Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 44
`Entered: May 21, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SZ DJI TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SYNERGY DRONE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 44
`Entered: May 21, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SZ DJI TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SYNERGY DRONE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes
`
`review of claims 1–10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,200,375 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’375
`
`patent”) on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`Thornberg-9831 and Thornberg-19952
`
`§ 103 1–6
`
`Thornberg-983, Thornberg-1995, and
`Kotake3
`
`Thornberg-983, Thornberg-1995, and
`Karem4
`
`§ 103 7
`
`§ 103 8
`
`Thornberg-983, Thornberg-1995, and
`Rivers5
`
`§ 103 9, 10
`
`Muramatsu,6 Karem and, optionally,
`Thornberg-983
`
`§ 103 1–5, 8
`
`Muramatsu, Karem, and Thornberg-983
`
`§ 103 6
`
`Muramatsu, Karem, Kotake, and,
`optionally, Thornberg-983
`
`Muramatsu, Karem, Rivers, and,
`optionally, Thornberg-983
`
`§ 103 7
`
`§ 103 9, 10
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,552,983, issued Sept. 3, 1996, Ex. 1006.
`2 Christopher A. Thornberg & James P. Cycon, Sikorsky Aircraft’s
`Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Cypher: System Description and Program
`Accomplishments, Ex. 1012.
`3 JP Patent Pub. No. H08-10451, published Jan. 16, 1996, Ex. 1009.
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,584,382 B2, issued June 24, 2003, Ex. 1008.
`5 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2005/0127242 A1, published June 16, 2005,
`Ex. 1010.
`6 JP Patent Pub. No. P2001-209427 A, published Aug. 3, 2001, Ex. 1007.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`
`See Pet. 4. Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response.
`
`We instituted an inter partes review on all claims and all grounds
`
`asserted in the Petition. See Paper 8 (“Dec. on Inst.”). After institution of
`
`trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 18, “PO Resp.”),
`
`Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 23, “Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-
`
`Reply (Paper 25, “Sur-Reply”). To support its arguments, Petitioner relies
`
`on the testimony of Dr. John Hansman (see Ex. 1003), while Patent Owner
`
`relies on testimony from Dr. Edmond J. Murphy (see Ex. 2005). A
`
`transcript of the hearing is included in the record. See Paper 43 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Petitioner bears the burden of
`
`proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of
`
`persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l
`
`Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner
`
`must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This Final Written Decision is
`
`issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the
`
`reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–10 of the ’375 patent — i.e., all
`
`of the challenged claims, which are also all of the claims in the patent — are
`
`unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`Patent Owner is asserting the ’375 patent against Petitioner in Synergy
`
`Drone, LLC v. SZ DJI Technology Co., Case No. 1:17-cv-00242 in the U.S.
`
`District Court for the Western District of Texas. Pet. 73; Paper 21, 2.
`
`At the Board, four inter partes reviews are pending that challenge
`
`patents related to the ’375 patent: Case IPR2018-00205, challenging U.S.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`
`Patent 8,380,368; Case IPR2018-00206, challenging U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,649,918; Case IPR2018-00207, challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,079,116;
`
`and Case IPR2018-00208, challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,568,913. Pet. 73;
`
`Paper 21, 2.
`
`B. The ’375 Patent
`
`The ’375 patent is directed to methods for using a radio controlled
`
`aircraft and remote controller. See Ex. 1001, [54]. The ’375 patent seeks to
`
`simplify the control of RC aircraft, to address the difficulty arising from the
`
`need for a user to consider the perspective of the aircraft when operating the
`
`remote control. Id. at 1:15–26. For example, in known remote control
`
`devices, “[t]he same commands that would make the aircraft turn right when
`
`the aircraft is moving toward the user, make the aircraft turn left when
`
`traveling away from the user.” Id. at 1:23–24.
`
`Figure 2 of the ’375 patent is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 2 illustrates a coordinate system aligned from the perspective of
`
`remote controlled aircraft 102, which describes the orientation of aircraft
`
`102 in terms of angular displacements roll, pitch, and yaw. Id. at 2:31–40.
`
`Specifically, in Figure 2, φ1 denotes rotation about the roll axis, φ2 denotes
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`
`rotation about the pitch axis, and φ3 denotes rotation about the yaw axis
`
`through the shaft of main rotor 106. Id. at 2:41–51.
`
`In operation, a user generates command data from a remote control
`
`device in a different coordinate system, such as a user coordinate system that
`
`corresponds to the orientation of the user. Id. at 2:64–67. This command
`
`data can be transformed into control data in the aircraft’s coordinate system,
`
`thus allowing control of RC aircraft 102 based on its orientation to the user,
`
`rather than the orientation of an imaginary pilot. Id. at 3:1–4.
`
`Figures 3 and 4 are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 3 shows a yaw-axis from the perspective of radio controlled aircraft
`
`102 and an angular orientation with respect to a user coordinate system. Id.
`
`at 1:52–56, 3:8–11. Figure 4 illustrates distance and altitude coordinates of
`
`radio controlled aircraft 102 with respect to the user coordinate system. Id.
`
`at 1:57–60, 3:12–15. Referring to Figures 3 and 4, the ’375 patent teaches
`
`that origin 90 indicates the placement of the origin of a polar coordinate
`
`system that corresponds to the perspective of the user. Id. at 3:25–27. The
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`
`altitude of aircraft 102 relative to origin 90 is represented by Z, R represents
`
`the distance from aircraft 102 to origin 90, and θ represents the angular
`
`displacement of aircraft 102. Id. at 3:28–32. Thus, “the position of the RC
`
`aircraft 102 in three dimensional space can be represented in terms of (R, θ,
`
`Z) and the orientation of the aircraft can be represented in terms of (φ1, φ2,
`
`φ3).” Id. at 3:33–35.
`
`Figure 5 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 5 illustrates the perspective of RC aircraft 102 with respect to remote
`
`control device 100. Id. at 3:36–38. The ’375 patent teaches that remote
`
`control device 100 generates command data 104 that includes orientation
`
`commands Ѱ1, Ѱ2. Id. at 3:53–55. RC aircraft 102 can determine position
`
`parameters such as θ and φ3 based on motion data generated by on-board
`
`motion sensors. Id. at 3:55–57. The ’375 patent teaches that RC aircraft 102
`
`transforms the orientation commands into control data such as roll axis and
`
`pitch axis controls, as follows:
`
`φ1 = Ψ1 cos (φ3 - θ) + Ψ2 sin (φ3 - θ)
`
`φ2 = Ψ2 cos (φ3 - θ) - Ψ1 sin (φ3 - θ)
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`
`Id. at 3:61–63. “In this fashion, when a user commands the RC aircraft 102
`
`to pitch forward, the RC aircraft will pitch forward from the perspective of
`
`the user, regardless of the actual orientation of the RC aircraft.” Id. at 3:64–
`
`67.
`
`With regard to remote control device 100, the ’375 patent teaches that
`
`it can include “spring-loaded interface devices [having] a return position that
`
`is returned to when no force is applied. In this implementation, the remote
`
`control device 100 commands the RC aircraft to hover or substantially hover
`
`when no force is applied to each of the plurality of spring-loaded interface
`
`devices.” Id. at 5:64–6:3.
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–10, which are all of the claims in the
`
`’375 patent. Ex. 1001, 8:60–10:32. Claim 1 is the only independent claim,
`
`and it is reproduced below with bracketed labels as added by Petitioner for
`
`ease of reference:
`
`1.
`
`
`[a] A radio controlled (RC) helicopter system comprising:
`an RC helicopter, wherein the RC helicopter includes:
`[b] a receiver that is coupled to receive an RF signal
`containing command data in accordance with a first
`coordinate system, wherein the first coordinate system is
`from a perspective of the remote control device;
`[c] a motion sensing module, that generates motion
`data based on the motion of the RC helicopter;
`[d] a processing module, coupled to the motion
`sensing module and the receiver, that transforms the
`command data into control data, based on the motion data,
`and in accordance with a second coordinate system,
`wherein the second coordinate system is from a
`perspective of the RC helicopter, and [e] wherein the
`control data commands the RC helicopter from the
`perspective of a user, independent of a yaw-orientation of
`the RC helicopter; and
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`
`
`[f] a plurality of control devices, coupled to the
`processing module, that control the motion of the RC
`helicopter based on the control data;
`[g] a remote control device, in wireless communication
`with the RC helicopter, that includes a plurality of spring-loaded
`interface devices, each of the plurality of spring loaded interface
`devices having a return position that is returned to when no force
`is applied, [h] wherein the remote control device generates the
`RF signal and command data that commands the RC helicopter
`to substantially a hovering state when no force is applied to each
`of the plurality of spring-loaded interface devices.
`
`Id. at 8:60–9:21 (bracketed labels added).
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Under the version of our rules applicable to this inter partes review,7
`
`claim terms in an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2016); Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.
`
`2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard). Under that standard, a claim term generally is given
`
`its ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re
`
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`7 The claim construction standard to be employed in inter partes reviews has
`changed for proceedings in which the petition was filed on or after
`November 13, 2018. See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for
`Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt.
`42). The Petition in this proceeding was filed in November 2017.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`
`
`We determine that “motion data” is the only term requiring
`
`construction in order to resolve the disputed issues in this proceeding. See
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and
`
`only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); see also Nidec
`
`Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes
`
`review).
`
`We also note that this claim construction dispute is case dispositive.
`
`All of Patent Owner’s rebuttal arguments against the obviousness challenges
`
`depend on its proposed construction of “motion data.” See PO Resp. 7–14;
`
`Sur-Reply 3–10. At the hearing, Patent Owner agreed that if we decline to
`
`adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction, that determination would be
`
`case dispositive. Tr. 103:1–8.8
`
`Limitation [c] of claim 1 recites that a motion sensing module
`
`“generates motion data based on the motion of the RC helicopter” and
`
`limitation [d] recites that a processing module “transforms the command
`
`data into control data, based on the motion data.” Ex. 1001, 8:66–9:3. The
`
`Petition did not propose a construction for “motion data” and our Decision
`
`on Institution did not adopt a construction. See Pet. 12–16; Dec. on Inst. 7–
`
`8.
`
`In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner proposes that “motion
`
`data” should be construed to mean “data indicative of a change in position.”
`
`
`8 The question and answer in the cited portion of the hearing transcript refer
`to “cases in chief,” but unlike the related co-pending IPR proceedings, there
`is no motion to amend in this proceeding, so the case in chief is the entire
`case.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`
`PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner supports this proposed construction with
`
`dictionaries defining “motion” to include a change in position. Id. at 3–4
`
`(citing Ex. 2002; Ex. 2003). Patent Owner also cites the Specification of the
`
`’375 patent and the testimony of Dr. Murphy. Id. at 3–6 (citing Ex. 1001,
`
`3:16–35, 3:42–52, 4:14–20, 7:16–21, Fig. 3; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 49–68). According
`
`to Patent Owner, “[a] change in orientation is different from a change in
`
`position. Orientation describes a direction.” Id. at 4. Patent Owner urges
`
`that data indicative only of orientation is not motion data. Id. at 6. In its
`
`Sur-Reply, Patent Owner clarifies its position that “motion data is properly
`
`construed as explicitly requiring data indicating a change in position, but use
`
`of orientation data in this transformation as well is not prohibited . . . .” Sur-
`
`Reply 5.
`
`Petitioner argues that “motion data only needs to be based on the
`
`motion of the RC aircraft and can reflect, for example, data indicative of the
`
`aircraft’s orientation, the aircraft’s position, or both the aircraft’s orientation
`
`and the aircraft’s position.” Reply 5. To support its position, Petitioner
`
`relies on the Specification, including dependent claims 3 and 5, as well as
`
`the testimony of Dr. Hansman and the cross examination testimony of Dr.
`
`Murphy. Id. at 3–5 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:32–35, 4:51–65, 7:4–6; Ex. 1023
`
`¶¶ 33–36, 39; Ex. 1019, 63:8–13, 89:19–21, 96:6–15).
`
`The disputed claim construction issue is whether “motion data” is
`
`satisfied by data indicative of the aircraft’s orientation, as Petitioner
`
`contends, or whether that term requires data indicative of a change in the
`
`aircraft’s position, as Patent Owner contends. The emphasis in the Patent
`
`Owner Response on the distinction between a change in orientation and a
`
`change in position suggests that Patent Owner does not consider orientation
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`
`to be motion data. See PO Resp. 4. But Patent Owner’s subsequent briefing
`
`and arguments at the hearing clarify that Patent Owner does not dispute that
`
`an aircraft’s orientation is one type of “motion data.” See Tr. 77:20–78:4
`
`(answering a question of whether motion data includes information as to
`
`whether an object is spinning about its own axis by responding that “angular
`
`motion would be included. Rotation is part of but it’s only an aspect of
`
`motion data. Motion data also requires position data, the change in position
`
`to be reflected as part of the motion data in these patents”); Sur-Reply 5
`
`(arguing that “‘Yaw-axis motion data’ could indeed include data indicative
`
`of a change in orientation” and that claim 1 “encompasses transformations
`
`based on a change in orientation so long as they also include transformation
`
`based on data indicative of a change in position”) (emphasis omitted).
`
`Thus, the parties agree that “motion data” as that term is used in the
`
`’375 patent includes data indicative of the aircraft’s orientation. See id.;
`
`Reply 5; Tr. 30:7–9. The intrinsic record supports that view, because the
`
`Specification explains that yaw angle φ3 represents the aircraft’s orientation,
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:34–35, 3:16–20, Fig. 3, and further describes that φ3 is motion
`
`data. Id. at 4:64–65 (referring to “motion data 124 such as θ, φ3”); see also
`
`id. at 9:28–29, 10:5–6 (dependent claims 3 and 5 reciting that “motion data
`
`includes yaw-axis motion data”). The testimony of both parties’ experts
`
`further supports that data indicating the vehicle’s orientation is motion data.
`
`See Ex. 1019, 61:16–19, 63:11–13, 89:19–21, 96:12–15; Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 33–35.
`
`The only question, then, is whether orientation data can suffice by
`
`itself to qualify as “motion data,” as Petitioner contends, or whether data
`
`indicating a change in the vehicle’s position is essential, as Patent Owner
`
`argues. On that question, we agree with Petitioner that orientation data is
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`
`sufficient. The Specification describes that motion sensing module 122
`
`generates motion data 124 based on the motion of the aircraft and that
`
`motion sensing module 122 includes one or more axes of
`accelerometers or gyroscopes or other devices that alone, or with
`further processing by processing module 126, can generate data
`that represents θ, φ3, and/or other motion parameters such as R,
`Z, etc., that can be used in transforming the command data 104
`to control data 128.
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:54–59 (emphases added). This disclosure supports a broad
`
`understanding of “motion data” as any data generated by the sensing module
`
`that represents a position, orientation, or motion parameter.
`
`Looking at the first portion of the block quote, as Dr. Hansman
`
`observes, “[m]otion sensing module 122 is not limited to any specific
`
`technology and can therefore include gyroscopes that measure changes in
`
`orientation or accelerometers used to measure change in position.” Ex. 1023
`
`¶ 32. The Specification’s description that the “motion sensing module 122
`
`includes one or more axes of accelerometers or gyroscopes or other
`
`devices” indicates that some embodiments include only gyroscopes, which
`
`are devices that provide information about orientation. Ex. 1001, 4:54–55
`
`(emphases added).
`
`Turning to the second portion of the passage block quoted above —
`
`i.e., that motion sensing module 122 includes devices that “can generate data
`
`that represents θ, φ3, and/or other motion parameters such as R, Z, etc., that
`
`can be used in transforming the command data 104 to control data 128”
`
`(Ex. 1001, 4:54–59) — we find persuasive Dr. Hansman’s testimony that an
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan would understand this passage to signify that “the
`
`motion data generated by motion sensing module 122 can be data reflecting
`
`any one, or several, or all of the mentioned parameters.” Ex. 1023 ¶ 32.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`
`Because φ3, which represents the aircraft’s orientation, is one of the
`
`mentioned parameters, this means that motion data can reflect orientation
`
`data alone. Ex. 1001, 3:34–35, 3:16–20, 4:56. We also note that Dr.
`
`Murphy’s testimony was in accord when he testified during cross-
`
`examination that “[m]otion data could be position data, it could be
`
`orientation data, or it could be a combination of position and orientation”
`
`and that he understands his own declaration to “say[] the same thing.”
`
`Ex. 1019, 96:12–15; see also id. at 61:18–19 (“Motion could be a change in
`
`only Phi 3. Yes. That’s correct.”).
`
`
`
`We have considered the other intrinsic and extrinsic evidence cited by
`
`Patent Owner, but that evidence does not persuade us that a narrower
`
`understanding of “motion data” is appropriate. See PO Resp. 3–6; Sur-
`
`Reply 3–6. Patent Owner points out that transformation equations disclosed
`
`in the ’375 patent include θ, which reflects a change in position, and that the
`
`transformation makes the RC aircraft more user-friendly for unskilled
`
`operators. PO Resp. 5–6. However, the claims do not require the use of the
`
`particular transformation equations set forth in the Specification. The
`
`paragraph in which the transformation equations appear begins with “[i]n an
`
`embodiment of the present invention” (Ex. 1001, 3:53), signaling that the
`
`use of these transformation equations is not a requirement.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we construe “motion data” to include data
`
`indicative of an aircraft’s orientation, position, or a combination thereof.
`
`B. Legal Standards for Obviousness
`
`In Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), the
`
`Supreme Court set out a framework for assessing obviousness under § 103
`
`that requires consideration of four factors: (1) the “level of ordinary skill in
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`
`the pertinent art,” (2) the “scope and content of the prior art,” (3) the
`
`“differences between the prior art and the claims at issue,” and
`
`(4) “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness such as “commercial
`
`success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.” Id. at 17–18.
`
`“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular
`
`case,” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 407 (2007), the Federal
`
`Circuit has “repeatedly emphasized that an obviousness inquiry requires
`
`examination of all four Graham factors and that an obviousness
`
`determination can be made only after consideration of each factor.” Nike,
`
`Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`We note that, with respect to the fourth Graham factor, the record in
`
`this proceeding does not include any argument or evidence directed to
`
`secondary considerations of nonobviousness. The analysis below addresses
`
`the first three Graham factors.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of
`
`problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the
`
`rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom
`
`Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`For the purposes of our Decision on Institution, and based on the
`
`record at that preliminary stage, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal that an
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the invention of the ’375 patent
`
`would have had the following education and experience:
`
`[A] Bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution in electrical
`engineering, mechanical
`engineering,
`aeronautical
`or
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`
`
`astronautical engineering, robotics, computer science, or any
`other discipline covering principles of design, operation, and/or
`control of unmanned aerial vehicles, including remote-controlled
`vehicles, and would have a working knowledge of the design,
`development,
`implementation, or deployment of
`such
`technologies. Additional education could substitute
`for
`experience, and significant experience could substitute for
`formal education.
`
`Dec. on Inst. 9 (citing Pet. 12; Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not
`
`dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See Tr. 77:3–
`
`6. Based on our review of the complete record, we find that the evidence
`
`supports the level of ordinary skill in the art set forth above. Thus, we adopt
`
`Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it in our
`
`analysis below.
`
`D. Obviousness Grounds Led by Thornberg-983
`
`Thornberg-983 is the primary reference in each of Petitioner’s first
`
`four grounds. In particular, Petitioner contends that claims 1–6 would have
`
`been obvious based on the combination of Thornberg-983 in view of
`
`Thornberg-1995. Pet. 31–46. In challenging dependent claim 7, Petitioner
`
`adds Kotake to that base combination. See id. at 47–48. In challenging
`
`dependent claim 8, Petitioner relies on Thornberg-983 in view of Thornberg-
`
`1995 and Karem. See id. at 49–50. And in challenging dependent claims 9
`
`and 10, Petitioner relies on Thornberg-983 in view of Thornberg-1995 and
`
`Rivers. See id. at 51–52.
`
`1. Summary of Thornberg-983
`
`Thornberg-983 teaches a variable referenced control system for
`
`remotely operated vehicles. Ex. 1006, at (54). Thornberg-983 seeks to
`
`address the problem of “non-intuitive control of a remotely operated
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`
`vehicle,” which is a result of the differences between the operator’s frame of
`
`reference and the vehicle’s frame of reference. Id. at 1:48–2:9.
`
`The system of Thornberg-983 “provides for the referencing of vehicle
`
`commands based on an operator frame of reference so that control
`
`commands provided by the operator remain intuitive and independent of the
`
`orientation of the vehicle with respect to the operator.” Id. at 3:41–44.
`
`Thornberg-983 teaches that the variable referenced control system allows the
`
`operator to select various frames of reference for controlling an unmanned
`
`aerial vehicle (UAV), which allows the operator to tailor the UAV control to
`
`the specific mission or operational requirements, and provides for a
`
`simplified, intuitive control. Id. at 5:3–8.
`
`Figure 3 of Thornberg-983 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 3, control panel 200 includes a joy stick or control stick
`
`205 for providing control inputs to control the operation of the UAV. Id. at
`
`4:30–33. Control stick 205 is shown as being a two axis control stick in
`
`which forward and aft movement of the control stick relates to pitch, and
`
`side-to-side movement relates to roll. Id. at 4:33–36. Control panel
`
`computer 209 receives control commands provided by the control stick 205
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`
`and converts them into signals to be transmitted via communications
`
`equipment 212. Id. at 4:36–39. Communications equipment 212 includes
`
`transmitter 215 for receiving the control commands provided from control
`
`panel computer 209 and for transmitting the control commands via control
`
`panel antenna 220. Id. at 4:39–43.
`
`When control signals are transmitted by the control panel via antenna
`
`220, the signals are received by the UAV antenna 42 and provided to UAV
`
`communications equipment 40. Id. at 4:43–47. The received signals are
`
`decoded and provided to flight control computer 38 and avionics equipment
`
`34, which process the incoming control signals to thereby provide the
`
`appropriate control surface commands to the UAV control surfaces to
`
`perform the desired maneuvers. Id. at 4:47–56.
`
`The flight control computer includes stick transformation function
`
`400, which allows the operator to select between a variety of control
`
`references for controlling the remotely operated vehicle. Id. at 5:9–12.
`
`“[S]tick transformation function 400 is responsive to control signals received
`
`from the control panel and vehicle heading information for controlling the
`
`vehicle in accordance with the desired mode and reference.” Id. at 5:19–22.
`
`Among the inputs to the transformation function is the transformation angle,
`
`which is determined based on the true heading of the vehicle as determined
`
`by the navigation system 36 and the desired vehicle reference and vehicle
`
`reference mode. Id. at 5:30–35.
`
`Reference mode switch 257 on control panel 200 allows the user to
`
`choose among different reference modes. Id. at 6:1–5. “In a vehicle
`
`reference mode, the vehicle’s reference axis is used for purposes of
`
`controlling the vehicle from the control panel.” Id. at 6:5–7. In a map
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`
`reference mode, an earth reference, such as North, is used for control of the
`
`vehicle. Id. at 6:7–9. “In an operator reference mode, the orientation of the
`
`operator upon activation of the operator mode is used as the reference axis.”
`
`Id. at 6:9–11. Thornberg-983 also describes a variable operator reference
`
`mode, in which the operator reference changes based on changes in the
`
`orientation of the operator control panel. Id. at 7:31–35.
`
`2. Summary of Thornberg-1995
`
`Thornberg-1995 describes an unmanned vertical take-off and landing
`
`system that is intended to meet a variety of civil and military mission
`
`requirements. Ex. 1012, 804. Thrornberg-1995 recognizes as a challenge of
`
`vehicle control “the traditional problem of an operator needing to
`
`continually place himself in the vehicle’s reference system to determine the
`
`appropriate vehicle commands.” Id. at 809. Thornberg-1995 describes an
`
`algorithm that alleviates that problem by “continually keep[ing] track of the
`
`vehicle’s heading with respect to the operator’s reference system and
`
`determin[ing] the appropriate aircraft commands to move the vehicle
`
`according to the operator’s earth-referenced command.” Id. at 808. The
`
`operator maintains control of the aircraft “through a conventional hand-held
`
`control unit” having two joysticks: a right one that is spring-centered in both
`
`axes and controls pitch and roll, and a left one that is spring-centered in the
`
`lateral axis and controls yaw and collective. Id. at 809. Returning the
`
`joystick to its center position maintains the vehicle in a hover. Id. at 808.
`
`Thornberg-1995 states on its face that it was “[p]resented at the
`
`American Helicopter Society 51st Annual Forum, Fort Worth, TX, May 9–
`
`11, 1995.” Ex. 1012, 804. Petitioner submits evidence that Thornberg-1995
`
`was published by the American Helicopter Proceedings and was publicly
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`
`accessible from the British Library by August 4, 1995. See Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 18–
`
`19.
`
`3. Summary of Kotake, Karem, and Rivers
`
`Kotake describes a helicopter remote control device having control
`
`sticks 14, 15. Ex. 1009, at (54), Fig. 2. In Kotake, an automatic hovering
`
`control forces the helicopter to stay in a hovering state when the operator
`
`releases control sticks 14, 15. Id. at (57). In one application, the helicopter
`
`can be used for applying chemicals over agricultural fields, and the
`
`automatic hovering control operation can assist in positioning and
`
`maintaining the helicopter at a desired altitude despite changes in the
`
`helicopter’s payload. Id. ¶ 11.
`
`Karem seeks to simplify control of complex machines, such as
`
`helicopters, to reduce the skill and training required for operation. Ex. 1008,
`
`1:13–21. Relevant to Petitioner’s challenges, Karem teaches two methods
`
`for controlling fuselage azimuth, one of which “uses foot pedals (like the
`
`ones in regular aircraft or rotorcraft) to proportionally control the rate of
`
`change of the fuselage azimuth.” Id. at 8:9–14.
`
`Rivers is directed to a payload dispensing system for unmanned
`
`vehicles that communicates with a ground control system. Ex. 1010, at (54),
`
`¶ 10. Rivers describes that the ground control station can command the
`
`release of the payload when the unmanned vehicle has conveyed the payload
`
`to a designated site. Id. ¶ 22.
`
`4. Claim 1
`
`Petitioner contends that Thornberg-983 teaches each limitation of
`
`claim 1, except for limitation [h] and certain aspects of limitation [g].
`
`Petitioner asserts that Thornberg-1995 supplies the features of claim 1 not
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00204
`Patent 8,200,375 B2
`
`taught in Thornberg-983, and that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
`
`been motivated to incorporate those features from Thornberg-1995 into
`
`Thornberg-983.
`
`The only aspect of Petitioner’s contentions that Patent Owner contests
`
`is whether Thornberg-983 discloses transforming command data into control
`
`data based on motion data, as recited in limitation [d]. See PO Resp. 7–12;
`
`Sur-Reply 6–8. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding this limitation are
`
`premised on its proposed construction of “motion data,” which we do not
`
`adopt for the reasons discussed in Section II.A. See id.; see also Tr. 103:1–8
`
`(Patent Owner agreeing that a determination not to adopt Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed construction of “motion data” would be case dispositive because
`
`all of Patent Owner’s arguments flow from that proposed construction). The
`
`remaining aspects of Petitioner’s obviousnes
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
