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
`____________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,645,580
`
`“Radio-Controlled Flying Craft”
`____________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2017-01400
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,645,580
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW ............................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The ’580 Patent Specification ............................................................... 3
`
`The Board Institutes IPRs On The Two Parent Patents ........................ 7
`
`The ’580 Prosecution History ............................................................... 8
`
`The Claims of the ’580 Patent ............................................................. 10
`
`The ’580 Patent Recites Minor Variations on the Instituted
`Claims .................................................................................................. 17
`
`F.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 17
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 17
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CHALLENGED CLAIM .............................................................................. 18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ........................... 18
`
`Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2)) .............................. 19
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 20
`
`A. Overview of the Cited Prior Art .......................................................... 20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Louvel ....................................................................................... 20
`
`Sato ............................................................................................ 23
`
`Kroo........................................................................................... 26
`
`Talbert ....................................................................................... 29
`
`Gabai ......................................................................................... 31
`
`Burdoin ...................................................................................... 31
`
`Lee ............................................................................................. 32
`
`B.
`
`Ground 1 – Claims 1, 6, 7, 12, and 13 Are Obvious Under
`Louvel in View of Sato, Kroo, and Talbert ......................................... 32
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 33
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`Louvel Combined With Sato Discloses Limitation
`1a and 1b ......................................................................... 33
`
`Louvel Discloses Limitation 1c ...................................... 34
`
`Louvel Discloses Limitation 1d ...................................... 35
`
`Louvel Discloses Limitation 1e ...................................... 36
`
`Talbert Discloses Limitation 1f ...................................... 37
`
`Louvel and Kroo Disclose Limitation 1g ....................... 41
`
`Louvel and Sato Disclose Limitation 1h(i)–1h(iii) ........ 47
`
`2.
`
`Independent Claim 7 ................................................................. 56
`
`(a)
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(a)
`
`Louvel Discloses 7b ........................................................ 57
`
`Louvel and Kroo Disclose 7d ......................................... 57
`
`Louvel Discloses Limitation 7g ...................................... 58
`
`Sato Discloses Limitation 7i ........................................... 59
`
`3.
`
`Independent Claim 13 ............................................................... 60
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`Louvel and Sato Disclose Limitation 13d ...................... 61
`
`Louvel Discloses Limitation 13f(i) ................................ 61
`
`Louvel Discloses Limitation 13f(ii) ............................... 62
`
`4.
`
`Dependent Claims 6 and 12 ...................................................... 62
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`Louvel Discloses Limitations 6a, 6b, 12a, and 12b........ 62
`
`Louvel Discloses Limitations 6c and 12c ....................... 63
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2 – Claims 2, 8, and 14 Are Obvious in Further View of
`Gabai.................................................................................................... 63
`
`1.
`
`Claims 2, 8, and 14.................................................................... 64
`
`(a)
`
`Talbert Discloses Limitations 2a, 2b, 8a, 8b, and
`14a ................................................................................... 64
`
`(b) Gabai Discloses Limitations 2c, 8c, and 14b ................. 64
`
`(c) A POSA Would have Been Motivated to Combine
`Louvel with Gabai .......................................................... 66
`
`D. Ground 3 – Claims 3 and 9 Are Obvious in Further View of
`Burdoin ................................................................................................ 68
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Burdoin Discloses Claim 3 ....................................................... 68
`
`Burdoin Discloses Claim 9 ....................................................... 73
`
`A POSA Would have Been Motivated to Combine
`Louvel with Burdoin ................................................................. 73
`
`E.
`
`Ground 4 – Claims 5, 11, and 15 Are Obvious Under Louvel in
`View of Sato, Kroo, Talbert, and Lee ................................................. 76
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 15 ............................................................... 76
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`Louvel Discloses Limitation 15c .................................... 77
`
`Louvel Discloses Limitation 15d .................................... 77
`
`Louvel and Lee Disclose Limitation 15f ........................ 77
`
`(d) A POSA Would have Been Motivated to Combine
`Louvel with Lee .............................................................. 79
`
`(e)
`
`Talbert Discloses Limitation 15g(i) ................................ 81
`
`(f) Gabai Discloses Limitation 15g(ii) ................................ 81
`
`(g)
`
`Sato Discloses Limitation 15j ......................................... 82
`
`2.
`
`Dependent Claims 5 and 11 ...................................................... 82
`
`F.
`
`Ground 5 – Claim 16 is Obvious in Further View of Burdoin ........... 82
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................. 82
`
`Burdoin Discloses Claim 16 ..................................................... 83
`
`G.
`
`Secondary Considerations Do Not Support A Finding Of Non-
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... 83
`
`VI. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 83
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................... 83
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................ 84
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Related Patent Office Proceedings............................................ 84
`
`Related Litigation ...................................................................... 84
`
`Related Applications ................................................................. 85
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) and
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ............................... 85
`
`D.
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)) ............................................. 85
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`VII. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R
`§§ 42.101, 42.104, AND 42.108) .................................................................. 86
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a); 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 42.101(a)-(c)) ................................................................................. 86
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 86
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Teva Pharms.,
`752 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 45
`
`Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc.,
`807 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 46
`
`Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`745 F.2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .......................................................................... 46
`
`National Steel Car v. Canadian Pacific RY, Ltd.,
`357 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 44
`
`Nuvasive v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., IPR2013-00206,
`Paper No. 17 (Sept. 23, 2013) ............................................................................. 18
`
`Parrot S.A. et al. v. QFO Labs, Inc.,
`No. 16-682-GMS (D. Del.) ................................................................................. 84
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 19
`
`QFO Labs, Inc. v. Parrot S.A. et al.,
`No. 16-cv-03443-JRT-HB (D. Minn.) ................................................................ 85
`
`Statutes and Rules
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................. 9, 19, 20, 21, 30
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319................................................................................................. 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 20
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 315(a)-(b) ........................................................................................... 86
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................................................................................. 84, 85
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ................................................................................................ 85
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................. 86
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ............................................................................................... 1, 18
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ................................................................................................... 86
`37 CPR. § 42.101 ................................................................................................... 86
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................. 19, 86
`37 CPR. § 42.104 ............................................................................................. 19, 86
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2)) ........................................................................................ 20
`37 CPR. § 42.204(b)(2)) ........................................................................................ 20
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`Vi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`LIST OF PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS
`
`
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,645,580 to Pedersen et al.
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,645,580
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Girish Chowdhary
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0104921 (“Louvel”)
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,453,758 (“Sato”)
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`I. Kroo et al., “Mesoscale Flight and Miniature Rotorcraft
`Development,” Stanford University, published in T.J. Mueller ,
`“Fixed and Flapping Wing Aerodynamics for Micro Air Vehicle
`Applications, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics,” pp. 503-
`517 (2002) (“Kroo”)
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0193914 (“Talbert”)
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2001/0021669 (“Gabai”)
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,521,817 (“Burdoin”)
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,739,189 (“Lee”)
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Weilenmann, Martin F., Urs Christen, and Hans P. Geering,
`“Robust helicopter position control at hover,” American Control
`Conference, 1994. Vol. 3. IEEE, 1994.
`
`Shim, David Hyunchul, Hyoun Jin Kim, and Shankar Sastry,
`“Hierarchical control system synthesis for rotorcraft-based
`unmanned aerial vehicles,” AIAA Guidance, Navigation and
`Control Conference. 2000.
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Shim, H., et al., “A comprehensive study of control design for an
`autonomous helicopter,” In: Proc. 37th IEEE Conf. on Decision
`and Control (CDC’98), 1998.
`
`Frazzoli, Emilio, Munther A. Dahleh, and Eric Feron, “Real-time
`motion planning for agile autonomous vehicles,” Journal of
`Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 25.1 (2002): 116-129.
`
`Printout of Website at
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lift_curve.svg
`
`Printout of Website at https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-
`12/airplane/right2.html
`
`Printout of Website at
`http://www.aerialroboticscompetition.org/past_missions/
`pastmissionimages/mission3/robots2.png
`
`Printout of Website at
`https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/
`5/59/Quadrotorhover.svg/220px-Quadrotorhover.svg.png
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`Printout of Website at
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USN_hovercraft.jpg
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,053,480 to Vanderlip et al.
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`Declaration of Coral Sheldon-Hess
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`I. Kroo et al., “The Mesicopter: A Miniature Rotorcraft Concept
`Phase II Interim Report,” Stanford University (2000).
`
`I. Kroo et al., “The Mesicopter: A Miniature Rotorcraft Concept
`Phase II Final Report,” Stanford University (2001).
`
`I. Kroo et al., “The Mesicopter: A Meso-Scale Flight Vehicle
`NIAC Phase I Final Report,” Stanford University (1999).
`
`Gavrilets, Vladislav, Avionics systems development for small
`unmanned aircraft, Diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
`1998.
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,931,239
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,073,532
`Ex. 1027
`
`EX. 1027 File History of US. Patent No. 9,073,532
`
`Ex. 1028
`EX. 1028
`
`Parrot S.A. et al. v. QFO Labs, Inc., IPR2016-01559 Institution
`Parrot SA. et al. v. QFO Labs, Inc., IPR2016—01559 Institution
`Decision, Paper 15 (Feb. 16, 2017).
`Decision, Paper 15 (Feb. 16, 2017).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,931,239 to Pedersen et al.
`Ex. 1029
`US. Patent No. 7,931,239 to Pedersen et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,073,532 to Pedersen et al.
`Ex. 1030
`US. Patent No. 9,073,532 to Pedersen et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1031
`
`Kayton, Myron, and Walter R. Fried, Avionics navigation
`Kayton, Myron, and Walter R. Fried, Avionics navigation
`systems, John Wiley & Sons (1997)
`systems, John Wiley & Sons (1997)
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`iX
`
`

`

`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq., Parrot
`
`S.A., Parrot Drones S.A.S. and Parrot Inc. (“Parrot” ) respectfully request that the
`
`Board initiate inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-16 (“the
`
`Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,645,580 (“the ’580 patent,” Ex. 1001),
`
`which is assigned to QFO Labs, Inc. (“QFO”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’580 patent, which was issued just this week, is the third member of the
`
`same patent family. The Board has already instituted trial on the two parent
`
`patents – U.S. Patent Nos. 7,931,239 (“the ’239 patent”) and 9,073,532 (“the ’532
`
`patent”). And two IPR petitions on additional claims of the parent patents remain
`
`pending.
`
`The claims of the ’580 patent are minor, obvious variations of the
`
`technology claimed in its parents. This fact is confirmed by QFO’s acquiescence
`
`to a double-patenting rejection during examination. Accordingly, this petition
`
`should be granted for many of the same reasons as Parrot’s preceding petitions.
`
`QFO will surely argue that the Examiner of the ’580 patent already
`
`considered the arguments made in the earlier IPRs. However, QFO did not file the
`
`application that led to the ’580 patent until after Parrot had filed its earlier IPRs.
`
`As such, QFO added minor claim limitations to the ’580 patent specifically to
`
`avoid the prior art cited in Parrot’s earlier IPRs. However, the claims presented
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`here suffer from the same infirmity as the claims of the parent patents—they are
`
`directed to a combination of known elements being used for their intended
`
`purposes without any unexpected results. After considering Parrot’s earlier IPRs,
`
`the Examiner identified two limitations in the claims of the ’580 patent that were
`
`allegedly not present in the prior art: 1) a transceiver that permits two-way
`
`communication; and 2) determining an “inertial gravitational reference” in the
`
`drone and the handheld controller, a limitation that is found in only some of the
`
`claims. As explained in detail below, neither of these features is novel. The use of
`
`transceivers for two-way communication was well known prior to the filing date of
`
`the ’580 patent. Indeed, Talbert – a reference that was not presented in the prior
`
`IPRs or considered by the Examiner – explicitly discloses a transceiver for two-
`
`way communication between an RC aircraft and its handheld controller. Similarly,
`
`Sato – a second reference not previously considered – discloses a handheld
`
`controller that determines an inertial gravitational reference. And finally, the
`
`Board has already made a preliminary finding that “Louvel dynamically
`
`determines a gravitational reference.” (Ex. 1028,p. 20). Indeed, Louvel discloses
`
`that its “tilt sensors” measure a “tilt angle deviation” based on a “horizontal
`
`reference,” which is an inertial gravitational reference.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioners respectfully request that institution be granted.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
`
`At a high level, the ’580 patent relates to a toy battery-powered “flying
`
`hovercraft.” The following sections summarize the patent specification and the
`
`prosecution history.
`
`A. The ’580 Patent Specification
`
`The specification of the ’580 patent is essentially identical to the
`
`specification of its parent patents. It describes a toy hovercraft that includes three
`
`main portions: (1) four contra-rotating “thrusters;” (2) a “homeostatic” control
`
`system; and (3) a remote controller that controls the hovercraft based on its
`
`orientation in the user’s hand.
`
`More specifically, the “hovercraft” of the ’580 patent is described as
`
`including “at least two pairs of counter-rotating ducted fans to generate lift like a
`
`hovercraft and utilizes a homeostatic hover control system to create a flying craft
`
`that is easily controlled.” (Ex. 1001,6:29-32). This is shown in Fig. 16:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`This homeostatic flying saucer uses four battery-powered ducted fans
`
`housed completely inside the craft to produce four cones of thrust beneath the
`
`craft. (Id.6:47-52). The bottom-perspective depicted in Figure 20 illustrates the
`
`placement of the four contra-rotating ducted fans.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The hovercraft of the ’580 patent is also described as “homeostatic,” which
`
`means that it tends to be neutrally balanced. (Ex. 1003,¶29). The ’580 patent
`
`describes several aspects of the hovercraft that contribute to its homeostaticity –
`
`(1) contra-rotating fans; (2) the angle of the engines; and (3) a control system that
`
`determines how much thrust to provide each engine in order to maintain a specific
`
`orientation. (Ex. 1001,6:60-7:9.)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Although the ’580 patent refers frequently to the “homeostatic control
`
`system,” it provides little detail as to how that system works in practice.
`
`Functionally, the system includes an “XYZ sensor arrangement 302 and associated
`
`control circuitry 304 that dynamically determines an inertial gravitational reference
`
`for use in automatic control of the thrust produced by each thruster.” (Id.,11:26-
`
`30). The control system may be implemented “in software” or “in hardware.”
`
`(Id.,11:31,36). The hardware is described as sensors that “sense acceleration and
`
`gravity in the X plane and at least three second sensors that sense acceleration only
`
`in the X plane.” (Id.,11:41-45). These sensors may be “two sets of active
`
`accelerometers” and “two sets of passive accelerometers” in both the X and Y
`
`planes. (Id.,11:52-56). No description of how the software portion operates in
`
`conjunction with the hardware is provided.
`
`The remote control is described as providing “one-handed” operation. This
`
`is accomplished by using “XY axis transducers” in the controller that sense the
`
`orientation of the controller, and transmit corresponding control signals to the
`
`hovercraft. (Id.,13:38-46). The controller is also described as including a “control
`
`stick” that is operated by a user’s thumb and a “video control pad.” (Id.,10:11-15).
`
`The controller is best shown by reference to Figure 22b, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`The Board Institutes IPRs On The Two Parent Patents
`
`After QFO alleged that Parrot infringed the ’239 and ’532 patents, Parrot
`
`
`
`filed IPRs challenging the validity of those patents on August 8, 2016. See
`
`IPR2016-01550 (“the ’550 proceeding”) & IPR2016-01559 (“the ’559
`
`proceeding”). On February 16, 2017, the Board instituted trial in both the ’550 and
`
`’559 proceedings.
`
`In the ’550 proceeding, the Board instituted review of claim 10 of the ’239
`
`patent. The Board, however, declined to institute review of claims 1-9, finding that
`
`the ’550 petition presented insufficient evidence of a single claim limitation – the
`
`“battery” system/means – which requires that the thrusters and other electrical
`
`components be powered by an on-board battery.
`
`Likewise, in the ’559 proceeding, the Board instituted review of claims 8-14
`
`of the ’532 patent, but declined to institute review of claims 1-7 and 15-24. As in
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`the ’550 proceeding, the Board found that the ’559 petition presented insufficient
`
`evidence of a “battery” or “electrical-power” system on the hovercraft.
`
`Petitioners filed two additional petitions directed to the remaining claims of
`
`’239 and ’532 patents. In IPR2017-01089 , Petitioners requested that the Board
`
`institute review of claims 1-9, which addressed the “battery” limitations by
`
`presenting grounds not considered in the ’550 petition. Likewise, in IPR2017-
`
`01090 , Petitioners requested IPR on claims 1-7 and 15-24, which raised new prior
`
`art related to the subject battery limitations. The Board has not issued an
`
`institution decision in either of those IPRs.
`
`C. The ’580 Prosecution History
`
`The ’580 application was filed on September 21, 2016—approximately six
`
`weeks after Parrot filed its first two IPRs against the parent patents. QFO initially
`
`filed the application with only a single claim and a contemporaneous request for
`
`track one status (Ex. 1002,pp.27,29-30), which was granted on October 19, 2016.
`
`(Id.,p. 189). On September 23, 2016, QFO filed a preliminary amendment and an
`
`IDS, in which it submitted references that were used to institute IPRs on the earlier
`
`patents. (Id.,pp. 92-182). In the IDS, QFO discussed Louvel, Gordon, and
`
`Thomas. Louvel is used both this petition and in the ’550, ’559, ’089 and ’090
`
`petitions as a primary reference. In distinguishing Louvel, however, QFO stated
`
`only that it failed to disclosed the controller related-limitations; it did not argue
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`that Louvel failed to disclose any other limitations, including the requirement that
`
`the aircraft determine an “inertial gravitational reference.” (Id.,pp. 106-107).
`
`The claims of the ’580 patent application were initially rejected for double
`
`patenting and for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
`
`(Id.,pp. 198-207). After conducting an interview with the Examiner, the applicants
`
`agreed to submit a terminal disclaimer to overcome the double-patenting rejection
`
`and to allegedly overcome the §112 rejections by amending the claims. (Id.,p.
`
`258). The Examiner then issued a Notice of Allowability on February 10, 2017;
`
`however, following the Board’s institution decision in the ’550 and ’559
`
`proceedings, QFO petitioned to withdraw the application from issuance, and the
`
`Examiner considered the grounds of institution. (Id.,pp. 314-315). Thereafter, the
`
`Examiner once again allowed the claims. In his reasons for allowance, he stated
`
`that there were “two distinguishing features” over the art cited in the earlier IPRs:
`
`1) “the bi-directional communications between the remote controller and the
`
`aircraft” and 2) “the determination of the gravitational references in each of the
`
`controller and the aircraft.” (Id.,pp. 340-344). The second finding directly
`
`contradicts the Board’s preliminary finding that “Thomas teaches or suggests that
`
`motion of its handheld enclosure would result in an angular displacement with
`
`respect to an inertial gravitational frame of reference” and that “Louvel
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`dynamically determines a gravitational frame of reference.” (Ex. 1028,p. 19-
`
`20).1
`
`D. The Claims of the ’580 Patent
`
`The ’580 patent recites seventeen claims, comprising four independent
`
`claims (Nos. 1, 7, 13, and 15) and thirteen dependent claims. Claim 1 recites three
`
`primary components: (1) a flying hovercraft containing various off-the-shelf
`
`components, including motors, an RF transceiver, and a battery system; (2) a
`
`homeostatic control system for automatically controlling the motors using a three-
`
`dimensional sensor system; and (3) an RC controller for controlling the desired
`
`orientation of the hovercraft using control software. (Ex. 1001,15:46-16:13).
`
`For ease of reference, the Challenged Claims are reproduced below:
`
`No.
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`Claim 1
`
`1a
`
`1b
`
`1c
`
`A radio controlled (RC) system for a homeostatic flying craft
`controllable by a user remote from the flying craft with a hand-held
`controller,
`
`the hand-held controller housing a battery-powered microprocessor
`system operatively coupled to a sensor system,
`
`the RC comprising: a flying structure having lift generated by at least
`four electrically powered motors, each motor having at least one blade
`driven by the motor that generates a downwardly directed thrust,
`
`1d
`
`the flying structure including: a homeostatic control system operably
`
`
`1 The file histories to the ’580 patent’s parents are summarized in Ex. 1003,39-45.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1e
`
`1f
`
`1g
`
`1h(i)
`
`1h(ii)
`
`1h(iii)
`
`2a
`
`2b
`
`2c
`
`connected to the motors and configured to control the thrust produced
`by each motor in order to automatically maintain a desired orientation
`of the flying structure,
`
`the homeostatic control system including at least a three-dimensional
`sensor system and associated control circuitry configured to determine
`an inertial gravitational reference for use by the homeostatic control
`system to control a speed of each of the motors;
`
`a radio frequency (RF) transceiver operably connected to the
`homeostatic control system and configured to provide RF
`communications with the hand-held controller;
`
`and a battery system operably coupled to the motors, the RF
`transceiver and the homeostatic control system;
`
`and control software that is adapted to be used by the battery-powered
`microprocessor system in the hand-held controller
`
`and that is configured to control the flying structure by RF
`communications that include control commands corresponding to the
`desired orientation of the flying structure based on the sensor system
`in the hand-held controller
`
`that is configured to sense a controller gravitational reference and a
`relative title of the hand-held controller with respect to the controller
`gravitational reference as a result of the user selectively orienting the
`hand-held controller.
`
`Claim 2
`
`The RC system of claim 1 wherein the RF communications between
`the flying structure and the hand-held controller selectively include
`data transmissions in addition to the control commands,
`
`wherein the data transmissions are selectively configured to include
`video images from the flying structure,
`
`and wherein software updates are configured to be received by the
`hand-held controller from an Internet connection.
`
`Claim 3
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`3
`
`5
`
`6a
`
`6b
`
`The RC system of claim 1 further comprising instructions configured
`to keep the flying structure within 500 feet of the hand-held controller.
`
`Claim 5
`
`The RC system of claim 1 wherein the sensor system includes both a
`three-dimensional accelerometer sensor system and a three-
`dimensional gyroscopic sensor system.
`
`Claim 6
`
`The RC system of claim 1 wherein the four motors are arranged as two
`pairs of motors that are symmetrically positioned about an X-Y axis
`configuration such that one motor of each pair of motors is positioned
`opposite the other motor
`
`and one of the pairs of motors is configured to counter-rotate relative
`to the other of the pairs of motors,
`
`6c
`
`and wherein the flying structure weighs less than 42 ounces.
`
`7a
`
`7b
`
`7c
`
`7d
`
`7e
`
`Claim 7
`
`A radio controlled (RC) drone controlled by a user operating a hand-
`held RC controller separate and remote from the RC drone
`comprising:
`
`a body supporting two pairs of electrically powered motors, each
`motor configured to drive at least one blade to generate aerodynamic
`lift;
`
`a battery system positioned in the body and operably coupled to the
`motors;
`
`a control system positioned in the body and operably connected to the
`motors and the battery system, the control system configured to
`control a downwardly directed thrust produced by each motor using:
`
`a radio frequency (RF) transceiver configured to facilitate RF
`communications with the RC controller that include commands
`corresponding to a desired orientation of the RC drone;
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`7f
`
`7g
`
`7h(i)
`
`7h(ii)
`
`a sensor system configured to sense a sensed orientation of the body;
`
`and a microprocessor system configured to determine a gravitational
`reference to use the sensed orientation and the gravitational reference
`to control a speed of each of the motors to position the body in
`response to the commands corresponding to the desired orientation;
`
`and software that is adapted to be used by a battery-powered
`microprocessor system in the RC controller
`
`and that is configured to control the RC drone by RF communications
`that include control commands corresponding to the desired
`orientation of the RC drone based on a sensor system housed in a
`hand-held structure of the RC controller
`
`7h(iii)
`
`that is configured to sense a gravitational reference and a relative tilt
`of the hand-held structure with respect to the gravitational reference as
`a result of the user selectively orienting the hand-held structure,
`
`7i
`
`8a
`
`8b
`
`8c
`
`9
`
`such that an actual moment-to-moment orientation of the RC drone
`can mimic a corresponding moment-to-moment positioning of the
`hand-held structure of the RC controller.
`
`Claim 8
`
`The RC drone of claim 7 wherein the RF communications between the
`RC drone and the RC controller selectively include data transmissions
`in addition to the control commands,
`
`wherein the data transmissions are selectively configured to include
`video images from a camera onboard the RC drone,
`
`and wherein software updates are configured to be received by the
`hand-held controller from an Internet connection.
`
`Claim 9
`
`The RC drone of claim 7 further comprising instructions configured to
`keep the RC drone within a programmed maximum distance from the
`RC controller based on the RF communications and to cause the RC
`drone to automatically reverse when the RC drone approaches the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`programmed maximum distance from the RC controller.
`
`Claim 11
`
`The RC drone of claim 7 wherein the sensor system includes both a
`three-dimensional accelerometer sensor system and a three-
`dimensional g