`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No.______
`
`
`
`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 IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.107
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`
`
` TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ....................................................................................................... vii
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
`
`II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 5
`
`A. The ’580 Patent ................................................................................................. 5
`
`B. The Challenged Claims .................................................................................... 7
`
`C. Person of Ordinary Skill.................................................................................. 9
`
`D. Related Proceedings .......................................................................................10
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability...........................................................12
`
`III. ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................13
`
`A. Petitioners Lack Standing to File this Fifth Petition .....................................13
`
`1. Petitioners Bear the Burden of Establishing Standing in the Petition ..........14
`
`2. Petitioners Do Not Have Standing Under the Statute ...................................14
`
`3. Petitioners Do Not Have Standing Under the Rules .....................................16
`
`B. The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion to Dismiss the Petition ............17
`
`1.
`
`Institution of an Inter Partes Review Trial is Discretionary .........................17
`
`2. The Petition Impermissibly Benefits from the Board’s Prior Decision ........19
`
`3. The References and Arguments Are Substantially the Same as Previously
`
`Presented ..............................................................................................................20
`
`4. The Petition Fails to Justify Why the Board Should Exercise Its Discretion to
`
`Institute Trial ........................................................................................................20
`
`C. Claim Construction ........................................................................................24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`D. The Primary and Secondary References .....................................................27
`
`1. Louvel Teaches a “Position” Controller Scheme .........................................27
`
`2. Sato Teaches a “Motion” Controller Scheme ...............................................28
`
`3. Talbert Also Teaches a “Position” Controller Scheme ................................32
`
`E. The Independent Claims Are Not Obvious Over the Combination of
`
`Louvel with Sato .....................................................................................................33
`
`1. The Petition Does Not Present a Sufficient Reasoned Rationale to Combine
`
`the References .......................................................................................................34
`
`a. The Field of Endeavor and Problem Are Not the Same ................................35
`
`b. The Complexity of the Technology and Physics Precludes a Common Sense
`
`or a Simple Substitution Combination..................................................................36
`
`c. The Reasons for Allowance Confirm That Combination Is Not Obvious to
`
`Try and Is Only Due To Impermissible Hindsight ...............................................37
`
`d. Sato Expressly Teaches Away From Using Gravity as a Part of a Motion
`
`Controller Scheme. ...............................................................................................38
`
`2. Even If Combined, the Proposed Combination Still Does Not Yield the
`
`Claimed Invention. ...............................................................................................41
`
`a. Neither Louvel Nor Sato Teach the Use of “Orientation” as the Basis for the
`
`Control Commands Sent to the Craft ...................................................................42
`
`b. Because Louvel Uses a “Position” Controller Scheme, It Does Not Produce
`
`the Same Behavior of the Craft as with the Claimed “Orientation” Controller
`
`Scheme ..................................................................................................................43
`
`c. Because Sato Uses “Floating” Sensors, the Resulting Behavior of the Craft
`
`Does Not Compare with the Claimed “Orientation” Controller Scheme ...........46
`
`d. The Reasons for Allowance in the ’580 Patent Confirm that the Proposed
`
`Combination Does Not Yield the Claimed Invention ...........................................47
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................50
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`
`
`Cases
`
` TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee., 579 U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016) ...24
`
`Harmonic, Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc. 815 F.3d 1356,1367 (Fed.Cir.2016) .................18
`
`In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ......................................................40
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010). ..........................24
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,1257 (Fed.Cir.2007) ..........................25
`
`In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................40
`
`Parrot S.A., et al. v. QFO Labs, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00682-GMS (D. Del.) .....10
`
`PerfectVision Mfg., Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc. 951 F.Supp.2d 1083 (E.D.Ark.
`
`2013) .......................................................................................................... 2, 16, 17
`
`Personal Web Technologies, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,848 F.3d 987,994 (Fed.Cir.2017) 41
`
`QFO Labs, Inc. v. Brookstone Stores, Inc., Case No. 0:17-cv-01100-JNE-SR (D.
`
`Minn.) ...................................................................................................................11
`
`QFO Labs, Inc. v. Parrot S.A., et al., Case No. 16-cv-03443-JRT-HB (D. Minn.) 11
`
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Groups Brands LLC, No.16-341 (May 22, 2017)
`
` ..............................................................................................................................11
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,803 (Fed.Cir.1999) .....25
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`Anova Food, LLC v. Sandau, IPR2013-00114, (PTAB Sept.13, 2013) (Paper No.
`
`17, p.6 – Decision Denying Inter Partes Review) .................................. 13, 14, 15
`
`Biodelivery Sciences Int’l, Inc. v. RB Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., IPR2014-00998
`
`(PTAB Dec.19, 2014) (Paper 12, fn.1 – Decision Denying Institution and
`
`Dismissing Motion for Joinder) ...........................................................................13
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, slip op. 7–10
`
`(PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12 – Decision Denying Institution) .....................10
`
`Coalition for Affordable Drugs IV LLC v. Pharmacyclics, Inc., IPR2015-01076,
`
`slip op. 6 (PTAB Oct. 19, 2015) (Paper 33 – Decision Denying Institution) ......10
`
`Conopco, Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., IPR2014-00506, slip op. at 4 (PTAB
`
`Dec.10, 2014) (Paper 25 – Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing)
`
` ..............................................................................................................................23
`
`Facebook, Inc. and Instagram LLC v. Skky LLC, IPR2017-00688, slip op. 3-6
`
`(PTAB August 2, 2017) (Paper 11 – Decision Denying Institution) ...................20
`
`Facebook, Inc. and Instagram LLC v. Skky LLC, IPR2017-00689, slip op. 5–7
`
`(PTAB July 26, 2017) (Paper 9 – Decision Denying Institution) ........................20
`
`Fed.Reg., Vol.77, No.157, (August 14, 2012), p.48688 ..........................................16
`
`General Plastic Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case IPR2016-
`
`01358, slip op. at 9-12 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2016) (Paper 12 – Decision Denying
`
`Institution) ............................................................................................................22
`
`H.R. REP. NO. 112-98, 112th Cong., 1st Sess. (June 1, 2011) at 75 ..........................15
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. F’Real Foods, LLC, IPR2017-00765, slip op. at 7-
`
`12 (PTAB July 31, 2017) (Paper 7 – Decision Denying Institution) ...................22
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., IPR2016-00986 (PTAB
`
`Aug.22, 2016) (Paper 12 – Decision Denying Institution and Dismissing Motion
`
`for Joinder) .............................................................................................. 19, 22, 23
`
`Medtronic Xomed, Inc., v. Neurovision Medical Products, Inc., IPR2017- 00456,
`
`slip op. at 8–9 (PTAB May 5, 2017) (Paper 10 – Decision Denying Institution
`
`and Dismissing Motion for Joinder) .....................................................................22
`
`NVIDIA Corp. v. Samsung Elec. Co., IPR2016-00134, slip op. at 7 (PTAB May 4,
`
`2016) (Paper 9 – Decision Denying Institution). .................................................21
`
`Sketchers USA, Inc., v. Adidas, AG., IPR2017- 00322, slip op. at 5–10 (PTAB May
`
`30, 2017) (Paper 9 – Decision Denying Institution) ........................... 4, 18, 20, 22
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., Inc., Case IPR2015-01423, slip op. at 8
`
`(PTAB Oct. 28, 2015) (Paper 7 – Decision Denying Institution) ........................23
`
`Xactware Sols., Inc. v. Eagle View Techs., Inc., IPR2017-00034, slip op. at 7-8
`
`(PTAB April 13, 2017) (Paper 9 – Decision Denying Institution) ......................22
`
`Xactware Sols., Inc. v. Eagle View Techs., Inc., IPR2017-00363, slip op. at 8
`
`(PTAB July 18, 2017) (Paper 9 – Decision Denying Institution) ........................22
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) ...................................................................................................38
`
`35 U.S.C. §314(a) ..................................................................................... 3, 5, 18, 50
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`35 U.S.C. §315(a) ....................................................................... 3, 13, 14, 15, 17, 50
`
`35 U.S.C. §315(b) ............................................................................................. 13, 15
`
`35 U.S.C. §316(a)(11) ..............................................................................................21
`
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) ................................................................................... 3, 18, 20, 50
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.1(b) ...................................................................................................18
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ...............................................................................................24
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.101(a) ............................................................................................3, 16
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.108(a) ............................................................................................3, 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex.1001 – U.S. Patent No. 9,645,580 (“the ’580 patent”).
`
`Ex.1002 – File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,645,580.
`
`Ex.1003 – Declaration of Dr. Girish Chowdhary.
`
`Ex.1004 – U.S. Publication 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. Publication No. 2002/0193914 (“Talbert”).
`
`Ex.1008 – U.S. Publication 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 – Weilenmann, Martin F., Urs Christen, and Hans P. Geering,
`
`“Robust helicopter position control at hover,” American Control Conference, 1994.
`
`Vol. 3. IEEE, 1994.
`
`Ex.1012 – 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
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`Ex.1013 – 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.
`
`Ex.1014 – 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.
`
`Ex.1015 – Printout of Website at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:
`
`Lift_curve.svg.
`
`Ex.1016 – Printout of Website at https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-
`
`12/airplane/right2.html.
`
`Ex.1017 – Printout of Website at http://www.aerialroboticscompetition.org/
`
`past_missions/pastmissionimages/mission3/robots2.png.
`
`Ex.1018 – 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 (“Vanderlip”).
`
`Ex.1021 – Committee on Materials, Structures, and Aeronautics for
`
`Advanced Uninhabited Air Vehicles, “Uninhabited Air Vehicles: Enabling Science
`
`for Military Systems,” National Academy of Sciences (2000).
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`Ex.1022 – Parrot S.A. et al., v. QFO Labs, Inc., IPR2016-01559, Paper No.
`
`1 (Petition) (August 8, 2016).
`
`Ex.1023 – Parrot S.A. et al., v. QFO Labs, Inc., IPR2016-01559, Paper No.
`
`6 (Preliminary Response) (November 22, 2016).
`
`Ex.1021 – Declaration of Coral Sheldon-Hess.
`
`Ex.1022 – I. Kroo et al., “The Mesicopter: A Miniature Rotorcraft Concept
`
`Phase II Interim Report,” Stanford University (2000).
`
`Ex.1023 – I. Kroo et al., “The Mesicopter: A Miniature Rotorcraft Concept
`
`Phase II Final Report,” Stanford University (2001).
`
`Ex.1024 – I. Kroo et al., “The Mesicopter: A Meso-Scale Flight Vehicle
`
`NIAC Phase I Final Report,” Stanford University (1999).
`
`Ex.1025 – 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.
`
`Ex.1027 – File history of U.S. Patent No. 9,073,532.
`
`Ex.1028 – Parrot S.A. et al., v. QFO Labs, Inc., IPR2016-01559, Paper No.
`
`15 (Decision) (February 16, 2016).
`
`Ex.1029 – U.S. Patent No. 7,931,239 (“the ’239 patent”).
`
`Ex.1030 – U.S. Patent No. 9,073,532 (“the ’532 patent”).
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`Ex.1031 – Kayton, Myron, and Walter R. Fried, “Avionics Navigation
`
`Systems, John Wiley & Sons (1997).
`
`. . .
`
`Ex.2001 – PCT Publication No. WO2004101357A2 (“Spirov”).
`
`Ex.2002 – Provisional Patent Application No. 60/407,444.
`
`Ex.2003 – Delaware complaint for declaratory judgment, Parrot S.A., et al.
`
`v. QFO Labs, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00682 (GMS) (D. Del.) (August 8, 2016).
`
`Ex.2004 – Minnesota complaint for patent infringement, QFO Labs, Inc. v.
`
`Parrot S.A., et al., Case No. 16-cv-03443 (JRT-HB) (D. Minn.) (October 12,
`
`2016).
`
`Ex.2005 – Letter to The Honorable Hildy Bowbeer from Grant Fairbairn,
`
`attorney for Parrot, QFO Labs, Inc. v. Parrot S.A., et al., Case No. 16-cv-03443
`
`(JRT-HB) (D. Minn.) (Doc. No.40) (March 29, 2017).
`
`Ex.2006 – Order Dismissing Minnesota complaint without prejudice, QFO
`
`Labs, Inc. v. Parrot S.A., et al., Case No. 16-cv-03443 (JRT-HB) (D. Minn.)
`
`(Docs. 58 and 59) (June 19, 2017).
`
`Ex.2007 – Amended Delaware complaint for declaratory judgment, Parrot
`
`S.A., et al. v. QFO Labs, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00682 (GMS) (D. Del.) (Doc.28)
`
`(May 16, 2017).
`
`Ex.2008 – Declaration of John P. Condon.
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`Ex.2009 – U.S. Patent No. 5,128,671 (“Thomas”).
`
`Ex.2010 – U.S. Publication No. 2002/0106966 (“Jimenez”).
`
`Ex.2011 – Parrot S.A. et al. v. QFO Labs, Inc., IPR2016-01550 Institution
`
`Decision, Paper 18 (Feb.16, 2017).
`
`Ex.2012 – Parrot S.A. et al., v. QFO Labs, Inc., IPR2016-01550, Paper
`
`No.10 (Preliminary Response) (Nov.22, 2016).
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners, Parrot S.A., Parrot S.A.S, and Parrot, Inc. (“Petitioners”) filed a
`
`Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1-3, 5-9 and 11-16 (“the
`
`Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,645,580 (“the ’580 patent”), which
`
`claims priority to U.S. Patent No. 9,073,532 (“the ’532 patent”) and U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,931,239 (“the ’239 patent”) (collectively, “the ’239 patent family”).1 QFO
`
`Labs, Inc. (“Patentee”) files this Preliminary Response to present arguments and
`
`information as to why the Board cannot institute an inter partes review because
`
`Petitioners lack standing, and why the Board should not institute an inter partes
`
`review even if Petitioners did have standing.
`
`The Petition is the fifth filed by Petitioners against the ’239 patent family.
`
`The ’239 patent is involved in IPR2016-01550 and IPR2017-01089.2 The ’532
`
`patent is involved in IPR2016-01559 and IPR2017-01090.3 The same primary
`
`
`1 Patent Owner refers to the file-history exhibits provided by Petitioners (Ex.1002,
`Ex.1026, and Ex.1027) in this preliminary response, but Patent Owner notes that
`these file histories do not include any NPL documents (such as IPR documents)
`that were submitted by Patent Owner during prosecution of the respective patents.
`2 Trial was instituted in IPR2016-01550 on February 22, 2017 on only one ground
`and for only one claim. A decision on whether to institute trial in IPR2017-01089
`has not yet been made.
`3 Trial was instituted in IPR2016-01559 on February 22, 2017 on only one ground
`and for only one claim set. A decision on whether to institute trial in IPR2017-
`01090 has not yet been made.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`reference – Louvel – has been asserted in all five petitions. During the examination
`
`of the ’580 patent, the Examiner specifically considered at length the arguments
`
`presented by Petitioners in the previous four petitions, as well as the Decisions to
`
`Institute, and concluded in the Reasons for Allowance that to “further modify
`
`Louvel to reject the claims under pre-AIA 35 USC 103(a) would, in the
`
`Examiner’s opinion, constitute impermissible hindsight.” (Ex.1002, p.343).
`
`There is a threshold question of first impression as to whether the Petitioners
`
`have standing and the Board has the authority to institute an inter partes review of
`
`a continuing patent where a declaratory judgment action was previously filed
`
`against the parent patents. The ’239 Patent Family is the subject of a declaratory
`
`judgment action filed by Petitioners in Delaware district court on August 8, 2016.
`
`(Ex.2003). Patentee filed a patent infringement action against Petitioners for the
`
`’239 Patent Family in Minnesota district court on October 12, 2016. (Ex.2004).
`
`Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the Minnesota action and argued that they are
`
`entitled to receive benefit of the earlier date of Petitioners’ declaratory judgment
`
`action with respect to any motion to amend the Minnesota action to include the
`
`’580 patent. (Ex.2005, p.2, citing PerfectVision Mfg., Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.
`
`951 F.Supp.2d 1083 (E.D.Ark. 2013)). The Minnesota action was dismissed.
`
`(Ex.2006). In the Petition, Petitioners indicated they intended to amend the
`
`Delaware action to include counts for declaratory judgment against the ’580 patent.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`(Petition, p.84). They have now amended the Delaware action to include the ’580
`
`patent. (Ex.2007).
`
`Because Petitioners filed a declaratory judgment action against the ’239
`
`patent family in Delaware before the filing of this Petition, and because Petitioners
`
`have amended that declaratory judgment action to include the ’580 patent, the
`
`Delaware action is a civil action challenging the validity of the ’580 patent that
`
`effectively was filed before the filing of this Petition. Accordingly, Petitioners do
`
`not have standing under 37 C.F.R. §42.101(a) to file the Petition, and the Board
`
`does not have authority under 35 U.S.C. §315(a)(1) to institute an inter partes
`
`review trial on the Petition.
`
`Even if Petitioners had standing and the Board had authority to consider this
`
`fifth Petition, the Petition provides no justification for why the Board should
`
`exercise its discretion and permit still another serial attack by Petitioners against
`
`the ’239 patent family. See 35 U.S.C. §§314(a), 325(d); 37 C.F.R. §42.108(a).
`
`There is no analysis or evidence presented in the Petition with respect to the factors
`
`that other panels have used to decide whether to exercise such discretion. Such an
`
`analysis is essential in a situation, as here, where the Examiner fully considered the
`
`primary reference and arguments presented by the same Petitioner, and where the
`
`Petitioner has filed multiple other petitions with the same primary reference and
`
`arguments. See Sketchers USA, Inc., v. Adidas, AG., IPR2017- 00322, slip op. at 5–
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`10 (PTAB May 30, 2017) (Paper 9 – Decision Denying Institution) (“Sketchers
`
`USA”).
`
`Unlike the four other Petitions, in this fifth Petition the primary reference
`
`Louvel is combined with two new secondary references Sato and Talbert. These
`
`new secondary references are, at best, cumulative of the previously used secondary
`
`references Thomas (Ex.2009) and Jimenez (Ex.2010), and do nothing to change the
`
`Examiner’s correct conclusions as to the patentability of the ’580 patent. In this
`
`fifth Petition, Sato is substituted for Thomas with respect to handheld remote
`
`controller limitations. However, instead of teaching the claimed limitations that the
`
`handheld controller determines a gravitational reference as expressly claimed in
`
`the ’580 patent, Sato teaches that gravity is a problem to be avoided. To solve this
`
`problem, Sato teaches using a floating structure for the sensors within the
`
`controller to hold them in a constant direction relative to gravity regardless of the
`
`tilting of the controller. (Ex.1005, 6:49-7:15). Given this teaching, the grounds
`
`presented in this fifth Petition for combining Sato with Louvel are even less
`
`convincing that the grounds based on Thomas with Louvel that were overcome
`
`during original prosecution of the ’580 patent.
`
`Petitioners do not have standing to file the Petition, and the Board does not
`
`have the authority to consider the Petition and institute an inter partes review trial.
`
`If the Board does find that Petitioners have standing and the Board has the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`authority to consider this fifth Petition, Patentee respectfully requests the Board to
`
`exercise its discretion and deny the fifth Petition because the Examiner has already
`
`fully considered, and rejected, grounds based on Louvel that were previously
`
`presented in the four other Petitions. The Petition should also be denied because it
`
`does not show “that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would
`
`prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C.
`
`§314(a).
`
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’580 Patent
`
`The ’580 patent (Ex.1001) issued May 9, 2017, from U.S. Application No.
`
`15/272,414, filed September 21, 2016. (Ex.1001). The ’580 patent claims priority
`
`through the ’532 patent and the ’239 patent to Spirov, PCT Publ. No.
`
`WO2004101357A2 filed September 3, 2003, (Ex.2001), and to U.S. Provisional
`
`Application No. 60/407,444, filed August 30, 2002. (Ex.2002).
`
`The claimed inventions of the ’580 patent are directed to a more intuitive
`
`remote control (RC) controller with an orientation control scheme that dynamically
`
`determines a gravitational reference and an orientation of the hand-held controller
`
`with respect to the gravitational reference to control an actual orientation of a
`
`flying RC hovercraft that has a homeostatic hover control system. The orientation
`
`control scheme for the RC controller is an improvement over conventional dual
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`joystick controllers used for RC aircraft because “pitch and roll control [is]
`
`accomplished by mimicking the pitch and roll of the craft 10 through the use of
`
`XY axis transducers in the remote controller 12.” (Ex.1001, FIG. 3, 13:38-42; see
`
`also 10:36-64). The homeostatic hover control system for the RC hovercraft or
`
`quadcopter “uses an XYZ sensor arrangement and associated control circuitry that
`
`dynamically determines an inertial gravitational reference for use in automatically
`
`and continuously determine [sic] the speed needed for each fan in order to keep the
`
`craft at a desired orientation.” (Ex.1001, 7:4-9).
`
`
`
`Together, the homeostatic hover control system for the RC craft (10) and the
`
`orientation control scheme for the RC controller (12) remove “the need for the
`
`pilot to be concerned with moment-to-moment balance/stabilization and control of
`
`the craft and focus instead only on the intended motion in which the craft is to be
`
`directed.” (Ex.1001, 6:43-46).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`B. The Challenged Claims
`
`Challenged claims 1, 7, 13, and 15 of the ’580 patent are independent
`
`claims. The remaining challenged claims are dependent claims. Independent
`
`claims 1, 7, and 15 are directed to an RC system comprising both an RC craft,
`
`whereas independent claim 13 is directed to a software controlled RC controller.
`
`For the three independent claims of the ’580 patent directed to an RC
`
`system, claim 1 is representative for purposes of this Preliminary Response4:
`
`1. 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
`
`system comprising:
`
`a flying structure having lift generated by four electrically
`
`powered motors, each motor having at least one blade driven by the
`
`motor that generates a downwardly directed thrust, the flying structure
`
`including:
`
`a homeostatic control system operably 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
`
`
`4 Patentee reserves the right to present additional arguments regarding the
`differences among independent claims 1, 7, and 15 if trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`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 tilt of the hand-held controller with respect to
`
`the controller gravitational reference as a result of the user selectively
`
`orienting the hand-held controller.
`
`(Ex.1001, 15:46–16:13).
`
`Independent claim 13 of the ’580 patent is directed to a software-controlled
`
`RC controller:
`
`13. A control system for a hand-held controller configured to control a
`
`radio controlled (RC) drone remote from the hand-held controller,
`
`wherein the RC drone is a quadcopter multi-rotor flying craft having
`
`four electrically powered motors, each motor driving at least one
`
`blade configured to provide aerodynamic lift for the quadcopter multi-
`
`rotor flying craft, a battery system operably coupled to the motors,
`
`and a control system configured to automatically control a
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`downwardly directed thrust produced by each motor in response to
`
`control commands communicated by radio communications, the
`
`control system comprising:
`
`software that is adapted to be used by a battery-powered
`
`microprocessor system in the hand- held controller and that is
`
`configured to control the RC drone by radio communications that
`
`include control commands corresponding to a desired orientation of
`
`the RC drone based on a sensor system in the hand-held controller that
`
`is configured to sense a gravitational reference and a relative tilt of the
`
`hand-held controller with respect to the gravitational reference as a
`
`result of the user selectively orienting the hand-held controller,
`
`wherein the RC drone is configured to be remotely controlled
`
`from the controller so as to position the RC drone in the desired
`
`orientation based on the control system of the RC drone determining a
`
`gravitation reference for the RC drone and a sensed orientation of the
`
`RC drone and controlling a speed of each of the motors to position the
`
`RC drone in response to the control commands in the radio
`
`communications corresponding to the desired orientation.
`
`
`
`C. Person of Ordinary Skill
`
`Patentee agrees with Petitioners that the art to which the ’580 patent pertains
`
`is remote control aircraft. (Petition, p.17). Patentee generally agrees with
`
`Petitioners that a person of ordinary skill in this field of art at the time of the
`
`invention would possess a Bachelor’s of Science degree in aeronautical or
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
` CASE NO: IPR 2017-01400
`
`electrical engineering with at least two years of practical experience in the design
`
`and development of remote control aircraft. (Ex.2008, ¶13).
`
`Patentee objects to the generic presentation in the Petition of multiple
`
`additional references in the guise of purportedly representing what the level of
`
`knowledge of one skilled in the art would be with respect to drones.5
`
`D. Related Proceedings
`
`The ’239 patent, the ’532 patent, and the ’580 patent have been the subject
`
`of three civil actions:
`
`(1) A Delaware suit filed on August 8, 2016 by Petitioners for declaratory
`
`judgment against the ’239 patent and the ’532 patent: Parrot S.A., et al. v. QFO
`
`Labs, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00682-GMS (D. Del.). (The Delaware suit was
`
`
`5 Exs.1011-1020, are purportedly