Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 34
`Entered:
`
`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.
`____________
`
`PGR 2019-00014
`PGR 2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`____________
`
`Record Of Oral Hearing
`Held: February 20, 2020
`____________
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 34
`Entered:
`
`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.
`____________
`
`PGR 2019-00014
`PGR 2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`____________
`
`Record Of Oral Hearing
`Held: February 20, 2020
`____________
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`LORI A. GORDON, ESQUIRE
`STEVE W. PETERS, ESQUIRE
`King & Spalding LLP.
`1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 2nd Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`HAROLD H. FOX, ESQUIRE
`ANDREW XUE, ESQUIRE
`JOHN L. ABRAMIC, ESQUIRE
`Steptoe & Johnson LLP.
`1330 Connecticut Avenue NW
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, February
`
`20, 2020, commencing at 9:30 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
`
`
`USHER: All Rise.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Please be seated. Good morning, this is the
`combined final hearing for PGR2019-00014 related to U.S. Patent No.
`9,979,000, and PGR2019-00016 related to U.S. Patent No. 10,044,013.
`I am Judge Chagnon. We are joined remotely by Judges Franklin and
`Ross this morning. Counsel, could you please step up to the podium and
`introduce yourselves.
`MS. GORDON: Good morning, Your Honors. I’m Lori Gordon. I’m
`from the law firm of King and Spalding and I’m going to be arguing today
`on behalf of Petitioner; and with me at Counsel Table is Steve Peters, also
`from King & Spalding.
`MR. FOX: Good morning, Your Honors. My name is Harold Fox,
`Steptoe & Johnson, representing Patent Owner Autel. With me at the table
`is Andrew Xue and lead counsel, John Abramic, is also present.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Thank you so much. So, let's quickly go over
`the ground rules this morning. The same as yesterday, each party has 60
`minutes to present their arguments today.
`Petitioner will go first, and you may reserve time for rebuttal; and
`then Patent Owner will follow, and you may reserve up to 10 minutes for
`sur-rebuttal as well today.
`Again, please remember during your presentations to say what slide
`number you're presenting as our remote judges cannot see the screen here in
`the room, but they can follow along.
`
`
`
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`
`And please refrain from interrupting each other during your
`presentations today, if you have any objections, you can address those
`during your own time. So, Ms. Gordon, would you like to reserve time
`today?
`MS. GORDON: Yes, I would. Can we reserve 25 minutes, please?
`JUDGE CHAGNON: I’ll set the clock for 35 minutes to start.
`Whenever you're ready, go right ahead.
`MS. GORDON: Okay. Good morning, Your Honors. I'd like to turn
`first to our Slide Number 5. Very few disputes remain between the parties in
`these two proceedings.
`There is no dispute between the parties that the combination of the
`Phantom 2 Manual and Kondo discloses every limitation of all the
`challenged claims of the Triple Zero Patent, and all the challenged claims of
`the 013 Patent.
`There's also no dispute between the parties that the combination of
`Saika and Ichiba discloses every limitation of Claims 1 through 9, and 12 of
`the Triple Zero Patent, and Claims 1 through 17, and 21 through 24 of the
`013 Patent.
`And there's no dispute between the parties that the combination of
`Saika, Ichiba, and Phelps discloses every limitation of Claims 10 and 11 of
`the Triple Zero Patent and Claims 18 through 20 of the 013 Patent.
`The Triple Zero Patent and the 013 Patent share the same
`specification so throughout my presentation I’ll refer to them generally as
`the challenged patents.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`
`In the remaining disputes in this proceeding between the parties are
`substantially the same in both proceedings, so we will address them together
`today.
`
`The remaining disputes can be broking into three groups, first whether
`Kondo and Ichiba are analogous art to the challenged patents; second,
`whether a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the references as
`proposed by Petitioner; and third, whether Claims 1 through 12 of the Triple
`Zero Patent, and Claims 22 through 24 of the 013 Patent are indefinite.
`Petitioner would like to focus our discussion here today on this first
`two disputes and rest on our Briefs on the indefiniteness grounds presented
`in both proceedings.
`Turning to Slide Number 12, I'd like to start with the issue
`surrounding analogous art. The Federal Circuit has set forth two separate
`criteria, or tests, for determining whether a reference is analogous art.
`First test is whether the reference was within the field of the
`inventor’s endeavor. If the answer is yes, the reference is analogous.
`The second criteria, or test, if the reference is not within the field of
`endeavor, is the reference reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
`which the inventor was involved.
`Petitioner established in both proceedings that Kondo and Ichiba are
`analogous to the field of endeavor of the challenged patents.
`Turning to Slide 8, the challenged patents in the background section
`describe a prior art method for securing a battery into a battery compartment
`of the device, and they describe the use of a sealing board.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`
`What a sealing board was, is when you had a battery, you put it into a
`battery compartment, you put a board on top of the battery, and then you
`would fasten that board to the body of the device. So, you would screw it
`down with screws, bolts or other fasteners, and that kept the battery in place.
`So, when a user wanted to change the battery, they'd have to unscrew
`the sealing board, take the battery out, put the new battery in, and re-screw
`the sealing board down. And the patent recognized that that was a problem
`because it was very inconvenient for the user of a portable device to have to
`have a screwdriver with them at all times to change a battery.
`The detailed description of the challenged patents, therefore, is
`directed to a user-friendly battery latching mechanism for a portable device.
`And other than a few passing references to a UAV having a body and a
`battery in the entirety of the short, two-column detailed description of the
`patents, the rest of those two columns are devoted to describing the battery
`latching mechanism solely.
`And, the patent tells us that the function of its latch is to latch the
`battery in a device in a user-friendly manner; that’s the function of its battery
`latching mechanism.
`And it tells us that the structure it uses to achieve that function is a
`restorable elastic piece connected to a clamp button on the battery, which
`then detachably connects to a clamping portion on the body. In other words,
`the invention can be distilled down to using a spring in a latching
`mechanism.
`Turning to Slide 15, Kondo and Ichiba are in the same field of
`endeavor because they share the same function and structure as the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`challenged patents. The function described in both Kondo and Ichiba is
`securely latching a battery in a device in a user-friendly manner; and both
`patents explicitly state that. And, the structure in both uses a restorable
`elastic piece connected to a clamp button on the battery which detachably
`connects to a clamping portion.
`And remember, there's no dispute between the parties today that, in
`fact, Kondo and Ichiba describe the same structure that’s claimed in the
`challenged patents.
`Now, I'd like to now turn to the reasonably pertinent test, and the
`Federal Circuit has stated that a reference is reasonably pertinent if, even
`though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it
`is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have
`commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his or her
`problem.
`In Patent Owner’s papers, they categorize both Ichiba and Kondo as
`power tool battery references, but I'd like to first start by talking about Ichiba
`because Patent Owner is mischaracterizing Ichiba.
`Can you turn to Slide 16; the title of Ichiba’s invention is, “Battery
`Pack.” That’s what Ichiba is directed to -- a battery pack. And although it
`describes its battery pack with reference to power tool embodiment, Ichiba
`repeatedly states that its invention is not limited to power tools.
`If we look at Paragraph 29 -- and this is the section that addresses the
`industrial applicability of the invention, Ichiba states it should “by no
`means” be considered that the present invention is restricted to electric tools.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`That’s a pretty clear and definitive statement that its invention is not limited
`to power tools.
`Ichiba also says in Paragraph 7 that it is an object of the present
`invention to resolve the above-mentioned problem points and to provide a
`battery pack which is easy to work with, and which can be securely attached
`and detached on an electrical tool battery charger, or other object device.
`Ichiba generic battery pack, designed to provide a secure user-friendly
`battery latch, would have logically commended itself to the attention of an
`inventor considering the problem of how to securely latch a battery in a
`UAV device.
`Turning to Slide 17, but even if you were to categorize both Kondo
`and Ichiba as power tool battery references, they both remain reasonably
`pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. In
`other words, securely latching a battery into a device.
`Kondo is titled, “attachment structure of a battery pack to a power
`driven tool.” It’s directed to the battery latch.
`Ichiba, as we just discussed before, is directed to the exact same thing,
`a secure, user-friendly battery latch.
`Now, Petitioner in our Petition identified numerous, real-world,
`common sense reasons why a POSITA would have looked to the field of
`power tool battery latch mechanisms for a solution to securely latch a battery
`in a UAV, and these are reproduced on our Slide 17.
`We discuss that both UAVs and power tools incorporate motors that
`drive rotating components, and therefore, is subject to vibrations and
`movement.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`
`We also talked about, and our expert explained, that power tools are
`subjected to heavy use and rough handling. And, I think we can all step
`back and think about our own personal experiences and how many times
`have you seen, or yourself have dropped a power tool, or thrown a power
`tool into a tool box.
`They're designed to have rough handling by a user, and therefore they
`incorporate a secure latch to keep their battery in the device when it is used,
`perhaps inappropriately, by the user.
`Third, both power tools and UAVs are subjected to dangerous
`operating conditions, and we discuss that the dangerous nature of power
`tools makes the shift in weight due to battery movement, disengagement of
`the battery, or loss of electrical connection a serious safety concern.
`So, again, if you step back in your own experience and think about
`using, for example, a cordless drill; when you're using a cordless drill, you're
`pushing to drill the screw into the wall, for example.
`If the weight of the battery shifts, you could be shifting, and you
`would lose connection with the screw and jam yourself into the wall. That
`could cause a serious safety issue for the user.
`If the power stopped and you were applying force, and you don’t have
`the backward force, again, you could see the safety issues that could happen
`to a user if something happened to the battery in a power tool.
`Finally, power tools are commonly used by novice users outdoors or
`in an environment with little or no access to power sources, and power tools
`have recognized that you need a quick and easy mechanism to replace a
`battery for these inexperienced users.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`
`Turning to Slide 14. The Federal Circuit has addressed the issue of
`analogous art under similar circumstances in In re ICON Health and Fitness.
`And that’s 496 F.3d 1374, 1380, in Federal Circuit 2007, and it’s cited in our
`Briefs.
`In ICON, the claimed invention was a treadmill with a folding base
`which allowed the base to swivel into an upright storage position. And the
`only limitation at issue in ICON was the use of a gas spring that assisted in
`stably retaining that base in the upright position.
`And the Federal Circuit in that case, determined that a reference
`directed to a bed that folds up into a cabinet using a dual-action spring, was
`analogous art, and the Federal Circuit’s reasoning in that case is important.
`They reason that nothing about ICON’s folding mechanism requires
`any particular focus on treadmills. It generally addresses problems of
`supporting the weight of the mechanism and providing a stable resting
`position.
`The Federal Circuit went on and reasoned that analogous art to
`ICON’s application, when considering the folding mechanism and gas
`spring limitation, may come from any area describing hinges, springs,
`latches, counter weights, or other similar mechanism, such as the folding
`bed.
`
`So, here, like ICON, there's nothing about the disclosed battery
`latching mechanism in the challenged patents that requires any particular
`focus on UAVs. As I mentioned earlier, the short, two-columned detailed
`description only mentions in passing a UAV in simply that it can have a
`body and a battery.
`
`
`
`10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`
`Nowhere do the challenged patents discuss any criteria, let alone
`UAV specific criteria used or considered when designing its disclosed latch
`mechanism.
`Turning to Slide 13, the Federal Circuit also addressed similar
`circumstances in In re Paulsen, which is 30 F.3d 1475, Federal Circuit 1994,
`at 1481 to 82 -- and again, this is cited in our Briefs.
`In Paulsen, the claimed invention related to a hinge and latch
`mechanism for a portable computer. And in that case, the Federal Circuit
`found that an inventor, when considering a hinge and latch mechanism for a
`portable computer, would naturally look to references employing other
`housings, hinges, latches and springs.
`And in Paulsen, those references came from areas like desktop phone
`directories, a piano lid, a kitchen cabinet, washing machine cabinet, wooden
`furniture cabinet, and a two-part housing for storing audio tapes.
`And in Paulsen, the Federal Circuit found that the problems
`encountered by inventors were not unique to portable computers. Instead,
`they simply concerned how to connect and secure a computer’s display to
`the housing.
`And, in the present case, that’s exactly what we have here. Petitioner
`and our expert explain in detail that the problems encountered by the
`inventors of the challenged patents were not unique to UAVs. They are
`encountered by designers of a wide range of portable devices.
`In fact, as we talked about in Ichiba, it explicitly states that was a
`problem they were addressing. And one important statement from the
`Federal Circuit --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`
`JUDGE FRANKLIN: Counsel?
`MS. GORDON: Yes.
`JUDGE FRANKLIN: This is Judge Franklin. I wanted to ask you
`somewhat of a housekeeping question, but in mention of your declarant.
`Was there a deposition of your declarant, Dr. Alonso?
`MS. GORDON: No, Your Honor. Patent Owner chose not to depose
`our declarant either after his Petitioner Declaration, or his Reply
`Declaration. So, they chose not to depose him and his testimony,
`uncontested or uncontroverted by deposition.
`JUDGE FRANKLIN: Okay, and similarly, I want to ask whether
`Petitioner deposed a Dr. Reinholtz?
`MS. GORDON: We held a joint deposition of Dr. Reinholtz for both
`the 184, and the Triple 0, and the 013 Patent.
`JUDGE FRANKLIN: Did you file the transcript for that deposition in
`both proceedings?
`MS. GORDON: We filed in the 184; we did not use it in our reply in
`this case because we didn’t direct specific questions related to this
`proceeding in that deposition.
`JUDGE FRANKLIN: Okay, thank you.
`MS. GORDON: Okay. Turning back to Paulsen, and the Federal
`Circuit in that case made another important statement, that they agreed that
`given the nature of the problems confronted by the inventors, one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have consulted the mechanical arts for houses,
`hinges, latches and springs, and that’s exactly what we have here.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`
`If we turn to Slide 18, Patent Owner’s definition of POSITA is
`consistent with the Federal Circuit in Paulsen.
`In the Patent Owner’s definition, they stated a POSITA would have a
`degree in mechanical engineering and experience designing mechanism and
`mechanical structures of the type used in releasable couplings and locking
`devices. There's nothing in Patent Owner’s own definition of a POSITA that
`mentions anything about experience with UAVs, or issues in UAVs.
`Again, the issue at this case is a mechanical coupling and references
`in power tools latching mechanisms would have logically commended
`themselves to an inventor looking to design a mechanical component to latch
`a battery in a UAV.
`If there's no questions, I'd like to turn to the combination of Phantom
`2 Manual and Kondo. Slide 22.
`Petitioner explained in our Petition, and Dr. Alonso explained in his
`supporting declaration, that a POSITA would have been motivated to replace
`the battery latching mechanism of Phantom 2 with the battery latching
`mechanism of Kondo, and we provided specific examples of how a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would do that.
`Turning to Slide 23, and there's no dispute between the parties that the
`combination of Phantom 2 Manual and Kondo discloses every limitation of
`the Ground 1 Claims in both proceedings. And, if you look at the figures on
`23, you can see that the battery latching mechanism of Kondo is virtually
`identical to the battery latching mechanism used in the challenged patents.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`
`Turning to our Slide 24, Petitioner again, presented numerous reasons
`why a POSITA would have combined the Phantom 2 Manual with Kondo,
`and we provide and reproduce these reasons in Slide 24.
`Patent Owner makes only two arguments challenging those reasons
`and each of Patent Owner’s arguments lack merit.
`First, Patent Owner states that a POSITA would only look to the
`product when considering a product manual, but Patent Owner cite to no
`case law supporting the extreme position that a product manual can only be
`combined with a product.
`And in fact, there are numerous cases from both the Board and the
`Federal Circuit, where a product manual was combined with another type of
`reference.
`Second, Patent Owner contends that a POSITA would not have
`modified the Phantom 2 Manual because Petitioner pointed to no problem
`with Phantom 2’s latching mechanism. But what Patent Owner’s position
`assumes is that there would be no motivation for a POSITA to improve a
`device that works sufficiently, and that’s just not the law.
`The Federal Circuit has repeatedly rejected such a narrow view of
`motivation to combine, and I point the Judges to Zup v. Nash
`Manufacturing, 896 F.3d 1365, from the Federal Circuit in 2018, which
`again is cited in our Briefs.
`In that case the Federal Circuit found that a motivation to combine
`may be found explicitly or implicitly in market forces, design incentives, the
`inter-related teachings of multiple patents, any need or problem known in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`the field of endeavor at the time of the invention, and addressed by the
`patent, and the background knowledge and common sense of a POSITA.
`And, what we’re talking about in this case is simply the use of a
`spring in a battery latching mechanism. And Petitioner provided sufficient
`motivation to combine Phantom 2 Manual and Kondo.
`I'd like to turn next to the combination of Saika and Ichiba.
`JUDGE FRANKLIN: Before you do --
`MS. GORDON: Yes?
`JUDGE FRANKLIN: I want you to confirm my recollection because
`I believe I recall that as a second basis for your combination you relied on
`simple substitution?
`MS. GORDON: Yes, we did.
`JUDGE FRANKLIN: You did?
`MS. GORDON: Yes.
`JUDGE FRANKLIN: So, even if those arguments that you
`mentioned by Patent Owner -- even if Phantom 2 Manual had described its
`latching mechanism, then would the simple substitution basis still be viable?
`MS. GORDON: Yes, absolutely, and I would direct you to KSR
`where a simple substitution in and of itself is sufficient to support a
`combination.
`Turning to Slide 26 in the combination of Saika and Ichiba, in our
`Petition and in the supporting declaration, the Petitioner explained that a
`POSITA would have been motivated to replace the battery latching
`mechanism with Saika with the battery latching mechanism of Ichiba. And
`it’s important to understand what our combination is.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`
`We’re not taking wholesale the entire battery cavity, batteries, and
`latching mechanism of Ichiba. We’re only taking its battery latching
`mechanisms and the structures used in that battery latching mechanism and
`replacing Saika’s battery latching mechanisms. That is our combination.
`If you turn to Slide 27, again there's no dispute between the parties
`that the combination of Saika and Ichiba discloses every limitation in the
`challenged claims in both proceedings.
`Turning to our Slide 28, the issue and dispute in this case is whether a
`POSITA would have modified or combined Saika and Ichiba, and again,
`Petitioner presented numerous reasons why a POSITA would have
`combined Saika and Ichiba and we also presented a simple substitution
`rationale, Judge Franklin.
`And, Patent Owner makes similar arguments challenging Petitioner’s
`motivation to combine in this ground as they did in the Phantom 2 Manual
`and Kondo.
`First, Patent Owner contends that a POSITA would not modify Saika
`because Petitioner pointed to no weakness in Saika. Well, this is just a
`rehash of the argument that we discussed in the Phantom 2 Manual ground.
`Again, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly rejected such a narrow view
`of a motivation to combine.
`Second, Patent Owner argues that the weight and complexity of
`Ichiba’s double case design would dissuade a POSITA from using it in a
`UAV. But here Patent Owner is mischaracterizing Petitioner’s combination.
`We are not incorporating the double case design of Ichiba or its
`batteries. We are merely replacing Saika’s latch mechanism with Ichiba’s
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`latch mechanism. And Petitioner established in their Briefs and our
`supporting declarations that a POSITA would have been motivated to
`combine Saika and Ichiba.
`Now I'd like to turn to the combination of Saika, Ichiba, and Phelps in
`Slide 30, and this is the final prior art ground in both proceedings.
`When Petitioner explains that in this combination Petitioner is
`replacing Ichiba’s helical springs with Phelps’ S-shaped springy metal. So,
`basically, all it’s doing is a person of skill in the art is using a different type
`of spring in Ichiba.
`The combination further involves modifying Ichiba to receive one end
`of Phelps’ springy metal in the clamp button, and the other end of Phelps’
`springy metal S-shaped spring in a small protrusion in the battery cavity of
`Ichiba; and Petitioner explained how this operates because in the
`combination you have both ends of the spring coupled to components of the
`device; so, you have one end coupled to the button, one end coupled to a
`protrusion in the body.
`If a user pushes the button in, in the X direction, the spring will
`compress in the Y direction. And what does that cause? It causes the
`clamping portion to compress as well.
`When the user releases the force on the button, the spring is allowed
`to deform back to its original position. That is the combination that
`Petitioners proposed. In other words, a spring connected to the clamp button
`and a protrusion, and movement in the X direction caused compression in
`the Y direction.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`
`Turning to our Slide 31, again, Petitioner and our expert presented
`numerous reasons why a POSITA would have been motivated to combine
`Phelps with Saika and Ichiba. And, Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s
`motivation to combine with four separate arguments, and each lacks merit.
`Patent Owner first argues that Petitioner provides no evidence why the
`form factor of Ichiba was inadequate, and this is again, a rehash of the
`argument that if something works sufficiently, there would be no motivation
`to improve; and we've already addressed that is not the law.
`Second, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner provides no evidence
`how incorporation of Phelps’ springy metal might improve the form factor
`of Ichiba.
`But Patent Owner is ignoring a portion of Dr. Alonso’s declaration in
`our Petition where we explained that Phelps uses a small, single protrusion
`in the battery package.
`And, because of that, it allows a battery package to be smaller, and a
`smaller form factor improves the usability for a user. It permits a user to
`have a better grip on the battery and to use the buttons on the sides of the
`package. And, that’s particular important if your design is intended for a
`wide range of users with smaller hands and larger hands.
`Third, Patent Owner argues that the structure of Phelps is inconsistent
`with Ichiba and Saika. But, in this argument Patent Owner is
`mischaracterizing our combination.
`As we explained in our Petition and here today, we are simply
`replacing a helical spring with a different type of spring that has an S-shape,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`and we’re using the structure that Phelps tells us on how to connect that to
`the center of the device.
`And that’s consistent with Ichiba, and I discussed that when you press
`Ichiba’s button in, in the X direction, Phelps’ spring will deform in the Y
`Direction, and move that clamping portion. That’s exactly how the
`challenged patents work.
`Finally, Patent Owner argues that a POSITA would not have
`combined a cellphone battery patent with Ichiba and Saika. But Patent
`Owner is mischaracterizing Phelps.
`Phelps is not a cellphone battery patent. Phelps relates generally to
`battery housings, and more particularly, to latching systems for battery
`housings. It is not a cellphone battery patent.
`It describes its battery latch in the context of a cellphone, but it tells
`the reader that, “I am a general battery latching patent.” Therefore, it is
`pertinent to Ichiba and a person of skill in the art would have certainly
`looked to it and found it relevant in a combination.
`And finally, Petitioner presented a prior art publication by Mackle
`which was filed more than a decade before the challenged patents’ earliest
`priority date, that recognized that a coil spring could be replaced with a
`resilient springy member.
`Again, remember that when you distill this invention down, it just
`involves using a restorable elastic piece, a spring, in a battery latching
`mechanism that was well within just the common knowledge of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of these patents.
`So, if there are no questions, I'd like to cede the remainder of my time.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`
`JUDGE FRANKLIN: I do want to clarify one point with you.
`MS. GORDON: Yes.
`JUDGE FRANKLIN: Regarding the indefiniteness challenges--
`MS. GORDON: Yes?
`JUDGE FRANKLIN: In your Petitioner Reply and then also at the
`start of your argument today, you said you're resting on your Brief for those
`challenges.
`MS. GORDON: Yes.
`JUDGE FRANKLIN: I want to confirm that you're not dropping that
`challenge.
`MS. GORDON: Correct. We’re not dropping that. We just wanted
`to focus the arguments today on the prior art references, and we’re resting on
`the arguments in our Briefs.
`JUDGE FRANKLIN: Okay, so at this point on the record we have no
`response to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding indefiniteness.
`MS. GORDON: Correct.
`JUDGE FRANKLIN: Do you agree?
`MS. GORDON: Yes.
`JUDGE FRANKLIN: Okay, thank you.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Mr. Fox, would you like to reserve 10 minutes?
`MR. FOX: Ten minutes, please.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Whenever you are ready, Counsel.
`MR. FOX: Good morning, Your Honors. To start with, we want to
`make sure we frame the issues properly from our perspective. And while the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00014
`IPR2019-00016
`Patent 9,979,000 B2
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`non-analogous art issue is something that we’ll address, I first wanted to
`address the context of what we’re evaluating here.
`The Petitioner stated at the outset that the field of endeavor here is
`battery latching mechanisms, battery replacement in portable devices, and
`that’s simply not the case.
`Looking at the Patents, the 013 at Column 1, Lines 54 through 57, the
`Patentee jumps right out and frames the invention, and frames the invention
`as dealing the inconvenience of changing batteries for unmanned aerial
`fields.
`And the point of raising that here and now, is that that really sets the
`stage for this conversation we’re having about the differences between the
`quadcopter UAVs that are the subject matter of these claims, and the power
`tools; and whether or not the secondary references should be considered in
`combination with the primary references at issue here.
`JUDGE FRANKLIN: Let's also start by addressing Petitioner’s
`characterization of your disputes as not including any challenge that all the
`claim limitat
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
