UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Shenzhen Zhiyi Technology Co. Ltd., d/b/a iLife,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`iRobot Corp.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,809,490 to Jones et al.
`
`IPR Case No. IPR2017-02061
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 1-3,
`7, 12, AND 42 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,809,490 UNDER 35
`U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................... iv 
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) FOR
`I. 
`INTER PARTES REVIEW .............................................................................. 1 
`Real Party in Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................ 1 
`A. 
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .................................... 1 
`B. 
`Lead and Backup Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and
`C. 
`Service Information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ............................... 2 
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ........................................ 3 
`II. 
`III.  CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`42.24(D) .......................................................................................................... 3 
`IV.  REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................... 3 
`Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................ 3 
`A. 
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`B. 
`Relief Requested ................................................................................... 3 
`OVERVIEW OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION ......................................... 4 
`The Prosecution History of the ’490 Patent ......................................... 4 
`A. 
`1.
`Priority Date ............................................................................... 4 
` 
`2.
`Prosecution of the ’490 Patent ................................................... 5 
` 
`The Challenged Claims ........................................................................ 7 
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) ................................. 7 
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 7 
`1.
`Agreed Constructions from Corresponding ITC
` 
`Investigation ............................................................................... 8 
`Disputed Terms from Corresponding ITC Investigation ........... 8 
`2.
` 
`Overview of Prior Art .......................................................................... 9 
`1.
`Overview of Ueno-642 (Ex. 1004-Ueno) .................................. 9 
` 
`2.
`Overview of Bissett-612 (Ex. 1005-Bissett) ............................ 11 
` 
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ..................................................... 14 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`
`V. 
`
`E. 
`
`VI. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`A. 
`
`Ground 1: Ueno-642 anticipates claims 1-3, 7, and 12 ...................... 14 
`1.
`The scope and content of the prior art ..................................... 14 
` 
`2.
`Challenged Claims (1-3, 7, 12) ................................................ 14 
` 
`Ground 2: Ueno-642 in view of Bissett-612 renders obvious
`claim 42 .............................................................................................. 35 
`1.
`The scope and content of the prior art ..................................... 35 
` 
`2.
`Rationale for combining Ueno-642 and Bissett-612 ............... 35 
` 
`3.
`Challenged Claim (42) ............................................................. 38 
` 
`VII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 41 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 42 
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,809,490 (“’490 patent”)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`File history of U.S. Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`Declaration of C. Douglass Locke, Ph.D., Regarding
`Invalidity of the Challenged Claims of U.S. Patent No.
`6,809,490 (“Locke”)
`
`Certified Translation of Japanese Unexamined Patent
`Application Publication H11-212642, published August 6,
`1999 (“Ueno-642”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,493,612 to Bissett (“Bissett-612”)
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication H11-
`212642, published August 6, 1999 (non-translated)
`
`Affidavit certifying translation of Japanese Unexamined
`Patent Application Publication H11-212642
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart, as submitted in Investigation
`No. 337-TA-1057, August 18, 2017
`
`U.K. Patent Application 9827758
`
`PCT Publication WO 00/38026
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
` Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`iLife (“Petitioner”) hereby seeks inter partes review of Claims 1-3, 7, 12,
`
`and 42 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,809,490 (Ex. 1001 (the
`
`“’490 patent”)). The Challenged Claims of the ’490 patent do not claim anything
`
`new; they claim previously-known operational modes for mobile robots. The
`
`Challenged Claims in the patent should therefore be canceled for the reasons
`
`described in this Petition.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) FOR INTER
`PARTES REVIEW
`A. Real Party in Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`The real parties-in-interest in this Petition are: Shenzhen Zhiyi Technology
`
`Co. Ltd. d/b/a iLife and iRobot Corp.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`There is a pending proceeding before the U.S. International Trade
`
`Commission that involves the Challenged Claims of the ’233 patent: In re Certain
`
`Robotic Vacuum Cleaning Devices And Components Thereof Such As Spare Parts,
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1057 (the “ITC Investigation”).
`
`There is also a federal district court litigation filed by iRobot Corporation
`
`against Petitioner that also involves the Challenged Claims of the ’233 patent:
`
`iRobot Corp. v. Shenzhen Zhiyi Technology Co. Ltd. d/b/a iLife, Case No. 1:17-cv-
`
`10652 (D. Mass.) (the “District Court Case”).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and
`Service Information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Petitioner designates the following lead and backup counsel:
`
`Lead
`Counsel:
`
`Backup
`Counsel:
`
`Patrick J. McCarthy
`Registration No. 62,762
`mccarthyp@gtlaw.com
`ShenzhenZhiyiITCAll@gtlaw.com
`Greenberg Traurig LLP
`2101 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20037
`Phone: (202) 533-2386
`Fax: (202) 331-3101
`
`Cameron M. Nelson
`Registration No. 55,486
`nelsonc@gtlaw.com
`Greenberg Traurig LLP
`77 W. Wacker Dr.
`Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Phone: 312-456-8400
`Fax: 312-456-8435
`
`
`Service on Petitioner may be made by mail or hand delivery to: Greenberg
`
`Traurig, LLP, 2101 L Street N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20037.
`
`Petitioner also consents to electronic service by emailing counsel of record at
`
`mccarthyp@gtlaw.com, shenzhenzhiyiitcall@gtlaw.com, and nelsonc@gtlaw.com.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Petitioner authorizes the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to charge Deposit
`
`Account No. 50-2638 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and
`
`further authorizes any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(D)
`Petitioner certifies that the word count in this Petition is 6,904 words, as
`
`counted by the word-processing program (Microsoft Word 2010) used to generate
`
`this Petition, where such word count excludes the table of contents, table of
`
`authorities, mandatory notices, certificate of service, appendix of exhibits, and this
`
`certificate of word count. This Petition is in compliance with the 14,000 word
`
`limit set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i).
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’490 patent is available for inter partes review,
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review
`
`on the grounds identified in the Petition.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Challenged Claims of the ’490 patent
`
`(Ex. 1001) be cancelled based on the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`Ground of
`Unpatentability
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`’490 Patent Claim(s)
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`Ground 1
`
`1-3, 7, 12
`
`Ground 2
`
`42
`
`Anticipated by Ueno-642
`1004)
`
`(Ex.
`
`Rendered obvious over Ueno-642
`in view of Bissett-612 (Ex. 1005)
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION
`The ’490 patent relates to a control system for a mobile cleaning robot that
`
`maneuvers a robot through three operational modes: “obstacle following mode,”
`
`“random bounce mode,” and “spot coverage” mode. (Ex. 1001 at Abstract.) The
`
`alleged improvement provided by the ’490 patent to the mobile robot technologies
`
`that preceded it revolved around improving the overall coverage and efficiency of
`
`a robot. (Id. at 1:22-55; Ex. 1003-Locke at ¶¶ 22-23.) Issues with coverage are
`
`allegedly improved by using multiple cleaning modes. (Ex. 1003-Locke at ¶ 24
`
`(citing Ex. 1001 at 3:65-4:7; 4:29-31).) As shown below, the Challenged Claims
`
`merely cover generic robotic cleaning functionality and coverage algorithms that
`
`were previously disclosed by the prior art relied on in this Petition.
`
`A.
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’490 Patent
`
`1.
`The ’490 patent was filed on June 12, 2002, and claims priority to
`
`Priority Date
`
`provisional application no. 60/297,718, filed on June 12, 2001. Thus, the earliest
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`possible priority date for the Challenged Claims is June 12, 2001. For purposes of
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`this Petition only, Petitioner assumes that the ’490 patent is entitled to the benefit
`
`of its provisional filing date.
`
`Prosecution of the ’490 Patent
`
`
`2.
`The ’490 patent was subjected to minimal prosecution. On September 3,
`
`2003, the examiner rejected or objected to every claim. (Ex. 1002 at 162-69.) For
`
`many of the claims, the examiner determined that they were obvious in view of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,204,814 to Noonan in view of Ueno. (Ex. 1002 at 165-67.)
`
`Notably, the examiner recognized that Ueno disclosed a spiral operational mode.
`
`(Id. at 166.)
`
`For the objected-to claims, the examiner stated that the claims would be
`
`allowable if written in independent form because the prior art relied upon by the
`
`examiner did not disclose certain limitations, including “detecting the level of
`
`clutter;” alternating “between operational modes based upon lack of sensor input;”
`
`and “utilizing the rate of wheel drop sensor events.” (Ex. 1002 at 168.) None of
`
`these limitations are relevant to this Petition because none were added to the
`
`Challenged Claims.
`
`On December 3, 2003, in response to the September 3, 2003 non-final
`
`rejection, the applicant minimally amended the claims and tried to traverse the
`
`rejections related to the Challenged Claims. (Id. at 173-210.) In response to the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`rejection, the applicant admitted that Ueno discloses a “mobile robot that operates
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`using a specified sequence of spiral/‘random’ running.” (Id. at 196.) In relevant
`
`part, the applicant argued that Ueno only disclosed two running modes as opposed
`
`to the three modes required in the applicant’s claims. (Id. at 197.) The applicant
`
`also contended that the examiner did not provide a rationale for combining the
`
`Noonan reference with Ueno, and that this combination did not anticipate or render
`
`obvious the applicant’s claims. (Id. at 197-208.)
`
`On December 29, 2003, the examiner allowed certain claims which are not
`
`challenged here and issued a final rejection covering many of the applicant’s
`
`claims, including those challenged here. (Id. at 216-22.) On March 12, 2004, the
`
`applicant responded to the final rejection by adding two limitaitons to claim 1:
`
`“and to select from among the plurality of modes in real time in
`response to signals generated by the obstacle detection sensor”
`
`and
`
`“and wherein, when in the obstacle following mode, the robot
`travels adjacent to an obstacle for a distance at least twice the
`work width of the robot.” (Id. at 238.)
`
`The applicant also added a new claim, claim 42, which is at issue in this Petition.
`
`(Id. at 243-44.) A notice of allowance subsequently issued (Id. at 250-52.)
`
`As noted above, a Ueno reference was cited during prosecution of the ’490
`
`patent. The Ueno-642 reference (Ex. 1004) discussed herein, while related thereto,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`includes additional disclosures that were not available to the examiner; indeed, as
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`shown in this Petition, Ueno-642 discloses more than two operational modes. The
`
`remaining reference relied on in this Petition, Bissett-612, was identified to the
`
`patent office but not discussed or described during prosecution.
`
`The Challenged Claims
`
`B.
`Claims 1 and 42 are the only challenged independent claims of the ’490
`
`patent. Claims 1-3, 7, 12, and 42 constitute the Challenged Claims.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)
`
`C.
`A POSITA in the field of the ’490 patent at the time of the earliest possible
`
`priority date (June 12, 2001) would have had at least an undergraduate degree in
`
`computer science or electrical engineering, or equivalent experience and, in
`
`addition, two years of experience in the design and implementation of embedded
`
`computer devices controlling sensors and motors. (Ex. 1003-Locke at ¶¶ 11-17.)
`
`D. Claim Construction
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), the claims in inter partes review are
`
`given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” For
`
`purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner requests that each of the various claim
`
`terms be given their plain meaning with the exception of the terms addressed
`
`below.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`1.
`
`Agreed Constructions from Corresponding ITC
`Investigation
`
`In the corresponding ITC Investigation, Petitioner and Patent Owner have
`
`agreed to two means-plus-function claim constructions, as set forth in Ex. 1008.
`
`Petitioner contends that the agreed constructions are consistent with the broadest
`
`reasonable constructions of the terms and Petitioner is not aware of any reasonable
`
`alternative interpretation that affects the outcome of this Petition.
`
`Disputed Terms from Corresponding ITC Investigation
`
`
`2.
`“a bounce mode whereby the robot travels substantially in a direction away
`from an obstacle after encountering the obstacle” (claims 1, 42)
`
`The parties have competing constructions in the ITC (see Ex. 1008) for this
`
`phrase. However, Petitioner understands that the parties’ dispute does not affect
`
`the analysis in this Petition.
`
`“isolated area” (claims 1, 42)
`
`The parties have competing constructions in the ITC for this phrase.
`
`However, Petitioner understands that the parties’ dispute does not affect the
`
`analysis in this Petition.
`
`“control system configured to operate the robot in a plurality of operational
`modes and to select from among the plurality of modes in real time in
`response to signals generated by the obstacle detection sensor” (claims 1, 42)
`
`Patent Owner has argued that this phrase does not need construction.
`
`Petitioner is willing to accept this construction as the broadest reasonable
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`interpretation for the purposes of this Petition. Under Phillips, Petitioner has
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`requested in the litigation that this phrase be interpreted as a means-plus-function
`
`claim that is governed by pre-AIA § 112 ¶ 6. If the board determines that the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of this phrase is a means-plus-function
`
`interpretation then the claimed function is “operating the robot in a plurality of
`
`operational modes and selecting from among the plurality of modes as the signals
`
`are generated by the obstacle detection sensor” and the corresponding structure for
`
`performing the claimed function is Processor 22 including onboard program
`
`memory, mode selection logic or algorithm as described at 8:52-56, and the
`
`coverage and behavior control algorithms for each claimed mode as disclosed in
`
`FIG. 7, FIG. 9A, FIG. 9B and 10, and the related descriptions at 9:11-10:21 and
`
`10:26-12:11, 12:54-13:24, 16:1-10, and 16:36-53.” (Ex. 1003-Locke at ¶¶ 30-31.)
`
`Although Petitioner is willing to concede that Patent Owner’s position is the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation for the purposes of this Petition, Petitioner also
`
`shows below that this element is taught by the prior art even under the means-plus-
`
`function construction.
`
`E. Overview of Prior Art
` Overview of Ueno-642 (Ex. 1004-Ueno)
`1.
`Ueno-642 is a certified translation of Japanese Unexamined Patent
`
`Application Publication, which was published on August 6, 1999. (Ex. 1004-Ueno
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`at 1 (43).) Thus, Ueno-642 is prior art under at least pre-AIA § 102(b). The
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`original (non-translated) publication is attached hereto as exhibit 1006. An
`
`affidavit certifying the translation, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b), is attached
`
`hereto as exhibit 1007.1
`
`Ueno-642 discloses a cleaning robot that operates pursuant to multiple
`
`operational modes, including a spiral coverage mode, a random travel mode that
`
`involves “bouncing” off of walls and obstacles, and a wall following mode. (See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1004-Ueno at FIGS. 6A-6C; ¶¶ 0023-25 (wall-following); ¶¶ 0026, 0028-
`
`30, and 0030 (bounce).) FIGS. 2 and 3, reproduced below, also illustrate the
`
`general shape and look of the cleaning robot described in Ueno-642:
`
`
`1 The affidavit certifying translation also appears as the last page of Ex. 1004. For
`
`convenience, Petitioner provides a separate copy as Ex. 1007.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
` Overview of Bissett-612 (Ex. 1005-Bissett)
`2.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,493,612 to Bissett claims priority to a British application
`
`(U.K. App. No. 9827758) filed on December 18, 1998, and has a PCT publication
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`(WO 00/38026) date of June 29, 2000. Bisset-612 is entitled to claim priority
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`through both documents, and is therefore prior art to the ’490 patent under at least
`
`pre-AIA §§ 102(a) and (e). The earlier British application and the PCT publication
`
`are attached hereto as exhibits 1009 and 1010, respectively.
`
`Bisset-612 describes an autonomous floor-cleaning robot with a sensor
`
`system allowing navigation around a room while avoiding obstacles, including
`
`stairways.
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Fig. 1 above, the Bisset-612 robot uses a well-known
`
`configuration with a circular body and two drive wheels (104) that are mounted on
`
`its diameter, in order to allow it to spin in place and thus avoid getting stuck. (Ex.
`
`1005-Bissett at 2:47-3:9.) Bisset-612 cleans the surface with “cleaner head 122”
`
`which includes “suction opening 124” and “brush bar 125” that rotates on an axis
`
`parallel to the floor. (Id. at 3:22-34.)
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Bisset-612 also uses “downward looking wheel sensors for sensing the
`
`presence of a surface in front of the wheels.” (Id. at 1:46-47.) In particular,
`
`Bisset-612 uses “[i]nfra-red sensors 272, 274, and 276” circled below:
`
`
`
`Each of these sensors “looks downwardly towards the surface across which the
`
`cleaner 100 travels,” and is “capable of detecting the presence or absence of the
`
`surface across which the cleaner 100 travels.” (Id. at 7:51-65; see also id. at FIG.
`
`10.) These sensors send signals to the control software in order to halt or turn
`
`immediately if one of the sensors “detects that the surface is absent,” because this
`
`likely indicates “the presence of a stairway or other edge of the surface.” (Id. at
`
`7:65-8:4.)
`
`Bisset-612 also uses “side downlooking sensors 278, 280” circled below:
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`These sensors “look diagonally downwards” in order to “detect the presence of a
`
`surface adjacent a side edge of the vehicle outside of the path of the wheel and
`
`forward of the wheel.” (Id. at 7:65-8:4; Fig. 13.) These sensors are used “for
`
`following an edge of a floor surface.” (Id. at 9:30-45.)
`
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`A. Ground 1: Ueno-642 anticipates claims 1-3, 7, and 12
`
`1.
`The scope and content of the prior art
`For Ground 1, the prior art consists of Ueno-642 (Ex. 1004).
`
`
`2.
`[CLAIM 1-PREAMBLE] A mobile robot comprising:
`
`Challenged Claims (1-3, 7, 12)
`
`Ueno-642 discloses the preamble. Ueno-642 describes “a self-propelled
`
`robot” that cleans rooms and/or homes. (Ueno-642 at ¶¶ 0001, 0015; FIGS. 1-3,
`
`13.)
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`(Id. at FIG. 13.)
`
`Thus, Ueno-642 discloses the preamble, whether or not it is a limitation.
`
`[1a] (a) means for moving the robot over a surface;
`
`Patent Owner and Petitioner have agreed that the function corresponding to
`
`this means-plus-function term is propelling the robot over a driving surface, and
`
`the corresponding structure is two wheels and motors for driving them
`
`independently. (Ex. 1008.) Ueno-642 discloses this limitation.
`
`The Ueno-642 robot uses a drive system comprising “wheels 3, 4.” (Ex.
`
`1004-Ueno at ¶ 0015.) The wheels are independently driven by “a right wheel
`
`motor 14” and “a left wheel motor 15.” (Id. at ¶ 0019; FIGS. 1, 16.) “The left and
`
`right wheel drive motors 14, 15 are inputted rotation speed instructions from CPU
`
`8.” (Id. at ¶ 0019.) Using its independently-driven “wheels 3, 4” the Ueno-642
`
`robot can “execute each operation of forward movement, retreat and stop and
`
`rotation.” (Id. at ¶ 0015.) Wheels 3 and 4 are illustrated in FIGS. 2-3, below:
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`As shown above, Ueno-642 discloses the function of propelling the robot over a
`
`driving surface, and uses the corresponding structure of independently driven
`
`wheels and corresponding motors described above to perform that function, as
`
`required by the agreed construction of limitation 1a. (Ex. 1008 at 1.)
`
`16
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`Thus, Ueno-642 discloses this limitation.
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`[1b] (b) an obstacle detection sensor;
`
`Ueno-642 discloses this limitation. The Ueno-642 robot uses an obstacle
`
`detection sensor system that includes both infrared sensors and tactile (contact)
`
`sensors. Specifically, the robot includes “a contact sensor” that “detects the
`
`contact with an obstacle.” (Id. at ¶ 0016; FIG. 1.)
`
`The Ueno-642 robot also includes “infrared sensors on left and right
`
`symmetrically to detect boundaries and obstacles.” (Id. at ¶ 0016; FIGS. 2-3.) The
`
`infrared sensors include: “26R, 26L” for “the advancing direction”; “26 MR, 26
`
`ML” for “the slanted front direction”; “26RR and 26RL” for “the rear direction”
`
`and “side sensor 25L for a border-following travel.” (Id. at ¶ 0016; FIGS. 2-3.)
`
`Thus, Ueno-642 discloses this limitation.
`
`[1c] (c) and a control system operatively connected to said obstacle detection
`sensor and said means for moving;
`
`Ueno-642 discloses this limitation. Specifically, the robot is controlled by a
`
`central processor, “CPU 8,” which is connected to both the drive system and the
`
`sensor system. (Id. at ¶ 0019-0021; FIG. 1.) More specifically, “based on the
`
`proximity and contact information from sensors 25L, 26 and a contact sensor 5A
`
`(hereinafter called [sensors] collectively), CPU 8 decides the drive system
`
`operations of left and right wheel drive motors 14, 15.” (Id. at ¶ 0021; FIGS. 1,
`
`17
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`17.) The CPU “generates an action plan depending on the signal status from
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`sensor 25L, 26, 5A and outputs an execution request” to the “drive system” (also
`
`referred to as the “actuator system”). (Id. at ¶ 0021; FIG. 17.) FIG. 1 also
`
`illustrates the connections between the CPU, drive system, and sensor system:
`
`
`
`Thus, Ueno-642 discloses this limitation.
`
`[1d] (d) said control system configured to operate the robot in a plurality of
`operational modes and to select from among the plurality of modes in real
`time in response to signals generated by the obstacle detection sensor, said
`plurality of operational modes comprising:
`
`As explained above, Patent Owner does not believe this term requires
`
`construction. Petitioner proposes that it is a means plus function limitation with a
`
`function of operating the robot in a plurality of operational modes and selecting
`
`from among the plurality of modes as the signals are generated by the obstacle
`
`18
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`detection sensor. Petitioner proposes that the corresponding structure is processor
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`22 including on board program memory, mode selection logic or algorithm as
`
`described at 8:52-56, and the coverage and behavior control algorithms for each
`
`claimed mode. (Ex. 1008.) Regardless, whether the board determines this phrase
`
`does not need construction or is construed as means-plus-function, Ueno-642
`
`discloses it. Indeed, as explained below, Ueno-642 has an onboard processor with
`
`included algorithms for steering the Ueno-642 robot through three operational
`
`modes that correspond directly to the three claimed modes: Ueno-642 discloses a
`
`“spiral travel,” an embodiment of the claimed “spot coverage mode;” Ueno-642
`
`discloses a “border-following travel,” an embodiment of the claimed “obstacle
`
`following mode;” and Ueno-642 discloses a “random travel,” an embodiment of
`
`the claimed “bounce mode.”
`
`As explained, in Ueno-642, the robot operates in at least three modes: “spiral
`
`travel,” “border-following travel” and “random travel.” (Id. at ¶ 0023; FIG. 9; see
`
`also id. at FIG. 10 (“Spiral Travel”); FIG. 4 (“Border-following travel”); FIG. 5
`
`(random travel).) Ueno-642 specifically discloses that efficiency is improved by
`
`combining these three modes: “if the aforementioned border-following travel is
`
`furthermore combined with the spiral travel and random travel pattern in FIG. 6,
`
`the operation efficiency is furthermore improved.” (Id. at ¶ 0027; FIG. 15; FIG.
`
`18.)
`
`19
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`The CPU selects among these three modes based on the inputs from the
`
`sensor system. (Id. at FIG. 9, ¶ 0035 (“the robot travel control operations based on
`
`the output signal of each sensor”).) For example:
`
`The border-following travel pattern . . . is started when the side
`sensor 25L detects the boundary such as a wall etc, and it is
`continued for a planned time from then. (Id. at ¶ 0023; see also
`id. at ¶ 0024-0025; FIG. 4.)
`
`In random travel, as shown in Fig. 5, if the robot 1 … enters
`within the planned distance from wall surface B, then it makes a
`return operation by doing a temporary stop and a planned angle
`rotation . . . then again makes a straight advance and goes toward
`a different wall surface B . . . the rotation angle α . . . can be
`selected at random for every return operation. (Id. at ¶ 0026;
`FIG. 5; see also id. at ¶¶ 0028 – 0029 (explaining that “wall
`surface B” is “detected by sensors 26 and 25L”); ¶ 0033
`(explaining that “the direction of turn back (and rotation) during
`random travel is decided” according to proximity signals from
`the sensor system).)
`
`The spiral travel processing is explained referring to Fig. 10. . . .
`At step S24, it is judged whether or not a spiral completed. If a
`sensor 26 or 25L detects a boundary, a wall surface or an
`obstacle or if there is a stop instruction based on a contact switch
`detection signal, the decision at Step S24 becomes positive. (Id.
`at ¶¶ 0038 – 0040; see also id. at ¶ 0030 (describing switching to
`a spiral travel mode after the robot has turned back a preset
`
`20
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`number of times because of the detection of a wall surface during
`a random travel mode).)
`
`A POSITA would have recognized that selection among these modes occurs in real
`
`time because it occurs in reaction to input received from the sensor system. (Ex.
`
`1003-Locke at ¶¶ 64-68.) Thus, Ueno-642 discloses this limitation.
`
`Ueno-642 also discloses
`
`this
`
`limitation under Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction, if the Board finds that this term is governed by §112 ¶ 6 (see § V.D).
`
`Selecting between the three operational modes above (“spiral travel,” “border-
`
`following travel,” and “random travel”) in real time satisfies the function of
`
`limitation 1d. Under Petitioner’s proposed § 112, ¶ 6 construction, Ueno-642
`
`discloses the claimed function of “operating the robot in a plurality of operational
`
`modes and selecting from among the plurality of modes as the signals are
`
`generated by the obstacle detection sensor.” As described in the preceding
`
`paragraphs, the Ueno-642 robot operates in three modes (“a plurality of operational
`
`modes”) and selects among them based on signals generated from obstacle
`
`detection sensors, as explained above. (See, e.g., Ex. 1004-Ueno at ¶¶ 0024-26,
`
`0028-29, 0033, 0038-40.)
`
`Under Petitioner’s proposed § 112, ¶ 6 construction (see § V.D), Ueno-642
`
`also discloses the structure required by limitation 1d. As detailed above, the Ueno-
`
`642 robot uses a processor (CPU 8). The processor has on-board memory (e.g., for
`
`21
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`storing behavioral control sequences, see FIG. 6; Abstract; ¶¶ 0036-38). (See also
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003-Locke at ¶¶ 69-71.) The processor also contains mode selection logic
`
`and an algorithm for selecting modes, as set forth in the ’490 patent at 8:52-56
`
`(describing prioritizing behavioral controls). In particular, the inputs received
`
`from the Ueno-642 robot’s sensors are prioritized by setting a level of urgency for
`
`different behaviors and responding accordingly. (Id. at ¶¶ 0008 (explaining that
`
`sensor inputs are not immediately acted upon, but rather acted upon based on
`
`preset urgency levels); 0021-22 (same).) And finally, the coverage and behavior
`
`control algorithms for each of the modes required are also disclosed, as explained
`
`in detail with respect to limitations 1d-1 through 1d-4, below.
`
`Thus, Ueno-642 discloses this limitation.
`
`[1d-1] a spot-coverage mode whereby the robot operates in an isolated area,
`
`Ueno-642 discloses this limitation. The preferred embodiment of the ’490
`
`patent describes a “spot-coverage mode” as a spiral cleaning behavior. (See Ex.
`
`1001 at 9:20-22.) Ueno-642 discloses a spiral coverage mode and an algorithm for
`
`achieving spiral coverage, as required.
`
`One of the modes disclosed in Ueno-642 is a “spiral travel” mode, which
`
`causes it to operate in an “isolated area”. (Ex. 1004-Ueno at FIG. 6a; ¶¶ 0028-
`
`0030, 0038-0043.)
`
`22
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`This spiral mode causes a limited area to be cleaned by the Ueno-642 robot using a
`
`non-random coverage algorithm, e.g., by using the spiral mode to clean one area,
`
`then using random travel to move to another area, where spiral mode is used again
`
`to clean that area in a targeted manner, as shown in FIG. 6c and described in ¶
`
`0006:
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,809,490
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`(Id. at FIG. 6c; ¶ 0006