`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 35
`
` 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.
`____________
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 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)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
` INTRODUCTION
`This is a Final Written Decision in a post-grant review of claims 1–24
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,044,013 B2, Ex. 1001 (“the ’013 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 1–24
`of the ’013 patent. Paper 6 (Corrected Petition, “Pet.”). Autel Robotics
`USA LLC (“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response to the
`Petition. On May 17, 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 7 (“Dec.”). Patent Owner filed a
`Patent Owner’s Response on August 23, 2019. Paper 20 (“PO Resp.”).
`Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner’s Response on November 22,
`2019. Paper 25 (“Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply on
`December 30, 2019. Paper 26 (“PO Sur-Reply”).
`On February 20, 2020, the parties presented arguments at an oral
`hearing. Paper 29. The transcript of the oral hearing has been entered in the
`record. Paper 34 (“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
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`Owner identifies its real party in interest as Autel Robotics USA LLC.
`Paper 5, 2.
`
`Related Matters
`C.
`The parties provide notice of the following matter involving the ’013
`patent before the U.S. International Trade Commission: Certain Unmanned
`Aerial Vehicles and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1133 (ITC). Pet. 2;
`Paper 5, 2. Petitioner provides notice of the following district court
`proceeding involving the ’013 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 31, 2. The parties note also that an application related to
`the ’013 patent, U.S. Patent Application 15/598,914, is pending before the
`Office. Pet. 2, Paper 5, 2. We note that application later issued as U.S.
`Patent No. 10,224,526, on March 5, 2019.
`The ’013 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
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 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 ’013 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 ’013
`patent is December 14, 2015), PO Resp. 2 (asserting that the ’013 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 ’013 patent issued on August 7, 2018. Ex. 1001,
`code (45). The Petition has been accorded a filing date of November 12,
`2018, Paper 3, which is within the nine-month window. Thus, Petitioner
`has timely filed the Petition.
`Accordingly, we determine that the ’013 patent is eligible for post-
`grant review.
`
`Patent Specification
`2.
`The ’013 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
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 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 2:47–
`50. 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 2:51–54.
`Figure 1 of the ’013 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 2:65–67.
`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 3:40–42,
`4:60–61.
`
`5
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`Figure 2 of the ’013 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts a structure diagram of a battery used for a UAV in an
`embodiment of the invention. Id. at 3:1–3. The battery includes battery body
`21 and shell 22 disposed on one end of the battery body. Id. at 3:47–50.
`Clamp button 221 is configured on a side of the shell, opposite the UAV. Id.
`at 3:50–51. 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 3:51–54. End 221b of the clamp button has hook 2211 for detachably
`hanging on the UAV. Id. at 3:55–58. 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
`3:66–4:4. 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 4:10–15. The battery’s restorable
`elastic piece is “for realizing the clamp button 221 returning to [its] original
`position automatically.” Id. at 4:6–9.
`Illustrative Claims
`E.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–24. Claim 1, the only independent
`claim, and dependent claims 6 and 22–24 are illustrative and read as follows:
`
`6
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`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 assembly capable of being accommodated in the battery
` compartment, the battery assembly comprising a shell and a
` battery body substantially disposed in the shell;
`a clamp button, wherein a first end of the clamp button being
` mounted directly or indirectly to the shell and a second end of
` the clamp button being detachably coupled to the main body;
` and
`a restorable elastic piece, wherein a first end of the restorable
` elastic piece is disposed on the shell or connects directly or
` indirectly to the shell, a second end of the restorable elastic
` piece contacting the clamp button;
`wherein the battery compartment comprises a clamping portion
` configured to detachably connect to the clamp button.
`
`6. The multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicle according to claim
`1, wherein the first end of the restorable elastic piece is fixed with
`the shell.
`
`22. The multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicle according to
`claim 1, wherein in a state where the battery assembly 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 to its
`original position and (b) the battery assembly is held
`in position by the cooperation of the clamping portion and
`the clamp button.
`
`23. The multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicle according to
`claim 1, the battery assembly is capable of being removable
`from the battery compartment in a state where the clamp
`button is pressed down.
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`24. The multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicle according to
`claim 23, wherein the clamp button is configured to cause
`the restorable elastic piece to be pressed down in a state
`where the battery assembly is not completely pushed into the
`battery compartment or is only partially positioned in the
`battery compartment.
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:42–64; 6:10–12, 6:63–7:13.
`Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`F.
`We instituted review of claims 1–24 of the ’013 patent on the
`following asserted grounds:
`
`Claims Challenged
`1–24
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103
`
`1–17, 21–24
`
`18–20
`
`22–24
`
`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 Corrected Declaration of Charles F. Reinholtz (Ex. 2001).
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
` ANALYSIS
`Legal Standards
`A.
`We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`the following principles.
`
`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
`
`9
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`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
`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.
`
`10
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`Pet. 18 (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. 11.
`In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner asserts that the
`definition proposed by Petitioner is inappropriate “because it references a
`degree in electrical engineering.” PO Resp. 8. According to Patent Owner,
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the
`invention of the ’013 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 7–8.
`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 ’013 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.
`
`11
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`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
`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
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`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).
`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. 9–10. In particular, we determined that, in view of
`Specification, the broadest reasonable construction of the claim phrase
`“fixed with the shell” 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 shell nor is it detachably connected to it.” Id. at 10.
`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. 7. 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 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.
`
`13
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`D. Obviousness over the Phantom 2 Manual and Kondo
`Petitioner asserts that the combination of the Phantom 2 Manual and
`Kondo renders claims 1–24 obvious. Pet. 18–57; Pet. Reply 4–20. Patent
`Owner disagrees. PO Resp. 19–26; PO Sur-Reply 2–10.
`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]).
`
`14
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`Figures 3, 5, and 7 of the Phantom 2 Manual are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 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.
`
`16
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
` 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 and italics 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. 25–30. Petitioner illustrates with a
`side-by-side comparison of Figure 1 of the ’013 patent and Figure 18 of the
`Phantom 2 Manual how the two UAV’s share the same basic quadcopter
`structure. Id. at 26.
`Petitioner’s side-by-side comparison of Figure 1 of the ’013 patent
`and Figure 18 of the Phantom 2 Manual is reproduced below:
`
`17
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`Phantom 2 Manual, Figure 18 ’013 Patent, Figure 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that both Figure 1 of the ’013 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. 26; 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. 29 (quoting Ex. 1029, 11). Petitioner also demonstrates the similarity
`between the structure of the battery assembly disclosed by the Phantom 2
`Manual and the ’013 patent with a side-by-side comparison of a figure from
`each reference. Id. at 31.
`
`18
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`Petitioner’s side-by-side comparison of annotated versions of Figure 5
`of the Phantom 2 Manual and Figure 1 of the ’013 patent is reproduced
`below:
`
`
`
`
`Phantom 2 Manual, Figure 5 ’013 Patent, Excerpt from Figure 1
`(annotated) (annotated)
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that both annotated Figure 5 of the Phantom 2
`Manual and Figure 1 of the ’013 patent, above, depict a battery assembly
`comprising a shell (shaded orange) and a battery body substantially disposed
`in the shell (shaded white). Pet. 30–31.
`Regarding the limitation in claim 1 requiring “a clamp button,
`wherein a first end of the clamp button being mounted directly or indirectly
`to the shell and a second end of the clamp button being 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 31.
`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 20.
`
`19
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`To reach the claim limitation requiring a “clamp button,” Petitioner
`relies upon Kondo’s disclosure. Id. at 31. 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 ’013 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 32.
`Further, Petitioner asserts that Kondo discloses that its stop hook
`detachably couples the battery pack to 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 34 (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 35 (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
`
`20
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`so that the curved element 53 of the housing engages with hook end 18a.”
`Id. at 35–36 (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 a first end of the restorable elastic piece being
`disposed on the shell or connects directly or indirectly to the shell. Id. at 37
`(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 Kondo’s
`spring and the clamp button.” Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 87). According to
`Petitioner, that means that the second end of the spring contacts the clamp
`button, thereby meeting the claim limitation requiring a second end of the
`restorable elastic piece to contact the clamp button. Id.
`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. 38. 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.
`at 39 (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 ¶ 88). Further, Petitioner demonstrates how Kondo’s
`clamping portion, i.e., curved element 53 shown in Kondo’s Figure 3,
`
`21
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`appears to connect to the clamp button in the same manner as illustrated in
`Figure 4 of the ’013 patent. Id. at 40.
`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 battery
`compartment. Id. at 22. Petitioner asserts that the skilled artisan would have
`been motivated to review a reference describing battery latching
`mechanisms for portable electronic devices, as