Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 7
`
` Filed: May 17, 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 PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 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. 7
`
` Filed: May 17, 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 PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 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)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`
` INTRODUCTION
`SZ DJI Technology Co. LTD. (“Petitioner”), filed a Petition to
`institute a post-grant review of claims 1–24 of U.S. Patent No. 10,044,013
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’013 patent”). Paper 6 (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 5, 2. Petitioner also notes the following related district
`court proceeding: “SZ DJI Technology Co. Ltd., et al. v. Autel Robotics USA
`LLC, et al., DED-1-16-cv-00706.” Pet. 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.
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`The ’013 Patent
`B.
`The ’013 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 ’013 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 ’013
`patent (December 14, 2015)”).
`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
`
`
`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 ’013 patent
`issued on August 7, 2018. Ex. 1001. 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.
`3
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`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 2:47–
`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:
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`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 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 3:40–42; 4:60–61.
`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 a battery
`body 21 and a shell 22 disposed on one end of the battery body. Id. at 3:47–
`50. A 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 a hook
`2211 for detachably hanging on the UAV. Id. at 3:55–58. An anti-slip
`structure 2212 is configured on the outer surface of the clamp button to
`
`5
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`increase “touching friction” of the clamp button and to prevent slipping upon
`touching by a user. Id. at 3:66–4:4. 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
`4:10–15. 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
`C.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–24. Claim 1 is the only independent
`claim. Claim 1 and dependent claims 6 and 22–24 are illustrative and read
`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 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 is
` 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 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
`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.
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`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.
`
`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, 5:41–64; 6:10–12, 63–7:13.
`
`7
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`D.
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–24 of the ’013
`patent on the following grounds:2
`
`Claims
`1–24
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`1–17 and 21–24
`
`§ 103
`
`References
`Phantom 2 Manual3 and Kondo4
`
`Saika5 and Ichiba6
`
`Saika, Ichiba, and Phelps7
`
`18–20
`
`22–24
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 112(b)
`
`(Indefiniteness)
`
`
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Corrected Declaration of Juan J. Alonso,
`Ph.D. (Ex. 1003).
`
`
`2 Petitioner asserts that the Petition should not be denied under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 325(d) because “[n]one of the applied references . . . were considered by
`the Office in any manner.” Pet. 108. Based upon our review of the current
`record, and absent any argument to the contrary, we agree and do not
`address the issue further in this Decision.
`3 Phantom 2 Vision+ User Manual (EN) v. 1.4 August 15, 2014 (Ex. 1029)
`(“Phantom 2 Manual”).
`4 Kondo et al., U.S. Patent 5,769,657, issued June 23, 1998 (Ex. 1008)
`(“Kondo”).
`5 Saika et al., US 2017/0001721, published Jan. 5, 2017 (Ex. 1006)
`(“Saika”).
`6 Ichiba, JP 2007-123-82, published May 17, 2007 (Ex. 1009), English
`Translation (Ex. 1010) (“Ichiba”).
`7 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
`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).8 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”
`Dependent claim 6 recites, in part, “wherein the first end of the
`restorable elastic piece is fixed with the shell.” Ex. 1001, 6:10–12.
`Petitioner notes that the Specification does not provide an explicit definition
`
`
`8 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, 51,340, 51,344 (Oct. 11, 2018).
`9
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`for the term “fixed 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. 16 (citing Ex. 1018, 727).9 Based upon that
`meaning, Petitioner asserts that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`claim phrase “fixed with the shell,” recited in claim 6, should be “fastened
`to, attached or placed and not readily moveable with respect to the shell.”
`Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51–54).
`Although the Specification does not provide a definition for the term
`“fixed with,” we note that when describing other aspects of the invention,
`the Specification contrasts that term with positioning described as being
`“detachably connected,” 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 shell” is “fastened to, attached or placed and not readily
`moveable with respect to the shell, such that it does not merely abut against
`the shell 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).
`
`
`9 Webster’s Encyclopedia Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language,
`727 (“fixed”), published 2001.
`
`10
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 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. 18 (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 1–24 obvious. Pet. 18–57.
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`assembly and use of the UAV, and describes the features of the UAV
`components, including the battery and battery compartment. Id. at 7, 8, 10,
`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 3, component [2]).
`Figures 3, 5, and 7 of the Phantom 2 Manual are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`
`Figures 3, 5, and 7 each depict the battery used in the Phantom 2
`UAV. Id. at 7, 8, 10. The Phantom 2 Manual explains that the battery is
`installed by “push[ing the] battery into the battery compartment” as shown
`in Figure 7 (arrow). Id. at 10. The Phantom 2 Manual states, “When you
`hear a click, the battery has been properly installed.” Id.
`Kondo
`2.
`
`Kondo discloses an “attachment structure which allows a battery pack
`including secondary cells to be detachably attached to a battery holder in a
`power-driven tool.” Ex. 1008, 1:6–9.
`
`13
`
`
`
`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 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
`
`14
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 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).
`Analysis
`3.
`
`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
`
`15
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc., 821
`F.3d at 1367.
`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. Pet.
`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:
`
`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
`
`16
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 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 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.
`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 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
`
`17
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`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. 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,
`
`18
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`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. 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 the
`spring and the clamp button,” thereby meeting the claim limitation requiring
`a second end of the restorable elastic piece to contact the clamp button. Id.
`at 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 87).
`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
`
`19
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`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 ’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 its 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 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 22–23. Additionally,
`Petitioner asserts that the proposed combination merely represents a “simple
`substitution of one element (Phantom 2 quadcopter’s latching mechanism)
`with another (Kondo’s secure, user-friendly latching mechanism).” Id. at 25
`(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 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 disclosures of the prior
`art, and the inferences that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`drawn from their combined teachings. Additionally, we are satisfied with
`Petitioner’s asserted reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`20
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`would have been motivated to include components of Kondo’s latch
`mechanism into the Phantom 2 Manual’s UAV, with a reasonable
`expectation of success.
`We have also reviewed the evidence and arguments relating to the
`dependent claims, see Pet. 48–55, and determine, at this stage in the
`proceeding, that Petitioner has demonstrated that, if the information in the
`Petition is unrebutted, it is more likely than not that the challenged
`dependent claims are also rendered obvious by the combined references. In
`particular, we note the limitation in dependent 6 requiring that the “first end
`of the restorable elastic piece is fixed with the shell.” As discussed above, in
`Section II. A., we have provided a preliminary construction for the term
`“fixed with the shell.” Petitioner asserts that Kondo meets that construction
`by disclosing in Figure 3 that “the first end of Kondo’s spring 17 is inserted
`into a slot between the battery shell and an inner protrusion of the battery
`shell,” such that “when the spring is inserted into the latching mechanism,
`the force of the spring presses the end of the spring against the shell, keeping
`the spring in place—that is, spring 17 is place so as to be firm and not
`readily moveable relative to the battery shell.” Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 96;
`Ex. 1008, Fig. 3). At this stage in the proceeding, and without arguments
`presented to the contrary, we are satisfied with that explanation.
`D. Obviousness over Saika and Ichiba
`Petitioner asserts that the combination of Saika and Ichiba renders
`claims 1–17 and 21–24 obvious. Pet. 57–99. Additionally, Petitioner
`asserts that the combination of Saika, Ichiba, and Phelps renders claims 18–
`20 obvious. Id. at 99–102. We consider each of those contentions, in turn.
`
`21
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`
`1.
`
`Saika
`
`Saika discloses a UAV with a removable battery. Ex. 1006, Abstract.
`Saika explains that “a battery which can be removed quickly and easily is
`advantageous.” Id. ¶ 4. Saika explains that its reference to a removable
`battery “may refer to both the electrochemical device used to store chemical
`energy in one or more cells and to the mechanical structure, e.g., the housing
`surrounding the electrochemical device and/or an assembly to mechanically
`couple to the aerial vehicle [].” Id. ¶ 39.
`
`Figure 1 of Saika is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts an example of Saika’s remote controlled AUV.
`
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 8. The UAV is described as a “quadcopter,” i.e., it is “a
`helicopter with four rotors.” Id. ¶ 28.
`
`22
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00016
`Patent 10,044,013 B2
`Figures 7A and 7B of Saika are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`Figures 7A and 7B illustrate an example of Saika’s removable latch
`battery and a chassis of the UAV. Ex. 1006 ¶ 14. Figure 7A illustrates a left
`side view of the latch battery 700. Id. ¶ 47. Figure 7B illustrates a rear, top,
`and right view of the latch battery and chassis 310. Id. The removable
`ba
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
