, Thomas2, and Jimenez3. Dec.
`on Inst. 27, 36.
`
`
`1 US 2002/0104921 A1, published Aug. 8, 2002 (Ex. 1004).
`2 US 5,128,671, issued July 7, 1992 (Ex. 1006).
`3 US 2002/0106966 A1, published Aug. 8, 2002 (Ex. 1007).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`Patent Owner indicates that the ’239 patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,073,532
`B2 (“the ’532 patent”) (Ex. 2002), and U.S. Patent No. 9,645,580 B2 (“the
`’580 patent”) (Ex. 2012) are involved in case 1:16-cv-00682-GM in the U.S.
`District Court for the District of Delaware. Paper 8, 1–2; Paper 19, 3; PO
`Resp. 10; Paper 48, 3; Paper 57, 3; see also Pet. 75 (indicating intent to file
`an action in the District of Delaware). The parties indicate that the ’532
`patent issued from a continuation application of the ’239 patent, and the ’580
`patent issued from a continuation application of the ’532 patent. Pet. 75;
`Paper 8, 1–2; Paper 19, 1–2; Mot. 6; PO Resp. 8; Paper 48, 2; Mot. 5–6;
`Paper 57, 2.
`Patent Owner also indicates that the ’239 patent, the ’532 patent, and
`the ’580 patent were asserted against Petitioners in case 0:16-cv-03443-JRT-
`HB (D. Minn.) and in QFO Labs, Inc. v. Brookstone Stores, Inc., case 0:17-
`cv-01100-JNE-SR (D. Minn.), both of which were dismissed. Paper 19, 3–
`4; PO Resp. 10; Paper 48, 4; Paper 57, 4; Ex. 1027. Patent Owner further
`indicates that the ’239, ’532, and ’580 patents have been asserted in QFO
`Labs, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., case 0:17-cv-05014-DWF-HB (D. Minn.);
`QFO Labs, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., case 0:17-cv-5011-JNE-TNL (D.
`Minn.); and QFO Labs, Inc. v. Target Corp., case 0:17-cv-05012-JRT-DTS
`(D. Minn.). Paper 57, 5.
`The ’239 patent is also the subject of Case IPR2017-01089; the ’532
`patent is the subject of Cases IPR2016-01559 and IPR2017-01090; and the
`’580 patent is the subject of Case IPR2017-01400. Paper 8, 1–2; Paper 19,
`1–2; PO Resp. 10; Paper 48, 2; Paper 57, 2; Ex. 1026; Ex. 2014. We denied
`institution in IPR2017-01089, IPR2017-01090, and IPR2017-01400.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`
`C. The ’239 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’239 patent relates to a “homeostatic flying hovercraft and to a
`radio controlled flying saucer toy employing the [principles] of a
`homeostatic flying hovercraft.” Ex. 1001, 1:19–21. Figure 21 of the ’239
`patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 21 illustrates a “side cutaway view” of a “preferred
`embodiment of a homeostatic flying hovercraft.” Id. at 8:44–46, 8:54–55,
`9:14–16. Homeostatic flying craft 200 has upper surface 202, bottom
`surface 204, four duct openings 212 on bottom surface 204, and battery-
`powered ducted fan 214 mounted inboard from each duct opening 212. Id.
`at 9:14–29. Each fan 214 is powered from an internal pair of batteries 216.
`Id. at 9:41–42; see also id. at 12:27–13:8, 13:34–60 (describing embodiment
`of Figs. 1–3).
`Homeostatic control system 300 is “operably connected to thrusters
` . . . in order to maintain a desired orientation” and includes “XYZ sensor
`arrangement 302 and associated control circuitry 304 that dynamically
`determines an inertial gravitational reference.” Id. at 10:64–11:5; see also
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`id. at 10:30–37 (also describing a homeostatic control system and XYZ
`sensor arrangement before stating “[f]inally, the RC aircraft has . . .”). XYZ
`sensor arrangement 302 “comprises an X-axis sensor system, a Y-[axis]
`sensor system[,] and a Z-axis sensor system.” Id. at 11:14–16. “The X-axis
`sensor system is positioned in an X plane of the body and includes at least
`three first sensors that sense acceleration and gravity in the X plane and at
`least three second sensors that sense acceleration only in the X plane.” Ex.
`1001, 11:16–20. The Y-axis and Z-axis sensor systems are similarly
`configured. Id. at 11:20–26. “Preferably, the X-axis sensor system
`comprises two sets of active accelerometers and two sets of passive
`accelerometers oriented in the X plane,” and the Y-axis sensor system
`similarly comprises active and passive accelerometers. Id. at 11:27–31.
`Each set of active accelerometers has a pair of active accelerometers
`“oriented at 90 degrees with respect to each other in the respective plane,”
`and each set of passive accelerometers has a pair of passive accelerometers
`also “oriented at 90 degrees with respect to each other in the respective
`plane.” Id. at 11:32–37. The pairs of active and passive accelerometers are
`“positioned at 45 degrees offset relative to a horizontal plane through a
`center of the body.” Id. at 11:37–40.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`
`Figure 22a of the ’239 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 22a is an isometric view of a hand-held “bee controller.” Ex.
`1001, 8:56–57, 9:49–50. A radio-controlled (“RC”) controller 220 “includes
`a body adapted to be held in one hand” and a “homeostatic control system IS
`positioned within the body.” Id. at 10:13–17. A user selectively positioning
`an orientation of RC controller 220 provides a “desired orientation.” Id.
`The homeostatic control system “includes an XYZ sensor arrangement and
`associated control circuitry” to sense the “desired orientation of the RC
`controller” and “dynamically determines an inertial gravitational reference
`for use in sensing the desired orientation.” Id. at 10:14–21. RC controller
`220 also includes a “bidirectional radio frequency (RF) transceiver providing
`two-way RF communications between the RC aircraft and the hand-held RC
`controller that communicates the desired orientation to the RC aircraft.” Id.
`at 10:22–25; see also id. at 13:18–33, 13:61–14:8 (describing embodiment
`of Figs. 1–3).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`
`D. Claim at Issue
`The only claim at issue, claim 10, is reproduced below.
`10. A method for operating a radio controlled (RC)
`homeostatic flying hovercraft having at least four battery
`powered generally downwardly directed thrusters using an RC
`controller separate and remote from said flying hovercraft, said
`method comprising:
`providing as part of said RC controller a handheld
`structure housing a sensor system;
`using said sensor system in said RC control[4] to sense at
`least a two dimensional, two-axis sensed orientation of said
`handheld structure in response to a user remote from said flying
`structure selectively orienting said handheld structure;
`communicating a desired orientation by radio frequency
`(RF) communication information to said flying hovercraft, said
`desired orientation including information based on said sensed
`orientation of said handheld structure;
`using a sensor system in said flying hovercraft to
`dynamically determine an actual orientation of said flying
`hovercraft, said sensor system including at least a three-
`dimensional, three-axis sensor;
`using control circuitry in said flying hovercraft to
`automatically and dynamically control a thrust produced by each
`of said thrusters to achieve and homeostatically maintain said
`actual orientation of said flying hovercraft in response to said
`desired orientation communicated to said flying hovercraft and
`said actual orientation determined by said sensor system in said
`flying hovercraft without additional control
`information
`communicated to said flying hovercraft.
`Ex. 1001, 16:35–64.
`
`
`
`4 In its Contingent Motion to Amend, Patent Owner states that “correction of
`‘RC control’ to ‘RC controller’ fixes an obvious typographical error.”
`Mot. 8.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard).
`In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted certain means-plus-
`function terms in claim 6, for which inter partes review was not instituted.
`Dec. on Inst. 8–11. Also, for the purposes of the Decision on Institution, we
`determined that express interpretations of “homeostatic,” “orientation,” or
`any other term was not necessary. Id. at 11; see also Pet. 15 (stating that “no
`construction of any non-means plus function claim term is required”).
`Patent Owner quotes from the Decision on Institution “[f]or purposes
`of this Decision, we determine that express interpretations of these terms or
`any other terms are not necessary” and states that “[f]or purposes of [Patent
`Owner’s] Response, Patentee accepts this BRI construction.” PO Resp. 14
`(quoting Dec. on Inst. 11). Patent Owner also maintains that the “proper
`construction under the Markman standard [(Markman v. Westview
`Instruments, 116. S. Ct. 1384, (1996))] of the term ‘orientation’ as used in
`the ’239 patent does not encompass either ‘position’ control or ‘motion’
`control” and “expressly reserves the right to argue for such a claim
`construction under the Markman standard in any litigation proceedings.” Id.
`n.5.
`
`We understand Patent Owner to be agreeing that, if interpretation of
`claims terms was required, those terms should be interpreted according to
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the ’239
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`patent. See Tr. 29:9–31:17, 32:14–25. We also understand Patent Owner to
`be accepting that express interpretations of “homeostatic” and “orientation”
`are not necessary for this proceeding.
`After reviewing the complete record, we agree with the parties that
`express interpretation of any claim term is not necessary for determining
`whether Petitioners have carried their burden of proving claim 10
`unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing only
`those terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy); see Pet. 15; PO Resp. 14; Tr. 29:9–31:17, 32:14–25.
`
`III. CHALLENGE OF CLAIM 10
`Petitioners contend that claim 10 would have been obvious in view of
`Louvel, Thomas, and Jimenez. Pet. 44 (referring to the same reasons
`asserted against claim 1 for the unpatentability of claim 10); see also id. at
`33–43 (arguing claim 1 is unpatentable over Louvel, Thomas, and Jimenez).
`In support of these contentions, Petitioners cite to Louvel, Thomas, Jimenez,
`and the First and Second Chowdhary Declarations (Exs. 1003, 1030). See
`Pet. 33–44; Pet. Reply 7–25. Patent Owner disputes the alleged
`unpatentability of claim 10 supported by citations to the asserted references
`and the Second Condon Declaration (Ex. 2013). See PO Resp. 14–45.
`To prevail in their challenge, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, of claim 10 as
`unpatentable over Louvel, Thomas, and Jimenez, Petitioners must prove
`unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37
`C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
`time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
`underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the
`prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence
`of nonobviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
`(1996).
`As discussed below, the parties’ disputes are related to the scope and
`content of the prior art, differences between claim 10 and the prior art, and
`Petitioners’ rationales for combining the asserted references. The parties do
`not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art, and the parties have not
`directed us to any objective evidence of nonobviousness.
`After reviewing the complete record, we conclude that Petitioners
`have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Louvel, Thomas, and
`Jimenez teach or suggest each limitation of claim 10, that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of
`Louvel, Thomas, and Jimenez, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the
`teachings of Louvel, Thomas, and Jimenez.
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill
`Petitioners contend that a “person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would
`have at least a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace engineering, or a
`comparable degree, in combination with at least two years of practical
`experience in the field.” Pet. 14 (citing 1st Chowdhary Decl. ¶ 51). Patent
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`Owner states that it “generally agrees with Petitioners that a person of
`ordinary skill . . . would possess a Bachelor’s of Science degree in
`aeronautical or electrical engineering with at least two years of practical
`experience in the design and development of remote control aircraft.” PO
`Resp. 13 (citing Pet. 14; 2d Condon Decl. ¶ 13).
`We adopt the parties’ agreed to level of ordinary skill and find that
`one of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a Bachelor of Science
`degree in Aerospace engineering, or a comparable degree, in combination
`with at least two years of practical experience in the field” (Pet. 14). We
`note that any differences in the parties’ asserted level of ordinary skill would
`not impact our analysis.
`B. Louvel (Ex. 1004)
`Louvel “relates to a light aircraft, like a flying saucer, remotely
`controlled and remotely powered.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 1. Figures 1 and 2 of Louvel
`are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 shows the invention of Louvel, including the exterior of
`aircraft 1; and Figure 2 shows a top view of an interior of aircraft 1. Ex.
`1004 ¶¶ 12, 13. Aircraft 1 “has a general shape looking like a flying
`saucer.” Id. ¶ 25. Aircraft 1 has four propellers 10, 11, 12, 13 with vertical
`axis to provide lift thrust, and each propeller 10–13 is driven independently
`by electric motor 20, 21, 22, 23. Id. ¶¶ 29, 30. Aircraft 1 is “fitted with
`three attitude sensors whose purpose is to provide information for the closed
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`loop control,” and the sensors include roll tilt angle sensor 61, pitch tilt angle
`sensor 62, and yaw sensor 63. Id. ¶¶ 42–44, 46.
`Aircraft 1 is linked to control unit 3, which is also linked to handling
`unit 4. Id. ¶¶ 25, 26. Control unit 3 includes a rechargeable battery 80 that
`supplies enough current to the electric motors of aircraft 1 for several
`minutes. Id. ¶ 60.
`Figure 5 of Louvel is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 5 shows handling unit 4. Id. ¶¶ 16, 50. Handling unit 4
`includes handle 7 and is linked to the control unit. Id. ¶ 49. Pushing handle
`7 towards direction 70, 72, 71, or 73 causes aircraft 1 to tilt towards the front
`side, the rear side, the right side, or the left side, respectively, and turning
`handle 7 in direction 75 or 76 causes aircraft 1 to rotate towards the right or
`left. Id. ¶¶ 51–53.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`
`When there is no action on handle 7, a closed control loop uses data
`from sensors 60–63 “to converge towards the horizontal normal attitude of
`the aircraft and to cancel the yaw movement.” Id. ¶ 91. When there is
`action on handle 7, a “microcontroller corrects the present required values
`driven in each electric current to generate an imbalance in the direction
`required by the handle position,” and the imbalance is limited in order “to
`limit the displacement speed of the aircraft” and “to allow a quick
`stabilization as soon as the action on the handle stops.” Id. ¶ 93. For
`example, if sensor 62 indicates that aircraft 1 is tilting towards the rear, then
`speed of propeller 12 is increased, speed of propeller 10 is decreased, and
`speeds of propellers 11, 13 are unchanged. Id. ¶ 98.
`C. Thomas (Ex. 1006)
`Thomas relates to a “hand-held control device detecting multiple
`degrees of freedom of movement.” Ex. 1006, 1:7–9. According to Thomas,
`“[i]n the past joysticks of various kinds have been used” that “comprise a
`lever with a handle at one” and the “other end of the lever is attached to . . .
`potentiometers” so that “[m]ovement of the handle . . . generates electrical
`signals which stimulate an electrical object.” Id. at 1:11–17. Thomas
`utilizes “accelerometers of various kinds in small packages some of which
`incorporate electronic signal processing” in a “hand-held joystick able to
`detect at least six degrees of freedom of movement.” Id. at 1:26–31. Figure
`1 of Thomas is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a “partly broken away” view of a “hand-held
`joystick using six accelerometers.” Ex. 1006 at 1:59–61. Hand-held
`enclosure 10 is “not mounted to swivel about some fixed anchor point” and
`“is held by the user as a pistol-grip type of hand-held device, free from any
`mechanical connection to a supporting structure.” Id. at 2:15–19. It
`supports two sets of three mutually-perpendicular accelerometers 11, 12, 13,
`14, 15, 16. Id. at 2:12–14. The geometric configuration of the
`accelerometers uniquely identifies any combination of translations or linear
`motions along X, Y, and Z axes and rotations about X, Y, and Z axes. Id. at
`2:60–3:3.
`For example, if housing 10 is moved linearly along the X axis,
`accelerometers 11, 14 “produce equal signals of the same sign, and all the
`other accelerometers produce no signal.” Id. at 3:3–6. Linear motion along
`the Y axis causes accelerometers 12, 15 to generate signals, and linear
`motion along the Z axis causes accelerometers 13, 16 to generate signals.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`Id. at 3:6–10. The signals from accelerometers 11–16 are sent to
`conditioning circuitry 26 via cable 18. Id. at 2:24–29, 3:43–50.
`“Alternatively, the cable 18 may be omitted altogether and a wireless
`RF transmitter may be employed, transmitting the signals generated by the
`accelerometers 11–16 to a receiver in the computer 28.” Id. at 3:62–65. The
`hand-held joystick can replace “the joystick, pedals, throttle assembly, trim
`controls and other input devices on an aircraft such as a helicopter” or “may
`be used to control robots.” Id. at 4:9–13, 26–27.
`D. Jimenez (Ex. 1007)
`Jimenez relates to a “radio controlled toy blimp.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 2. “The
`blimp includes conventional radio frequency remote control means known to
`the art for controlling vertical and horizontal flight patterns.” Id. ¶ 14.
`Figure 3 of Jimenez is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`
`Figure 3 is an electrical block diagram of printed circuit board 4. Id.
`¶ 25. A gondola is attached to an underside of the blimp, and the gondola
`includes printed wired circuit board 4. Id. ¶¶ 14, 23, 24, 31. It shows
`“remote control RF transmitter 25 which the pilot employs to transmit flight
`. . . commands to blimp 1.” Id. “The pilot uses joy stick 26 to change the
`direction and/or elevation of the blimp 1” and “remote control RF
`transmitter 25 . . . is used . . . to transmit flight . . . commands to the blimp
`1.” Id. ¶ 35. “The flight . . . commands are transmitted from antenna 32 to
`antenna 34” and “transformed into a series of binary ones and zeros by RF
`Receiver 35 and supplied via wire 36 to RF decoder 37 where they are
`assembled into distinctive binary codes representing flight . . . commands.”
`Id.
`
`E. Claim 10
`Petitioners contend that the “limitations of claim 10 are expressly
`disclosed by the prior art for the same reasons discussed above in connection
`with claim 1.” Pet. 44; see also id. at 13–14 (assigning labels to limitations
`of claim 10).
`1. “A method for operating a radio controlled (RC)
`homeostatic flying hovercraft having at least four battery
`powered generally downwardly directed thrusters”
`Petitioners persuade us that Louvel teaches a “method for operating a
`radio controlled (RC) homeostatic flying hovercraft having at least four
`battery powered generally downwardly directed thrusters” (Ex. 1001, 16:35–
`37). Pet. 13 (labeling this portion of claim 10 as “10a”), 33 (citing Ex. 1004
`Abstract, ¶¶ 1, 29, 30, 38 for “[l]imitation 1a”), 44 (correlating arguments
`for “1a” with “10a”). In particular, we find that Louvel teaches a “light
`aircraft, . . . remotely controlled, propelled by electrical motors” (Ex. 1004
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`Abstract), “a light aircraft, like a flying saucer, remotely controlled” (id. ¶
`1), “a method for the fli[g]ht closed loop control” (id. at Abstract), “the
`aircraft include[ing] four propellers” (id. ¶ 29, Figs. 2, 3), “each propeller []
`driven independently by an electric motor” (id. ¶ 30), and “air flow go[ing]
`through the aircraft” (id. ¶ 38, Figs. 1 (showing air flowing downwardly
`from aircraft 1), 11, 12). See also Ex. 1035, 28:24–25 (Patent Owner’s
`declarant stating “a hovercraft . . . generates lift using thrusters, downward-
`facing thrusters”); 153:8–22 (stating “[Louvel] generally describes a . . . type
`of hovercraft). Thus, we determine that Louvel teaches a method for
`operating a flying hovercraft having at least four generally downwardly
`directed thrusters, as required by claim 10. Ex. 1001, 16:35–37.
`The “radio controlled” and “homeostatic” recitations are addressed
`below. As for “battery powered . . . thrusters,” Petitioners cite Louvel for
`teaching “electric rechargeable battery (80) which allows to supply enough
`current to the five electric motors of the aircraft.” Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶
`60); see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 35 (stating that a “gyroscopic rotor is driven by a
`fifth electric motor (51)”). The record, thus, provides an adequate factual
`basis that Louvel teaches battery powered thrusters, as required by claim 10.
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 60.
`2. “using an RC controller separate and remote from said
`flying hovercraft”
`Petitioners also persuade us that Louvel teaches “using an RC
`controller separate and remote from said flying hovercraft” (Ex. 1001,
`16:37–39). Pet. 13 (labeling this portion of claim 10 as “10b”), 38–39
`(citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 25, 26, 49, 51–53, Figs. 1, 5 for “[l]imitation 1f”), 44
`(correlating arguments for “1f” with “10b”). We find that Louvel teaches a
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`“handling unit (4) . . . handled by the user and [] linked to the control unit
`(3)” (Ex. 1004 ¶ 26, Figs. 1, 5), that “tilting of the aircraft towards the [front,
`rear, right, or left sides] is achieved by pushing [or pulling] the handle
`towards [that] direction” (id. ¶¶ 51, 52, Fig. 5), and that rotation of the
`aircraft is achieved by turning the handle in the desired direction (id. ¶¶ 52,
`53, Fig. 5). See also id. at Abstract (stating that the “purpose of the
`invention is a light aircraft . . . remotely controlled), ¶ 49 (stating that the
`“handling unit includes a handle”). Thus, we determine that Louvel teaches
`using a controller separate and remote from a flying hovercraft, as required
`by claim 10. Ex. 1001, 16:37–39. The radio controlled requirement is
`discussed below.
`3. “providing as part of said RC controller a handheld
`structure housing a sensor system” and “using said sensor
`system in said RC control to sense at least a two
`dimensional, two-axis sensed orientation of said handheld
`structure in response to a user remote from said flying
`structure selectively orienting said handheld structure”
`Petitioners additionally persuade us that Louvel and Thomas teach
`“providing as part of said RC controller a handheld structure housing a
`sensor system” and “using said sensor system in said RC control to sense at
`least a two dimensional, two-axis sensed orientation of said handheld
`structure in response to a user remote from said flying structure selectively
`orienting said handheld structure” (Ex. 1001, 16:40–46). Pet. 13 (labeling
`these portions of claim 10 as “10c”), 40–41 (citing Ex. 1006, Abstract, 1:7–
`9, 1:29–31, 1:43–45, 2:11–23, 3:3–14, 3:62–65, 4:9–13 for limitation 1g), 44
`(correlating arguments for “1g” and “10c”). As discussed above, we find
`that Louvel teaches handling unit 4 that is remote from Louvel’s aircraft and
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`causes the aircraft to tilt or rotate. Ex. 1004 Abstract, ¶¶ 26, 51–53, Figs. 1,
`5.
`
`We also find that Thomas teaches a “hand-held control device
`detecting multiple degrees of freedom of movement” (Ex. 1006, 1:7–9), a
`“hand-held joystick able to detect at least six degrees of freedom of
`movement” (id. at 1:29–31), a “free-standing hand-held enclosure 10” (id. at
`2:12), “enclosure 10 rigidly support[ing] two sets of three mutually-
`perpendicular accelerometers” (id. at 2:12–14), “[e]ach one of these
`accelerometers 11–16 [] responsive to acceleration along a single axis” (id.
`at 2:19–20), and each accelerometer “generat[ing] an electrical signal
`indicating linear acceleration . . . along this particular single axis” (id. at
`2:21–23). See also PO Resp. 16 (stating that Thomas discloses a “hand-held
`controller with accelerometer sensors used to detect the ‘motion’ of the
`controller” and “using the accelerometer sensors to detect the motion of the
`hand-held enclosure (10)”); Ex. 1035, 135:5–15 (Patent Owner’s declarant
`answering “I would imagine that it was known” in response to “a two-axis
`accelerometer could be used to sense the orientation of an object, that was
`known way before the ’239 and ’532 patents, correct?”), 159:3–4 (Patent
`Owner’s declarant stating “it’s fair to describe [Thomas] as a handheld
`controller”). The record, thus, supports Petitioners’ position that Thomas
`teaches providing as part of a controller a handheld structure housing a
`sensor system and using that sensor system in the controller to sense at least
`a two dimensional, two-axis sensed orientation of the handheld structure, as
`required by claim 10.
`We further find that Thomas teaches that, if a user moves housing 10
`linearly along the x, y, or z axis, two of accelerometers 11–16 produce a
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`signal and that if it is rotated, pairs of accelerometers generate signals. See
`Ex. 1006, 2:60–62 (“With this geometric configuration any combination of
`translations and rotations is uniquely identified.”), 3:3–6 (“If the housing 10
`is moved linearly in the X direction by the user, then the accelerometers 11
`and 14 produce equal signals of the same sign, and all the other
`accelerometers produce no signal.”), 3:10–14 (“Rotation about one of the
`axes . . . causes the pairs of accelerometers to generate unequal signals, and
`depending upon the center of rotation, the signals may be of opposite
`sign.”); Ex. 1035, 149:3–6 (Patent Owner’s declarant stating an
`“instantaneous position of a rotating object is its orientation”), 149:11–14
`(Patent Owner’s declarant, in response to “would you agree with me, then,
`that on at least some level, movement and orientation are related concepts,”
`answering “[t]hey are derivatives of each other”), 160:7–11 (Patent Owner’s
`declarant agreeing that Thomas can sense any combination of translations
`and rotations), 161:13–17 (Patent Owner’s declarant agreeing that Thomas
`generates signals while moving); 2d Condon Decl. ¶ 29 (“Thomas utilizes
`centrifugal forces to measure rotational velocity, measured in radians per
`second or degrees per second, as the motion input of the hand-held control
`device”). The record, thus, supports Petitioners’ position that Thomas
`teaches using a sensor system in a controller to sense at least a two
`dimensional, two-axis sensed orientation of the handheld structure “in
`response to a user remote from said flying structure selectively orienting said
`handheld structure,” as required by claim 10.
`We agree with Petitioners that the “remote controller in Louvel is not
`‘radio controlled (RC).’” Pet. 40. However, we find that Thomas teaches
`that a “wireless RF transmitter may be employed, transmitting the signals
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01550
`Patent 7,931,239 B2
`
`generated by the accelerometers 11–16 to a receiver in the
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
