Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 33
`
` Date: May 14, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SZ DJI TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AUTEL ROBOTICS USA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 33
`
` Date: May 14, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SZ DJI TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AUTEL ROBOTICS USA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`
` INTRODUCTION
`This is a Final Written Decision in a post-grant review of claims 1–12
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,979,000 B2, Ex. 1001 (“the ’000 patent”). We have
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6, and enter this Decision pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.3. For the reasons set forth below,
`we determine that SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) has shown, by
`a preponderance of the evidence, that the challenged claims are
`unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 326(e) (2018).
`Procedural History
`A.
`Petitioner filed a Petition requesting post-grant review of claims 1–12
`of the ’000 patent. Paper 8 (Corrected Petition, “Pet.”). Autel Robotics
`USA LLC (“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response to the
`Petition. On May 22, 2019, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), we instituted
`trial to determine whether the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`grounds raised in the Petition. Paper 9 (“Dec.”). Patent Owner filed a
`Patent Owner’s Response on August 27, 2019. Paper 18 (“PO Resp.”).
`Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner’s Response on November 22,
`2019. Paper 23 (“Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply on
`December 30, 2019. Paper 24 (“PO Sur-Reply”).
`On February 20, 2020, the parties presented arguments at an oral
`hearing. Paper 27. The transcript of the oral hearing has been entered in the
`record. Paper 32 (“Tr.”).
`Real Parties in Interest
`B.
`Petitioner identifies its real parties in interest as SZ DJI Technology
`Co., Ltd., DJI Europe B.V., DJI Technology, Inc., iFlight Technology
`Company Limited, DJI Japan K.K., and DJI Research LLC. Pet. 1. Patent
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Owner identifies its real party in interest as Autel Robotics USA LLC.
`Paper 4, 2.
`
`Related Matters
`C.
`The parties provide notice of the following matter involving the ’000
`patent before the U.S. International Trade Commission: Certain Unmanned
`Aerial Vehicles and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1133 (ITC). Pet. 2;
`Paper 4, 2. Petitioner provides notice of the following district court
`proceeding involving the ’000 patent: “SZ DJI Technology Co. Ltd., et al. v.
`Autel Robotics USA LLC, et al., DED-1-16-cv-00706.” Pet. 2. Patent
`Owner refers to the district court proceeding as: “SZ DJI Tech. Co Ltd. et al.
`v. Autel Robotics USA LLC et al., C.A. No. 16-706-LPS-CJB (consolidated)
`(D. Del.).” Paper 29, 2. The parties note also that an application related to
`the ’000 patent, U.S. Patent Application 15/598,914, is pending before the
`Office. Pet. 2, Paper 4, 2. We note that application later issued as U.S.
`Patent No. 10,224,526, on March 5, 2019.
`The ’000 Patent
`D.
`1. Eligibility for Post-Grant Review
`Post-grant review is available only for patents “described in section
`3(n)(1)” of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub L. No.
`112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). AIA § 6(f)(2)(A) (2011). Those are patents
`that issue from applications “that contain[] or contained at any time . . . a
`claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date in section
`100(i) of title 35, United States Code, that is on or after” “the expiration of
`the 18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of” the AIA.
`See AIA § 3(n)(1). The AIA was enacted on September 16, 2011,
`therefore, post-grant review is available only for patents that, at any point,
`
`3
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`contained at least one claim with an effective filing date, as defined by 35
`U.S.C. § 100(i), on or after March 16, 2013.
`The earliest possible filing date for the ’000 patent is December 14,
`2015, which falls after the March 16, 2013 date. See Ex. 1001, 1:10–13;
`see also Pet. 3 (asserting that the earliest possible priority date of the ’000
`patent is December 14, 2015); PO Resp. 2 (asserting that the ’000 patent
`claims a priority date of December 14, 2015).
`The AIA also requires the petition for post-grant review to be filed
`within nine months of the issue date of the challenged patent. 35 U.S.C.
`§ 321(c) (2018). The ’000 patent issued on May 22, 2018. Ex. 1001,
`code (45). The Petition has been accorded a filing date of November 11,
`2018, Papers 6, 7 (correcting the date accorded), which is within the nine-
`month window. Thus, Petitioner has timely filed the Petition.
`Accordingly, we determine that the ’000 patent is eligible for post-
`grant review.
`
`Patent Specification
`2.
`The ’000 patent describes an unmanned aerial vehicle and,
`particularly, a battery used for the vehicle. Ex. 1001, 1:18–20. The
`Specification explains that “[i]n prior arts, a main body of the unmanned
`vehicle offers a cavity for accommodating the power of the unmanned aerial
`vehicle, such as a lithium battery.” Id. at 1:39–41. A sealing board set in an
`opening of the cavity of the unmanned vehicle would be employed to fasten
`the battery, thereby preventing it from dropping from the cavity during
`flight. Id. at 1:42–44. “The sealing board is usually fixed to the main body
`of the unmanned aerial vehicle by screws, bolts or other fasteners.” Id. at
`1:45–46. Those screws, bolts, or fasteners would need to be loosened before
`
`4
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`changing the battery, and then tightened after changing the battery, thus
`making it inconvenient to change a battery. Id. at 1:47–50.
`The Specification explains that the present invention seeks to
`overcome defects that cause the inconvenience in changing the battery. Id.
`at 1:54–57. In particular, the Specification states that “because a clamp
`button is configured on one end of the shell, the battery is capable of
`detachably connecting with the main body of the unmanned aerial vehicle
`which makes the changing of the battery [] more convenient.” Id. at 2:44–
`47. Additionally, “the inner side of the clamp button is configured [with] a
`restorable elastic piece for realizing the clamp button returning back to [its]
`original place automatically.” Id. at 2:48–51.
`Figure 1 of the ’000 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a disassembled structure diagram of an unmanned
`aerial vehicle (“UAV”) in an embodiment of the invention. Id. at 2:62–64.
`The vehicle includes UAV main body 1 and UAV battery 2, shown removed
`and away from the UAV opening of battery compartment 11. Id. at 3:35–37,
`4:53–56.
`
`5
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Figure 2 of the ’000 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts a diagram of a battery used for an unmanned aerial
`vehicle in an embodiment of the invention. Id. at 2:65–67. The battery
`includes battery body 21 and shell 22 disposed on one end of the battery
`body. Id. at 3:43–46. Clamp button 221 is configured on a side of the shell,
`opposite the UAV. Id. at 3:45–46. One end 221a of the clamp button is
`fixed to the shell, and the other end 221b of the clamp button is used to
`detachably connect the UAV. Id. at 3:46–49. End 221b of the clamp button
`has hook 2211 for detachably hanging on the UAV. Id. at 3:50–52.
`Anti-slip structure 2212 is configured on the outer surface of the
`clamp button to increase “touching friction” of the clamp button and to
`prevent slipping upon touching by a user. Id. at 3:61–66. Restorable elastic
`piece 222 is disposed on an inner side of the clamp button, wherein one end
`of the piece connects to the shell and the other end abuts the clamp button.
`Id. at 4:5–10. The battery’s restorable elastic piece is “for realizing the
`clamp button 221 returning to [its] original position automatically.” Id. at
`4:1–4.
`
`6
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`
`Illustrative Claim
`E.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–12. Claim 1, the only independent
`claim, is illustrative and reads as follows:
`1. A multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicle, comprising:
`a main body comprising a battery compartment;
`four arms, wherein each arm is coupled to the main body;
`a propulsion assembly disposed on the each arm, wherein
` the propulsion assembly comprises a propeller and a motor,
` the motor being configured to drive the propeller to rotate in
` order to generate lift force;
`a battery accommodated in the battery compartment, and
` the battery comprising a shell and a battery body disposed in
` the shell;
`a clamp button disposed on the shell, wherein one end of
` the clamp button is mounted on the shell and the other end of
` the clamp button is detachably coupled to the main body; and
`a restorable elastic piece disposed on an inner side of the
` clamp button;
` wherein one end of the restorable elastic piece is disposed on
` the shell and the other end of the restorable elastic piece is
` fixed with the clamp button:
` wherein the battery compartment comprises a clamping
` portion configured to detachably connect to the clamp
` button;
` wherein the clamp button is configured to cause the
` restorable elastic piece to be pressed down in a first state
` where the battery is not completely pushed into the battery
` compartment or is only partially positioned in the battery
` compartment;
` wherein in a second state where the battery is completely
` pushed or positioned into the battery compartment,
` the restorable elastic piece is configured to automatically
` rebound so that (a) the clamp button is able to return back
` to its original place and (b) the battery is able to be stuck by
` the cooperation of the clamping portion and the clamp
` button.
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:35–6:16.
`
`7
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`F.
`We instituted review of claims 1–12 of the ’000 patent on the
`following asserted grounds:
`
`Claims Challenged
`1–12
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103
`
`1–9, 12
`
`10, 11
`
`1–12
`
`103
`
`103
`
`112(b)
`
`References/Basis
`Phantom 2 Manual,1 Kondo2
`
`Saika,3 Ichiba4
`
`Saika, Ichiba, Phelps5
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Corrected Declaration (Ex. 1003) and
`Reply Declaration (Ex. 1049) of Juan J. Alonso, Ph.D. Patent Owner relies
`upon the Declaration of Charles F. Reinholtz (Ex. 2001).
` ANALYSIS
`Legal Standards
`A.
`We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`the following principles.
`
`
`1 Phantom 2 Vision+ User Manual (EN) v. 1.4, Aug. 15, 2014 (Ex. 1029)
`(“Phantom 2 Manual”).
`2 Kondo et al., U.S. Patent 5,769,657, issued June 23, 1998 (Ex. 1008)
`(“Kondo”).
`3 Saika et al., US 2017/0001721, published Jan. 5, 2017 (Ex. 1006)
`(“Saika”).
`4 Ichiba, JP 2007-123082, published May 17, 2007 (Ex. 1009), English
`Translation (Ex. 1010) (“Ichiba”).
`5 Phelps et al., U.S. Patent 6,136,467, issued Oct. 24, 2000 (Ex. 1011)
`(“Phelps”).
`
`8
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`
`1. Obviousness
`As set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 103,
`[a] patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained . . . if the
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are
`such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been
`obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
`to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed
`invention pertains.
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 (2018). The question of obviousness is resolved on the
`basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and
`content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject
`matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) if in
`the record, objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere
`Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Consideration of the Graham factors “helps
`inform the ultimate obviousness determination.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung
`Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc).
`“An obviousness determination requires finding both ‘that a skilled
`artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art
`references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan
`would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” CRFD
`Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367–
`1368 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). “The reasonable expectation of success requirement
`refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the
`limitations of the claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1367.
`2.
`Indefiniteness
`“The specification [of a patent] shall conclude with one or more
`claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter
`
`9
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.” 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112(b) (2012). “[A] patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read
`in light of the specification . . . and the prosecution history, fail to inform,
`with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the
`invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124
`(2014); In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding a
`claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is
`“unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention”).
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`B.
`The level of skill in the art is a factual determination that provides a
`primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. Al-Site Corp. v.
`VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham, 383
`U.S. at 17–18; Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir.
`1991)).
`Petitioner describes a person having ordinary skill in the art as
`follows:
`A person of ordinary skill in the art [] at the time of the alleged
`invention would have had the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree
`from an accredited institution in aeronautical engineering,
`electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or the
`equivalent and at least two years of experience with UAVs. []
`Additional graduate education could substitute for professional
`experience and significant work experience could substitute for
`formal education.
`
`Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20).
`
`In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s
`definition of an ordinarily skilled artisan based upon a determination that it
`was sufficiently supported by the record at that time. Dec. 10. In the Patent
`Owner Response, Patent Owner asserts that the definition proposed by
`
`10
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Petitioner is inappropriate “because it references a degree in electrical
`engineering.” PO Resp. 9–10. According to Patent Owner,
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the
`invention of the ’000 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree
`in mechanical engineering and at least two years of experience
`designing mechanisms and mechanical structures of the type
`used in releasable couplings and locking devices. (Ex. 2001
`¶¶ 30-34.) Additional education could substitute for
`professional experience and significant work experience could
`substitute for formal education. (Id.)
`
`Id. at 9. In the Reply, Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s definition is
`overly narrow because it “focus[es] solely on the design of mechanisms and
`mechanical structures used in releasable couplings and locking devices.”
`Pet. Reply 3. According to Petitioner and Dr. Alonso, “[a]eronautical,
`electrical, and mechanical engineers, particularly those working with UAVs,
`would naturally work with and understand mechanisms for coupling one
`component to another component.” Id. (citing Ex. 1049 ¶ 6). Further
`Petitioner and Dr. Alonso assert that Petitioner’s inclusion of a broader set of
`engineering fields is “supported by the simplicity of the latching mechanism
`claimed in the ’000 patent.” Id. (citing Ex. 1049 ¶ 5).
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that the differences in their
`proposed definitions do not impact Petitioner’s grounds for unpatentability
`or Patent Owner’s responsive arguments. Pet. Reply 3; PO Sur-Reply 1.
`We agree and note that our consideration of the issues presented does not
`turn on which proposed definition is applied. In any event, having
`considered the evidence and the arguments, we find Petitioner’s rationale for
`its broader description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be
`persuasive and supported by record as a whole. Accordingly, for this
`Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`11
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`the art, while maintaining that the prior art reflects the appropriate level of
`skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`Claim Construction
`C.
`In a post-grant review involving a petition that was filed before
`November 13, 2018, such as here, we interpret a claim in an unexpired
`patent based on the broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`(2018); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016)
`(affirming applicability of the broadest reasonable construction standard in
`Board trial proceedings).6 Under that standard, and absent any special
`definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007); TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(“Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be
`given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the
`specification and prosecution history.”).
`Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`
`6 The Final Rule changing the claim construction standard in Board trial
`proceedings does not apply here, as the Petition was filed before the rule’s
`effective date, 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, 51,344 (Oct. 11, 2018).
`12
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`In the Institution Decision, we provided a preliminary construction of
`the single term for which Petitioner proposed a claim construction, i.e.,
`“fixed with.” Dec. 8–9. In particular, we determined that, in view of
`Specification, the broadest reasonable construction of the claim phrase
`“fixed with the clamp button” is “fastened to, attached or placed and not
`readily moveable with respect to the clamp button, such that it does not
`merely abut against the clamp button nor is it detachably connected to it.”
`Id. at 9.
`In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner asserts that “the term
`‘fixed with’ needs no construction here because—whether the Board adopts
`Petitioner’s proposal or Patent Owner’s position—the . . . obviousness
`analysis will not ultimately be impacted.” PO Resp. 9. In the Reply,
`Petitioner agrees with Patent Owner that “the construction of ‘fixed with’ is
`not necessary to resolve the controversy in this proceeding.” Pet. Reply 2.
`Based upon our review of the record as a whole, we agree that no
`claim terms are in controversy with respect to the asserted obviousness
`grounds. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999) (only terms that are in controversy need to be construed,
`and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). This finding is
`consistent with our analysis of the indefiniteness challenge, as discussed
`below in Section II.F.
`D. Obviousness over the Phantom 2 Manual and Kondo
`Petitioner asserts that the combination of the Phantom 2 Manual and
`Kondo renders claims 1–12 obvious. Pet. 19–55, Pet. Reply 4–24. Patent
`Owner disagrees. PO Resp. 21–28, PO Sur-Reply 2–9.
`
`13
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`
`Phantom 2 Manual
`1.
`The Phantom 2 Manual is a user manual for the “Phantom 2 Vision+”
`UAV. Ex. 1029, 2. The Phantom 2 Manual includes instructions for the
`assembly and use of the UAV, and describes the features of the UAV
`components, including the battery and battery compartment. Id. at 7–11. In
`particular, the Phantom 2 Manual describes the UAV as a “quadrotor” with a
`“specialized battery compartment for its flight battery.” Id. at 11.
`According to the Phantom 2 Manual, those and other “features make the
`Phantom 2 Vision+ easy to assemble and configure.” Id.
`Figure 18 of the Phantom 2 Manual is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 18 depicts the Phantom 2 UAV with its four arms and
`propellers. Id. at 14. A motor is positioned below each propeller. Id.; see
`also id. at 11 (Figure 8, component [2]).
`Figures 3, 5, and 7 of the Phantom 2 Manual are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`
`
`Figures 3, 5, and 7 each depict the battery used in the Phantom 2
`UAV. Id. at 7, 8, 10. The Phantom 2 Manual explains that the battery is
`installed by “push[ing the] battery into the battery compartment” as shown
`in Figure 7 (arrow). Id. at 10. The Phantom 2 Manual states, “When you
`hear a click, the battery has been properly installed.” Id.
`Kondo
`2.
`Kondo discloses an “attachment structure which allows a battery pack
`including secondary cells to be detachably attached to a battery holder in a
`power-driven tool.” Ex. 1008, 1:6–10.
`
`15
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Figures 3 and 4 of Kondo are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is a cross-sectional view illustrating the attachment structure
`
`of an embodiment of Kondo’s invention. Id. at 7:15–16. Figure 4 is a
`partially omitted side view illustrating the attachment structure of the same
`embodiment as shown in Figure 3. Id. at 7:16–18. The Specification states,
`When the battery pack 10 is inserted upward into the battery
`holder 60 fixed to the handle assembly 50 of the power-driven
`tool, the pair of stop hooks 18 formed on the lower end of the
`battery pack 10 are engaged with curved elements 53 of the
`housing members 50a and 50b. The curved element 53 is formed
`by bending inward the lower end of each housing member 50a
`(50b). Each stop hook 18 arranged in the attachment member 35
`is pressed outward by a flat spring 17 and has a hook end 18a
`held by a pair of projections 37 as clearly shown in FIG. 4. Once
`the stop hooks 18 of the battery pack 10 are engaged with the
`curved elements 53 of the handle assembly 50, the engagement
`is kept by the pressing force of the flat springs 17.
`
` In this state, the spring terminals 64a and 64b of the battery
`holder 60 are fitted in the insertion slots 48a and 48b of the
`connection unit 40. Each insertion element 66a (66b) of the
`
`16
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`spring terminal 64a (64b) is pressed inward and received in the
`space defined by the inner wall of the U-shaped element 43a and
`the upright element 45a of the electrode terminal assembly 41a
`(41b). The elasticity of the spring terminals 64a and 64b presses
`the insertion elements 66a and 66b thereof against the electrode
`terminal assemblies 4la and 4lb. This realizes electrical
`connection of the spring terminals 64a and 64b with the electrode
`terminal assemblies 41a and 41b and enables the battery pack 10
`to be integrally joined with the battery holder 60 of the power-
`driven tool.
`
`Id. at 7:18–45 (bold and italics emphasis removed).
`Analysis
`3.
`a)
`Petitioner’s Contentions
`In the Petition, Petitioner sets forth in detail how the Phantom 2
`Manual discloses a multi-rotor UAV comprising: (1) a main body
`comprising a battery compartment, (2) four arms coupled to the main body,
`(3) a propulsion assembly comprising a propeller and a motor to drive the
`propeller to rotate and generate a lift force, and (4) a battery accommodated
`in the battery compartment, wherein the battery comprises a shell and a
`battery body disposed in the shell. Pet. 27–30. Petitioner illustrates with a
`side-by-side comparison of Figure 1 of the ’000 patent and Figure 18 of the
`Phantom 2 Manual how the two UAV’s share the same basic quadcopter
`structure. Pet. 28.
`
`17
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Petitioner’s side-by-side comparison of Figure 1 of the ’000 patent
`and Figure 18 of the Phantom 2 Manual is reproduced below:
`
`Phantom 2 Manual, Figure 18 ’000 Patent, Figure 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that both Figure 1 of the ’000 patent and Figure 18
`of the Phantom 2 Manual depict a quadrotor, i.e., a UAV having a main
`body and four arms, wherein each arm is equipped with a propeller
`assembly. Pet. 28; Ex. 1003 ¶ 55. Referring to Figure 7 of the Phantom 2
`Manual, set forth above, Petitioner explains that the Phantom 2 Manual
`discloses that its UAV includes a “specialized battery compartment for its
`flight battery” that is integrated into the side of the main body of the UAV.
`Pet. 30 (quoting Ex. 1029, 11). Petitioner also demonstrates the similarity
`between the structure of the battery assembly disclosed by the Phantom 2
`Manual and the ’000 patent with a side-by-side comparison of a figure from
`each reference. Id. at 32.
`Petitioner’s side-by-side comparison of annotated versions of Figure 5
`of the Phantom 2 Manual and Figure 1 of the ’000 patent is reproduced
`below:
`
`18
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`
`
`
`
`Phantom 2 Manual, Figure 5 ’000 Patent, Excerpt from Figure 1
`(annotated) (annotated)
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that both annotated Figure 5 of the Phantom 2
`Manual and Figure 1 of the ’000 patent, above, depict a battery assembly
`comprising a shell (shaded orange) and a battery body substantially disposed
`in the shell (shaded white). Pet. 31.
`Regarding the limitation in claim 1 requiring “a clamp button,
`disposed on the shell, wherein one end of the clamp button is mounted on
`the shell and the other end of the clamp button is detachably coupled to the
`main body,” Petitioner begins by referring to Figures 3 and 5 of the Phantom
`2 Manual, set forth above, and asserting that the Phantom 2 Manual
`discloses a button disposed on both sides of the battery. Id. at 32–33.
`Petitioner acknowledges that “[o]ther than depicting buttons on its battery
`package and referencing a ‘click’ sound when the battery is inserted, the
`Phantom 2 Manual does not provide details regarding the mechanism used to
`latch the battery into the device.” Id. at 21.
`To reach the claim limitation requiring a “clamp button,” Petitioner
`relies upon Kondo’s disclosure. Id. at 32. In particular, Petitioner asserts
`that Kondo’s battery package also includes buttons disposed on both sides,
`wherein the battery pack includes a pair of attachment members 35 which
`
`19
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`are each provided with a stop hook 18. Id. (citing Ex. 1008, Fig. 3, 7:15–
`31). According to Petitioner, Kondo’s stop hook 18 is a “clamp button”
`because it engages, i.e., clamps, with the curved element in the battery
`compartment. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 81).
`Additionally, Petitioner asserts that Kondo’s stop hook mounts on the
`shell of its battery pack in a similar manner as shown in the ’000 patent,
`wherein one end of the stop hook, or clamp button, has a portion that
`couples with a corresponding portion in the battery shell. Id. at 34–35.
`Further, Petitioner asserts that Kondo discloses that its stop hook
`detachably couples the battery pack to the main body of the portable device
`by teaching that “[o]nce the stop hooks 18 of the battery pack 10 are
`engaged with the curved elements 53 of the handle assembly 50, the
`engagement is kept by the pressing force of the flat springs 17.” Id. at 36
`(quoting Ex. 1008, 7:28–31).
`Petitioner asserts that Kondo discloses a spring 17 that functions as a
`“restorable elastic piece,” because Kondo explains that when force is applied
`to the clamp button, spring 17 is pressed inwards to lower the hook end of
`stop hook 18, which allows stop hook 18 to move past the curved element of
`the battery compartment during insertion or removal of the battery pack. Id.
`at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 85). According to Petitioner and Dr. Alonso,
`Kondo’s Figure 3 illustrates that “[w]hen the battery is inserted into the
`battery compartment and the external force is removed from the clamp
`button, the restoring force of the spring 17 presses the stop hook 18 outward
`so that the curved element 53 of the housing engages with hook end 18a.”
`Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 85; Ex. 1008, Fig. 3).
`Additionally, Petitioner and Dr. Alonso assert that Kondo’s Figure 3
`illustrates that “one end of Kondo’s spring 17 is inserted between the outer
`
`20
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`shell of the battery and a small protrusion of the shell,” so as to meet the
`claim limitation requiring that one end of the restorable elastic piece “is
`disposed on the shell.” Id. at 39 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 86). They assert that
`Kondo’s Figure 3 also illustrates that the other end of spring 17 is “bent to
`follow the shape of the inner corner of the clamp,” with “no clearance
`between the end of Kondo’s spring 17 and the inner surface of the stop hook
`18 (‘clamp button’).” Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 87). Petitioner asserts,
`therefore, that “the fit of the end of the spring with the clamp button is tight
`and the force of the spring after installation presses the end of the spring
`against the inner surface of the stop hook 18.” Id. According to Petitioner
`and Dr. Alonso, “[b]ased on this engagement, the end of spring 17 is placed
`(‘disposed’) so as to be firm and not readily moveable relative to the clamp
`button after implementation—that is, the spring is ‘fixed with’ the clamp
`button,” thereby meeting the claim recitation that the “other end of the
`restorable elastic piece is fixed with the clamp button.” Id. (emphasis
`omitted).
`Petitioner asserts that Kondo’s curved element 53 represents a
`“clamping portion,” as claimed, because it is designed to engage with the
`hook portion 18a of Kondo’s “clamp button.” Pet. 42. In particular,
`Petitioner notes that Kondo states that upon insertion of the battery pack “the
`pair of stop hooks 18 formed on the lower end of the battery pack 10 are
`engaged with curved elements 53 of the housing members 50a and 50b.” Id.
`(quoting Ex. 1008, 7:18–23). According to Petitioner and Dr. Alonso, the
`battery pack is removed by “pressing down on the ‘clamp buttons’ (stop
`hooks 18) which in turn press spring 17 inwardly to disengage the hook
`portion 18a from the curved element of the battery compartment.” Id.
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 90) (emphasis omitted). Further, Petitioner demonstrates
`
`21
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`how Kondo’s clamping portion, i.e., curved element 53 shown in Kondo’s
`Figure 3, appears to connect to the clamp button in the same manner as
`illustrated in Figure 4 of the ’000 patent, such that the combination of the
`Phantom 2 Manual and Kondo discloses “the battery compartment
`comprises a clamping portion configured to detachably connect to the clamp
`button,” as required by claim 1. Id. at 43–44.
`The challenged claims also include a requirement for the clamp button
`in a first state, wherein the battery is not completely pushed into the battery
`compartment, or is only partially pushed into the battery compartment, and
`requirements for the restorable elastic piece in a second state, wherei
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
