Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 9
`
` Filed: May 22, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`____________
`
`Case 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Post-Grant Review
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 9
`
` Filed: May 22, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`____________
`
`Case 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Post-Grant Review
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`
`
` INTRODUCTION
`SZ DJI Technology Co., LTD. (“Petitioner”), filed a Petition to
`institute a post-grant review of claims 1–12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,979,000 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’000 patent”). Paper 8. (Corrected Petition, “Pet.”). Autel
`Robotics USA LLC (“Patent Owner”) did not to file a Preliminary Response
`to the Petition.
`We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant
`review under 35 U.S.C. § 324, which provides that a post-grant review may
`not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition, if
`unrebutted, “would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1
`of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).
`Upon considering the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims
`challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute a post-
`grant review of all challenged claims based upon all grounds raised in the
`Petition.
`
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`The parties provide notice of the following related matter:
`Certain Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1133
`(ITC). Pet. 2; Paper 4, 2. Petitioner also notes the following district court
`proceeding: “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 follows: “SZ DJI Technology Co Ltd. v. Autel Robotics
`USA LLC, No. 1:18-cv-00378-GMS (D. of Del.).” Paper 4, 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.
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`
`The ’000 Patent
`B.
`The ’000 patent is eligible 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).1 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 one point, 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; see also Pet. 3 (noting “earliest possible priority date of the ’000
`patent (December 14, 2015)”).
`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
`
`
`1 The AIA also requires the petition to be filed within nine months of the
`issue date of the challenged patent. 35 U.S.C. § 321(c). The ’000 patent
`issued on May 22, 2018. Ex. 1001. 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.
`
`3
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`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
`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 in an embodiment of the invention. Id. at 2:62–64. The
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`vehicle includes a UAV main body 1 and a UAV battery 2, shown removed
`and away from the UAV opening of the battery compartment 11. Id. at
`3:35–37; 4:53–56.
`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 a battery body 21 and a shell 22 disposed on one end of the battery
`body. Id. at 3:43–46. A 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 a hook 2211 for detachably hanging on the UAV. Id. at 3:50–52. An
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`slipping upon touching by a user. Id. at 3:61–66. A 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 against 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.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`C.
`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;
`
`6
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
` 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.
`The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`D.
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–12 of the ’000
`patent on the following grounds:
`
`Claims
`1–12
`
`1–9 and 12
`
`10 and 11
`
`1–12
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`References
`Phantom 2 Manual2 and Kondo3
`
`Saika4 and Ichiba5
`
`Saika, Ichiba, and Phelps6
`
`§ 112(b)
`
`(Indefiniteness)
`
`
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Corrected Declaration of Juan J. Alonso,
`Ph.D. (Ex. 1003).
`
`
`2 Phantom 2 Vision+ User Manual (EN) v. 1.4 August 15, 2014 (Ex. 1029)
`(“Phantom 2 Manual”).
`3 Kondo et al., U.S. Patent 5,769,657, issued June 23, 1998 (Ex. 1008)
`(“Kondo”).
`4 Saika et al., US 2017/0001721, published Jan. 5, 2017 (Ex. 1006)
`(“Saika”).
`5 Ichiba, JP 2007-123-82, published May 17, 2007 (Ex. 1009), English
`Translation (Ex. 1010) (“Ichiba”).
`6 Phelps et al., U.S. Patent 6,136,467, issued Oct. 24, 2000 (Ex. 1011)
`(“Phelps”).
`
`7
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`
` ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`A.
`In a post-grant review filed before November 13, 2018, we interpret
`claim terms in an unexpired patent based on the broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear.
`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).7 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).
`
`“fixed with”
`Claim 1 recites that the one “end of the restorable elastic piece is fixed
`with the clamp button.” Ex. 1001, 5:52–54. Petitioner notes that the
`Specification does not provide an explicit definition for the term “fixed
`
`
`7 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).
`8
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`with,” and asserts that the plain meaning of the term is well-understood as
`“fastened, attached, or placed so as to be firm and not readily moveable.”
`Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1018, 727).8 Based upon that meaning, Petitioner asserts
`that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim phrase “fixed with
`the clamp button” recited in claim 1, should be “fastened to, attached or
`placed and not readily moveable with respect to the clamp button.” Id. at 19
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51–54).
`Although the Specification does not provide a definition or
`description of the term “fixed with,” we note that when describing other
`aspects, the Specification contrasts that term with positioning such as
`“detachably connect[ed],” Ex. 1001, 3:48, and “abut[ting] against,” id. at
`4:17. Thus, we modify Petitioner’s proposed construction in view of those
`descriptions in the Specification and determine, for purposes of this
`decision, that 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.”
`Petitioner does not assert that any additional claim terms require
`express construction. Apart from the proposed claim constructions we seek
`for the indefiniteness challenge, discussed below in Section II. E., we agree.
`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).
`
`
`8 Webster’s Encyclopedia Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language,
`727 (“fixed”), published 2001.
`
`9
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`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 v. John
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); 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).
`At this stage in the proceeding, we find that Petitioner’s description of
`the level of ordinary skill in the art is sufficiently supported by the current
`record. Moreover, we note that the applied 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). Thus, for purposes of this Decision,
`we adopt Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`C. 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.
`1.
`Phantom 2 Manual
`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
`
`10
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`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:
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`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.
`2.
`Kondo
`
`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.
`
`12
`
`
`
`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 the 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
`
`13
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`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
`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 emphasis removed).
`3.
`Analysis
`
`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. “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
`
`14
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d
`at 1367.
`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.
`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
`
`15
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`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.
`Id. at 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:
`
`
`
`
`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 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
`
`16
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`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 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.
`
`17
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`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
`shell of the battery and a small protrusion of the shell,” so as to meet the
`claim limitation requiring 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
`second end of the spring and the clamp button,” suggesting 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. at 40 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 87). 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
`
`18
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`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). Further, Petitioner demonstrates 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.
`Claim 1 also includes requirements 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, wherein the
`battery is completely pushed or positioned into the battery compartment.
`Ex. 1001, 6:4–16. Petitioner asserts that the combination of the Phantom 2
`Manual and Kondo meets each of those limitations. Pet. 44–48.
`Specifically, Petitioner asserts that the combination teaches the
`limitation that “the clamp button is configured to cause the restorable elastic
`piece to be pressed down in first state where the battery is not completely
`pushed into the battery compartment or is only partially positioned in the
`battery compartment,” because Kondo teaches that during insertion of the
`battery into the battery compartment, “the inward movement of the battery
`causes the curved element 53 of the battery compartment to contact the hook
`
`19
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`end 18a of Kondo’s stop hook 18 (‘clamp button’) which in turn causes the
`spring 17 to press inwards,” and causes the hook end 18a of the Kondo’s
`clamp button to move downward. Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1008, 7:15–31; Ex.
`1003 ¶ 94). According to Petitioner and Dr. Alonso, when the battery pack
`is not completely pushed into the battery compartment or is partially
`positioned in the battery compartment, spring 17 is in this “pressed down
`state.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, Fig. 3). Similarly, Petitioner asserts that the
`battery is not completely pushed into the battery compartment or is only
`partially positioned in such compartment during the removal of the battery
`from the battery compartment, which involve a user pressing the clamp
`buttons, thereby causing spring 17 to be pressed inward and the hook end
`18a to move downward, resulting in the hook portion becoming disengaged
`from the curved element 53, i.e., the restorable elastic piece. Id. at 46–47
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 95).
`Petitioner asserts that the combination teaches the claim limitation
`wherein 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,” because “Kondo explains that when
`the battery pack 10 is inserted into the portable device, ‘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,’” and states that
`after the battery is inserted, “the engagement is kept by the pressing force of
`the flat springs 17.” Id. at 47 (quoting Ex. 1008, 7:18–23, 28–31).
`According to Petitioner and Dr. Alonso, that means “spring 17 presses the
`‘clamp button’ outwards, restoring it to its original place when the opposing
`
`20
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00014
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`force is removed from stop hook 18,” and that the battery is “stuck by the
`cooperation of the clamping portion and the clamp button,” as required by
`claim 1. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 96) (emphasis omitted).
`According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have been motivated to use Kondo’s battery latching mechanism in the
`Phantom 2 UAV because the Phantom 2 Manual does not provide details
`regarding the specific mechanism used to latch the battery into the its battery
`compartment. Id. at 23. Petitioner asserts that the skilled artisan would have
`been motivated to review a reference describing battery latching
`mechanisms for portable electronic devices, as provided by Kondo. Id.
`Petitioner explains that Kondo’s disclosure directed to a power tool is
`analogous art because it addresses a problem with which the inventor is
`involved, i.e., how to latch a battery package into a housing of an electronic
`device in a secure, user-friendly manner. Id. at 24. Additionally, Petitioner
`asserts that the proposed combination merely represents a “simple
`substitution of one element (Phantom 2 Manual’s battery latch) with another
`(Kondo’s secure, user-friendly latching mechanism).” Id. at 26 (citing Ex.
`1003 ¶ 67).
`Based upon our review and consideration of the current record, we
`determine that Petitioner has established that, if the information in the
`Petition is unrebutted, it is more likely than not that independent claim 1 is
`rendered unpatentable as obvious by the combined teachings of the Phantom
`2 Manual and Kondo. In particular, the information presented at this stage
`of the proceeding supports Petitioner’s assertions as to the dis
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
