Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper 10
` Entered: November 21, 2017
`
`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 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 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 1–3, 5–9, and 11–16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,645,580 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’580 patent”). QFO Labs, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary
`Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes
`review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that
`the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.”
`Upon consideration of the Petition, we determine that Petitioners have
`not shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that they would prevail with
`respect to at least one of the challenged claims, and thus, we deny institution
`of an inter partes review for any of claims 1–3, 5–9, and 11–16 of the ’580
`patent.
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioners indicate that the ’580 patent is related to the patents
`challenged in Cases IPR2016-01550, IPR2016-01559, IPR2017-01089, and
`IPR2017-01090. Pet. 84.
`The parties state that the ’580 patent and related patents have been
`asserted in QFO Labs, Inc. v. Parrot S.A., Case No. 16-cv-03443-JRT-HB
`(D. Minn.), which has been dismissed without prejudice, and QFO Labs,
`Inc. v. Brookstone Stores, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-03443-JRT-HB (D. Minn.),
`which has been dismissed. Pet. 84; Paper 4, 3; Paper 9, 3. The ’580 patent
`and related patents have also been asserted in QFO Labs, Inc. v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 0:17-cv-05014-DWF-HB (D. Minn.); QFO
`Labs, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., Case No. 0:17-cv-05011-JNE-TNL (D.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 B2
`
`Minn.); and QFO Labs, Inc. v. Target Corp., Case No. 0:17-cv-05012-JRT-
`DTS (D. Minn.). Paper 9, 4.
`Petitioners also state that they intend to file an amended complaint in
`Parrot S.A. v. QFO Labs, Inc., 16-682-GMS (D. Del.). Pet. 84; see also
`Paper 4, 3 (indicating declaratory judgment suit filed against related
`patents); Paper 9, 3 (indicating declaratory judgment suit amended to include
`the ’580 patent).
`B. The ’580 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’580 patent relates to a “homeostatic flying hovercraft and to a
`radio controlled flying saucer toy employing the principals of a homeostatic
`flying hovercraft.” Ex. 1001, 1:30–32. Figure 21 of the ’580 patent is
`reproduced below:
`
`Figure 21 illustrates a “side cutaway view” of a “preferred
`embodiment of a homeostatic flying hovercraft.” Ex. 1001, 8:61–63, 9:5–6,
`9:34–36. 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 B2
`
`at 9:36–50. Each fan 214 is powered from an internal pair of batteries 216.
`Id. at 9:62–63; see also id. at 12:64–13:9, 13:21–42 (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 11:21–29; see also id.
`at 10:54–61 (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 11:39–41. “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.” Id. at
`11:41–45. The Y-axis and Z-axis sensor systems are similarly configured.
`Id. at 11:45–51. “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 11:52–56. 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 11:57–62. 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 11:62–65.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 22a of the ’580 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 22a is an isometric view of a hand-held bee controller. Ex.
`1001, 9:7–8, 10:4–5. 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 10:36–40. 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 10:41–44. 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.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 B2
`
`at 10:45–49; see also id. at 13:38–42, 13:59–63 (describing embodiment of
`Figs. 1–3).
`C. Illustrative Claim
`The ’580 patent has 17 claims, of which Petitioners challenge claims
`1–3, 5–9, and 11–16. Claims 1, 7, 13, and 15 are independent, and claim 1
`is reproduced below:
`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 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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 B2
`
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds
`Petitioners challenge, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the claims as follows:
`References
`Claim(s) Challenged
`Louvel1, Sato2, Kroo3, and Talbert4 1, 6, 7, 12, and 13
`
`2, 8, and 14
`
`3 and 9
`
`5, 11, and 15
`
`16
`
`Louvel, Sato, Kroo, Talbert, and
`Gabai5
`Louvel, Sato, Kroo, Talbert, and
`Burdoin6
`Louvel, Sato, Kroo, Talbert, and
`Lee7
`Louvel, Sato, Kroo, Talbert, Lee,
`and Burdoin
`Pet. 19.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`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).
`
`
`1 US 2002/0104921 A1, published Aug. 8, 2002 (Ex. 1004).
`2 US 5,453,758, iss. Sept. 26, 1995 (Ex. 1005).
`3 “Fixed and Flapping Wing Aerodynamics for Micro Air Vehicle
`Applications,” Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics (vol. 195, 2001)
`(Ex. 1006).
`4 US 2002/0193914 A1, published Dec. 19, 2002 (Ex. 1007).
`5 US 2001/0021669 A1, published Sept. 13, 2001 (Ex. 1008).
`6 US 5,521,817, iss. May 28, 1996 (Ex. 1009).
`7 US 6,739,189 B2, iss. May 25, 2004 (Ex. 1010).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 B2
`
`
`Petitioners state that they “submit that express interpretations of the
`Challenged Claims ‘are not necessary’” but reserve the right to respond to or
`offer alternative interpretations to any offered by Patent Owner. Pet. 18.
`Petitioners also contend that “‘homeostatic’ . . . means that it tends to be
`neutrally balanced.” Id. at 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 29). Patent Owner argues
`against Petitioners’ explanation of the term “homeostatic.” Prelim. Resp. 26
`(citing Pet. 5).
`As discussed below, our analysis does not need to decide on a
`particular meaning for “homeostatic.” Therefore, for purposes of this
`Decision, we do not need to interpret expressly any claim term. Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`(Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent
`necessary to resolve the controversy.).
`B. Obviousness Based on Louvel, Sato, Kroo, and Talbert
`Petitioners contend that claims 1, 6, 7, 12, and 13 are obvious in view
`of Louvel, Sato, Kroo, and Talbert, with citations to these references and a
`Declaration of Girish Chowdhary, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003, “Chowdhary
`Declaration”). Pet. 32–63.
`1. 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.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 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
`axes 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
`loop control,” and the sensors include roll tilt angle sensor 61, pitch tilt angle
`sensor 62, and yaw sensor 63. Id. ¶¶ 42–44, 46.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 B2
`
`
`Aircraft 1 is linked to control unit 3, which is also linked to handling
`unit 4. Id. ¶¶ 25, 26. Control unit 3 includes 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 causes aircraft 1 to tilt towards the front side; pushing
`handle 7 towards direction 72 causes aircraft 1 to tilt towards the rear side;
`pushing handle 7 towards direction 71 causes aircraft 1 to tilt towards the
`right side; pushing handle 7 towards direction 73 causes aircraft 1 to tilt
`towards the left side; and turning handle 7 in direction 76 causes aircraft 1 to
`rotate towards the left. Id. ¶¶ 51–53.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 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.
`2. Sato (Ex. 1005)
`Sato concerns an “input apparatus for entering operator information
`and the like into predetermined equipment.” Ex. 1005, 1:7–9. Sato “allows
`a motion itself of an operator relative to the input apparatus to be an input
`operation for the predetermined equipment.” Id. at 2:2–4.
`The apparatus includes “means for detecting a physical
`displacement,” “means for detecting a velocity,” or “means for detecting an
`acceleration.” Id. at 1:41–54. The apparatus generates position specifying
`information based on the detected displacement, velocity, or acceleration.
`Id. at 1:41–57. The “detecting means is held in a floating state inside the
`apparatus to always keep itself in a constant positional state relative to
`gravity direction regardless of an angle at which the input apparatus is held.”
`Id. at 1:62–65; see also id. at 6:65–67 (stating that it is “desirable that the
`detecting means be always held in a constant direction regardless of tilt at
`which the input apparatus is operated”). Figure 11 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 11 shows the floating structure of the detecting means. Id. at
`2:48–49. Figures 12(a) and 12(b) are reproduced below.
`
`
`Figures 12(a) and 12(b) illustrate how a detecting means is held in a
`constant direction relative to gravity. Id. at 2:50–53. Journal J passes
`through detecting means 1x, which is an oscillation gyroscope disposed
`vertically for detecting x-direction angular velocity. Id. at 7:1–6. Detecting
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 B2
`
`means 1x, 1y are thus “held in a floating state” inside the input apparatus or
`remote commander 10 and “held in a constant direction relative to the
`direction of gravity regardless of tilting of the input apparatus. Id. at 7:7–8,
`7:11–14.
`
`3. Kroo (Ex. 1006)
`Kroo describes “[m]icro air vehicles (MAVs)” with “microelectronics
`and microelectromechanical systems (MEMs).” Ex. 1006, 503. Kroo
`“focuses on mesoscale systems—devices larger than microscopic, yet
`significantly smaller than conventional air vehicles.” Id. at 504. Kroo
`describes prototypes with motors driven by batteries. Id. at 506, 513–514.
`4. Talbert (Ex. 1007)
`Talbert relates to a “televised remote-control aircraft.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 2.
`Figure 9 of Talbert is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 B2
`
`
`Figure 9 is a diagram of a remote-controlled aircraft having
`communication between a remote-control unit and an aircraft body. Id. ¶ 29.
`It includes control unit 9 with control transceiver 11 and that is in control
`communication 10 with craft transceiver 12. Id. ¶ 35.
`5. Claims 1, 6, 7, 12, and 13
`Petitioners contend that Louvel teaches or suggests most of the
`limitations of independent claim 1. Pet. 33, 35–37 (citing Ex. 1004,
`Abstract, ¶¶ 29, 30, 35, 38, 42–46, 88–121, Figs. 9, 10). Petitioners rely on
`Sato to teach or suggest a hand-held, battery-operated controller that uses
`radio communications. Id. at 33–34 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:4–12, 5:5–17, 7:18–
`34, 8:29–44, 13:36–40, Fig. 14). Petitioners assert that modifying Louvel in
`view of Sato would have been “trivial” (id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 105,
`150)).
`Claim 1 requires “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 . . . 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.” Ex. 1001, 16:3–12. Petitioners also rely on Sato to
`teach or suggest control software used by the hand-held controller. Pet. 47–
`53 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:4–16, 4:22–32, 5:5–17, 7:1–35, 7:54–60, 8:29–44,
`9:5–10:8, 11:1–13, 13:36–40, 16:13–17, Figs. 3, 12a–b, 14, 19, 21a–b); see
`also id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:18–27, Fig. 13) (arguing Fig. 13 shows a
`remote commander interpreting two-dimensional movements made by the
`user). Petitioners contend that, because Sato teaches sensors “always held in
`a constant direction relative to the direction of gravity,” Sato teaches the
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 B2
`
`“claimed use of a gravitational reference.” Id. at 52–53 (citing Ex. 1005,
`7:1–15, 7:54–60, 16:13–17, Figs. 12(a), 12(b)); see also id. at 24 (citing
`6:12–39; 7:1–16, 7:54–60; Figs. 12(a), 12(b)).
`Petitioners also contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`have been motivated to combine Louvel and Sato and that the combination
`would have been a simple substitution that would result in portability,
`freedom of movement, and ability to operate far from power sources. Id. at
`53–55 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 147–149; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1, 7, 50–53, Fig. 5B; Ex.
`1005, 2:4–13, 5:5–17, 6:18–31, 7:18–34; Ex. 1028, 21). Petitioners further
`contend that the combination is a use of a known technique to improve a
`similar device in the same way and would have been obvious to try with a
`reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 55–56 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 150–
`152).
`
`Petitioners rely on Talbert to teach or suggest a remote-controlled
`aircraft and handheld controller have receivers with bidirectional
`communication. Id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 61, 67–68; Ex. 1007 ¶¶
`35–36, 46, Fig. 9). Petitioner asserts that replacing the two-way wired
`communication of Louvel with the transceiver of Talbert would have been a
`simple substitution, a use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`in the same way, routine design choice, and obvious to try with a reasonable
`expectation of success. Id. at 38–41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 114, 118–121; Ex.
`1004 ¶¶ 1, 8, 92; Ex. 1007 Abstract, ¶ 6).
`Petitioners rely on Kroo to teach or suggest the required battery
`system. Id. at 41–44 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:66–4:1, 4:48–50; Ex. 1004 ¶ 60;
`Ex. 1006, 506–507, 509, 513–515, Fig. 2; Ex. 1021 ¶ 29; Ex. 1022, 28, 38,
`Fig. 50; Ex. 1023, Figs. 1–7). Petitioners contend that one of ordinary skill
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 B2
`
`in the art would have been motivated to combine Louvel with Kroo to
`achieve greater simplicity, substantial weight savings, increased range, and
`greater freedom of movement. Id. at 44–47 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:63–4:4,
`4:45–48, 4:52–55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 130, 132; Ex. 1004 ¶ 60; Ex. 1006, 504,
`515).
`
`Petitioners do not argue persuasively and do not present evidence that
`is sufficient to support their contention that the sensors of Sato teach or
`suggest the “sensor system in the hand-held controller that is configured to
`sense a controller gravitational reference,” as required by claim 1. The cited
`portions of Sato indicate that, because of their “floating state,” the sensors of
`Sato are aligned with the direction of gravity. See Ex. 1005 7:1–15, 7:54–
`60, 16:13–17, Figs. 12(a), 12(b). These cited portions, however, do not
`persuasively indicate that the sensors of Sato “sense a controller
`gravitational reference.” They indicate Figures 12(a) and 12(b) show
`oscillation gyroscopes 1x, 1y that provide “position specifying information.”
`Petitioners’ asserted rationales for combining Louvel and Sato include
`simple substitution to result in portability, freedom of movement, and the
`ability to operate far from power sources. See Pet. 53–55 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 147–149; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1, 7, 50–53, Fig. 5B; Ex. 1005, 2:4–13, 5:5–17,
`6:18–31, 7:18–34; Ex. 1028, 21). Petitioners also assert that combining
`Louvel and Sato would be a use of a known technique to improve a similar
`device in the same way and would have been obvious to try with a
`reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 55–56 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 150–
`152). These rationales, however, do not adequately explain how combining
`Louvel and Sato would result in the floating sensors of Sato sensing a
`controller gravitational reference.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 B2
`
`
`The Chowdhary Declaration further does not explain sufficiently why
`using a gravitational reference teaches sensing a controller gravitational
`reference. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 142–144. Paragraph 143 and 144 of the Declaration
`insufficiently link sensors “always held in a constant direction relative to the
`direction of gravity” to the recited “sensor system in the hand-held controller
`that is configured to sense a controller gravitational reference” of claim 1.
`Moreover, Petitioners do not provide any interpretation of “configured to
`sense a controller gravitational reference” that would include sensors, such
`as detecting means 1x, which detects x-direction angular velocity, held
`aligned with the direction of gravity.
`Petitioners rely on arguments for claim 1 for similar limitations found
`in independent claim 7. Pet. 56 (chart relating limitation “7h(iii)” of claim 7
`to limitation “1h(iii)” of claim 1); see also id. at 11 (associating “1h(iii)”
`with “that is configured to sense a controller gravitational reference and a
`relative ti[lt] of the hand-held controller with respect to the controller
`gravitational reference . . . ”), 13 (associating “7h(iii)” with “that is
`configured to sense a gravitational reference and a relative tilt of the hand-
`held structure with respect to the gravitational reference . . . ”). For the same
`reasons above, Petitioners do not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing in their challenge of claim 7.
`Petitioners also rely on arguments for claim 1 for similar limitations
`found in independent claim 13. Pet. 60 (chart relating limitation “13e(iii)”
`of claim 7 to limitation “1h(iii)” of claim 1); see also id. at 11 (associating
`“1h(iii)” with “that is configured to sense a controller gravitational reference
`and a relative ti[lt] of the hand-held controller with respect to the controller
`gravitational reference . . . ”), 15 (associating “13e(iii)” with “that is
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 B2
`
`configured to sense a gravitational reference and a relative ti[lt] of the hand-
`held controller with respect to the gravitational reference . . . ”). For the
`same reasons above, Petitioners do not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing in their challenge of claim 13.
`Petitioners provide arguments for dependent claims 6 and 12, which
`require two pairs of motors symmetrically positioned. Pet. 62–63 (citing Ex.
`1003 ¶ 158; Ex. 1004 ¶ 134, Fig. 2). Petitioners’ arguments for claims 6 and
`12 do not remedy the deficiency discussed in connection with claim 1.
`For the above reasons, Petitioners do not demonstrate a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in their challenge of claims 1, 6, 7, 12, and 13.
`C. Obviousness Based on Louvel, Sato, Kroo, Talbert, and Gabai
` Petitioners contend that dependent claims 2, 8, and 14 are obvious in
`view of Louvel, Sato, Kroo, Talbert, and Gabai. Pet. 19, 63–68.
`1. Gabai (Ex. 1008)
`Gabai relates to “toys used in conjunction with a computer system.”
`Ex. 1008 ¶ 1. Figure 56 of Gabai is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 56 shows a Living Object Internet Service System (“LOIS”).
`Id. ¶ 108. Gabai states that “Software Updates . . . are the latest version of
`LOIS client software” that are “pushed and installed automatically.” Id.
`¶ 692.
`
`a. Claims 2, 8, and 14
`Claims 2, 8, and 14 depend from claims 1, 8, and 13, respectively.
`Ex. 1001, 16:14–21, 17:18–25, 18:15–20. Claim 2 recites “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.” Id. at 16:14–21. Claim 8 requires similar communications (see
`id. at 17:18–25), and claim 14 recites “wherein radio communications
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 B2
`
`between the RC drone and the hand-held controller are configured to include
`data transmissions in addition to the control commands, and software
`updates are configured to be received by the hand-held controller from an
`Internet connection” (id. at 18:15–20).
`Petitioners contend that Talbert and Gabai teach or suggest the
`additional limitations of these claims. Pet. 63–65 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 211;
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 124; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 35, 46; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 15–16, 119–120, 613–673,
`691–692, Figs. 41, 44, 56). Petitioners argue that the combination of Louvel
`and Gabai would have been a simple substitution, use of a known technique
`to improve a similar device in the same way, and obvious to try with a
`reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 66–68 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 218–
`223; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1, 8; Ex. 1008 Abstract, ¶¶ 121, 606).
`Petitioners’ arguments for claims 2, 8, and 14 do not remedy the
`deficiency discussed in connection with claims 1 and 13, from which they
`depend. Thus, Petitioners do not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing in their challenge of claims 2, 8, and 14.
`D. Obviousness Based on Louvel, Sato, Kroo, Talbert, and Burdoin
` Petitioners contend that dependent claims 3 and 9 are obvious in view
`of Louvel, Sato, Kroo, Talbert, and Burdoin. Pet. 19, 68–75.
`1. Burdoin (Ex. 1009)
`A control system of Burdoin “permits formation flying of different
`types of aircraft.” Ex. 1009, 2:28–30. A “lead aircraft in the formation is
`under positive ground control” and “other aircraft in the formation are
`programmed to follow at relative range, bearing and altitude positions to
`their individual lead drone.” Id. at 2:32–35.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 B2
`
`
`2. Claims 3 and 9
`Claims 3 and 9 depend from claims 1 and 7, respectively. Ex. 1001,
`16:22–24, 17:26–31. Claim 3 requires “instructions configured to keep the
`flying structure within 500 feet of the hand-held controller.” Id. at 16:22–
`24. Claim 9 requires “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 programmed maximum distance from the RC
`controller.” Id. at 17:26–31.
`Petitioners contend that Burdoin teaches or suggests the additional
`limitations of these claims. Pet. 68–72 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 230, 231; Ex.
`1009 Abstract, 2:28–39, 3:13–21, 3:26–33, 6:1–18, 6:29–34, 6:51–66, 7:14–
`40, Figs. 4, 6, 7), 73 (relying on arguments for claim 3 for claim 9).
`Petitioners also contend that the limitations are a design choice and that it
`would have been obvious to modify Louvel so that a drone reverses when a
`maximum distance is reached. Id. at 72 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 231, 232).
`Petitioners further contend that the combination would have been a simple
`substitution, use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the
`same way, and obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. Id.
`at 73–75 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 234–239; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1, 8, 39; Ex. 1009, 3:26–
`33, Fig. 7).
`Petitioners’ arguments for claims 3 and 9 do not remedy the
`deficiency discussed in connection with claims 1 and 7, from which they
`depend. Petitioners, therefore, do not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing in their challenge of claims 3 and 9.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 B2
`
`
`E. Obviousness Based on Louvel, Sato, Kroo, Talbert, and Lee
` Petitioners contend that claims 5, 11, and 15 are obvious in view of
`Louvel, Sato, Kroo, Talbert, and Lee. Pet. 19, 76–82.
`1. Lee (Ex. 1010)
`Lee relates to a “structure for a vertical displacement,” particularly, a
`“MEMS silicon structure.” Ex. 1010, 1:11–13. Lee states that a “structure
`for detecting lateral and vertical displacements within [a] single wafer” can
`be manufactured and that it can “integrate a three-axis accelerometer and a
`three-axis gyroscope.” Id. at 5:5–10.
`2. Claims 5, 11, and 15
`For independent claim 15, Petitioners rely on their arguments for
`claim 1. Pet. 76 (chart relating limitation “15i(iii)” of claim 15 to limitation
`“1h(iii)” of claim 1); see also id. at 11 (associating “1h(iii)” with “that is
`configured to sense a controller gravitational reference and a relative ti[lt] of
`the hand-held controller with respect to the controller gravitational reference
`. . . ”), 16 (associating “15i(iii)” with “that is configured to sense a controller
`gravitational reference and a relative ti[lt] of the hand-held controller with
`respect to the controller gravitational reference . . . ”).
`Petitioners additionally argue that either Louvel or Louvel and Lee
`teach or suggest other limitations of claim 15. Id. at 77–79 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 158, 245, 251, 525; Ex. 1004 ¶ 134; Ex. 1010, 1:19–49, 5:5–10).
`Petitioners contend that the combination would have been a simple
`substitution, use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the
`same way, and obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. Id.
`at 79–81 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 253–256).
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01400
`Patent 9,645,580 B2
`
`
`Petitioners also rely on Talbert to teach or suggest a radio frequency
`transceiver and Gabai to teach or suggest data transmissions selectively
`configured to include software updates. Id. at 81–82. Petitioners further
`rely on Sato to teach or suggest that actual moment-to-moment orientation is
`capable of mimicking a corresponding moment-to-moment positioning of a
`hand-held controller. Id. at 82.
`For the same reasons discussed above for claim 1, Petitioners do not
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in their challenge of
`independent claim 15.
`Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and claim 11 depends from
`independent claim 7. Ex. 1001, 16:37–39, 17:42–44. Both claims require
`“wherein the sensor system includes both a three-dimensional accelerometer
`sensor system and a three-dimensional gyroscopic sensor system.” Id. For
`dependent claims 5 and 11, Petitioners refer to their arguments regarding
`Louvel and Lee and claim 15. Pet. 82.
`Petitioners’ arguments for claims 5 and 11 do not remedy the
`deficiency discussed in connection with claims 1 and 7, from which they
`depend. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, Petitioners do not demonstrate a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in their challenge of claims 5, 11, and 15.
`F. Obviousness Based on Louvel, Sato, Kroo, Talbert, Lee, and
`Burdoin
` Petitioners contend that claim 16 is obvious in view of Louvel, Sato,
`Kroo, Talbert, Lee, and Burdoin. Pet. 19, 82–83.
`1. Claim 16
`Claim 16 depends from independent claim 15 and reci