UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

PARROT S.A., PARROT DRONES S.A.S., and PARROT INC.,

Petitioners

v.

QFO LABS, INC.,

Patent Owner

____________

U.S. Patent No. 9,645,580

“Radio-Controlled Flying Craft”

____________

Inter Partes Review No. 2017-01400

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,645,580

UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 et seq.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1

II. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW ............................................................. 3

A. The ’580 Patent Specification ............................................................... 3

B. The Board Institutes IPRs On The Two Parent Patents ........................ 7

C. The ’580 Prosecution History ............................................................... 8

D. The Claims of the ’580 Patent ............................................................. 10

E. The ’580 Patent Recites Minor Variations on the Instituted

Claims .................................................................................................. 17

F. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 17

III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 17

IV. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH

CHALLENGED CLAIM .............................................................................. 18

A. Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ........................... 18

B. Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2)) .............................. 19

V. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE

UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 20

A. Overview of the Cited Prior Art .......................................................... 20

1. Louvel ....................................................................................... 20

2. Sato ............................................................................................ 23

3. Kroo........................................................................................... 26

4. Talbert ....................................................................................... 29

5. Gabai ......................................................................................... 31

6. Burdoin ...................................................................................... 31

7. Lee ............................................................................................. 32

B. Ground 1 – Claims 1, 6, 7, 12, and 13 Are Obvious Under

Louvel in View of Sato, Kroo, and Talbert ......................................... 32

1. Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 33

ii

(a) Louvel Combined With Sato Discloses Limitation

1a and 1b ......................................................................... 33

(b) Louvel Discloses Limitation 1c ...................................... 34

(c) Louvel Discloses Limitation 1d ...................................... 35

(d) Louvel Discloses Limitation 1e ...................................... 36

(e) Talbert Discloses Limitation 1f ...................................... 37

(f) Louvel and Kroo Disclose Limitation 1g ....................... 41

(g) Louvel and Sato Disclose Limitation 1h(i)–1h(iii) ........ 47

2. Independent Claim 7 ................................................................. 56

(a) Louvel Discloses 7b ........................................................ 57

(a) Louvel and Kroo Disclose 7d ......................................... 57

(b) Louvel Discloses Limitation 7g ...................................... 58

(a) Sato Discloses Limitation 7i ........................................... 59

3. Independent Claim 13 ............................................................... 60

(a) Louvel and Sato Disclose Limitation 13d ...................... 61

(b) Louvel Discloses Limitation 13f(i) ................................ 61

(c) Louvel Discloses Limitation 13f(ii) ............................... 62

4. Dependent Claims 6 and 12 ...................................................... 62

(a) Louvel Discloses Limitations 6a, 6b, 12a, and 12b........ 62

(b) Louvel Discloses Limitations 6c and 12c ....................... 63

C. Ground 2 – Claims 2, 8, and 14 Are Obvious in Further View of

Gabai.................................................................................................... 63

1. Claims 2, 8, and 14.................................................................... 64

(a) Talbert Discloses Limitations 2a, 2b, 8a, 8b, and

14a ................................................................................... 64

(b) Gabai Discloses Limitations 2c, 8c, and 14b ................. 64

(c) A POSA Would have Been Motivated to Combine

Louvel with Gabai .......................................................... 66

D. Ground 3 – Claims 3 and 9 Are Obvious in Further View of

Burdoin ................................................................................................ 68

iii

1. Burdoin Discloses Claim 3 ....................................................... 68

2. Burdoin Discloses Claim 9 ....................................................... 73

3. A POSA Would have Been Motivated to Combine

Louvel with Burdoin ................................................................. 73

E. Ground 4 – Claims 5, 11, and 15 Are Obvious Under Louvel in

View of Sato, Kroo, Talbert, and Lee ................................................. 76

1. Independent Claim 15 ............................................................... 76

(a) Louvel Discloses Limitation 15c .................................... 77

(b) Louvel Discloses Limitation 15d .................................... 77

(c) Louvel and Lee Disclose Limitation 15f ........................ 77

(d) A POSA Would have Been Motivated to Combine

Louvel with Lee .............................................................. 79

(e) Talbert Discloses Limitation 15g(i) ................................ 81

(f) Gabai Discloses Limitation 15g(ii) ................................ 81

(g) Sato Discloses Limitation 15j ......................................... 82

2. Dependent Claims 5 and 11 ...................................................... 82

F. Ground 5 – Claim 16 is Obvious in Further View of Burdoin ........... 82

1. Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................. 82

2. Burdoin Discloses Claim 16 ..................................................... 83

G. Secondary Considerations Do Not Support A Finding Of Non-

Obviousness ......................................................................................... 83

VI. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 83

A. Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................... 83

B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................ 84

1. Related Patent Office Proceedings............................................ 84

2. Related Litigation ...................................................................... 84

3. Related Applications ................................................................. 85

C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) and

Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ............................... 85

D. Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)) ............................................. 85

iv

VII. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R

§§ 42.101, 42.104, AND 42.108) .................................................................. 86

A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a); 37 C.F.R.

§§ 42.101(a)-(c)) ................................................................................. 86

VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 86

v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases

Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Teva Pharms., 752 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 45

Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 46

Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .......................................................................... 46

National Steel Car v. Canadian Pacific RY, Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 44

Nuvasive v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., IPR2013-00206, Paper No. 17 (Sept. 23, 2013) ............................................................................. 18

Parrot S.A. et al. v. QFO Labs, Inc., No. 16-682-GMS (D. Del.) ................................................................................. 84

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 19

QFO Labs, Inc. v. Parrot S.A. et al., No. 16-cv-03443-JRT-HB (D. Minn.) ................................................................ 85

Statutes and Rules

35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................. 9, 19, 20, 21, 30

35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 9

35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319................................................................................................. 1

35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 20

35 U.S.C. §§ 315(a)-(b) ........................................................................................... 86

37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................................................................................. 84, 85

37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ................................................................................................ 85

37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................. 86

37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a) ................................................................................................... 1

37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ............................................................................................... 1, 18

vi

37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ................................................................................................... 86

37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................. 19, 86

37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2)) ........................................................................................ 20

vii

LIST OF PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS

No. Description

Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,645,580 to Pedersen et al.

Ex. 1002 File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,645,580

Ex. 1003 Declaration of Dr. Girish Chowdhary

Ex. 1004 U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0104921 (“Louvel”)

Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,453,758 (“Sato”)

Ex. 1006

I. Kroo et al., “Mesoscale Flight and Miniature Rotorcraft

Development,” Stanford University, published in T.J. Mueller ,

“Fixed and Flapping Wing Aerodynamics for Micro Air Vehicle

Applications, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics,” pp. 503-

517 (2002) (“Kroo”)

Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0193914 (“Talbert”)

Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent Application No. 2001/0021669 (“Gabai”)

Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,521,817 (“Burdoin”)

Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent No. 6,739,189 (“Lee”)

Ex. 1011

Weilenmann, Martin F., Urs Christen, and Hans P. Geering,

“Robust helicopter position control at hover,” American Control

Conference, 1994. Vol. 3. IEEE, 1994.

Ex. 1012

Shim, David Hyunchul, Hyoun Jin Kim, and Shankar Sastry,

“Hierarchical control system synthesis for rotorcraft-based

unmanned aerial vehicles,” AIAA Guidance, Navigation and

Control Conference. 2000.

viii

Ex. 1013

Shim, H., et al., “A comprehensive study of control design for an

autonomous helicopter,” In: Proc. 37th IEEE Conf. on Decision

and Control (CDC’98), 1998.

Ex. 1014

Frazzoli, Emilio, Munther A. Dahleh, and Eric Feron, “Real-time

motion planning for agile autonomous vehicles,” Journal of

Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 25.1 (2002): 116-129.

Ex. 1015 Printout of Website at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lift_curve.svg

Ex. 1016 Printout of Website at https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-

12/airplane/right2.html

Ex. 1017

Printout of Website at

http://www.aerialroboticscompetition.org/past_missions/

pastmissionimages/mission3/robots2.png

Ex. 1018

Printout of Website at

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/

5/59/Quadrotorhover.svg/220px-Quadrotorhover.svg.png

Ex. 1019 Printout of Website at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USN_hovercraft.jpg

Ex. 1020 U.S. Patent No. 3,053,480 to Vanderlip et al.

Ex. 1021 Declaration of Coral Sheldon-Hess

Ex. 1022 I. Kroo et al., “The Mesicopter: A Miniature Rotorcraft Concept

Phase II Interim Report,” Stanford University (2000).

Ex. 1023 I. Kroo et al., “The Mesicopter: A Miniature Rotorcraft Concept

Phase II Final Report,” Stanford University (2001).

Ex. 1024 I. Kroo et al., “The Mesicopter: A Meso-Scale Flight Vehicle

NIAC Phase I Final Report,” Stanford University (1999).

Ex. 1025

Gavrilets, Vladislav, Avionics systems development for small

unmanned aircraft, Diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

1998.


ix


Ex. 1028 Parrot S.A. et al. v. QFO Labs, Inc., IPR2016-01559 Institution

Decision, Paper 15 (Feb. 16, 2017).



Ex. 1031 Kayton, Myron, and Walter R. Fried, Avionics navigation

systems, John Wiley & Sons (1997)

1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq., Parrot

S.A., Parrot Drones S.A.S. and Parrot Inc. (“Parrot” ) respectfully request that the

Board initiate inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-16 (“the

Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,645,580 (“the ’580 patent,” Ex. 1001),

which is assigned to QFO Labs, Inc. (“QFO”).

I. INTRODUCTION

The ’580 patent, which was issued just this week, is the third member of the

same patent family. The Board has already instituted trial on the two parent

patents – U.S. Patent Nos. 7,931,239 (“the ’239 patent”) and 9,073,532 (“the ’532

patent”). And two IPR petitions on additional claims of the parent patents remain

pending.

The claims of the ’580 patent are minor, obvious variations of the

technology claimed in its parents. This fact is confirmed by QFO’s acquiescence

to a double-patenting rejection during examination. Accordingly, this petition

should be granted for many of the same reasons as Parrot’s preceding petitions.

QFO will surely argue that the Examiner of the ’580 patent already

considered the arguments made in the earlier IPRs. However, QFO did not file the

application that led to the ’580 patent until after Parrot had filed its earlier IPRs.

As such, QFO added minor claim limitations to the ’580 patent specifically to

avoid the prior art cited in Parrot’s earlier IPRs. However, the claims presented

2

here suffer from the same infirmity as the claims of the parent patents—they are

directed to a combination of known elements being used for their intended

purposes without any unexpected results. After considering Parrot’s earlier IPRs,

the Examiner identified two limitations in the claims of the ’580 patent that were

allegedly not present in the prior art: 1) a transceiver that permits two-way

communication; and 2) determining an “inertial gravitational reference” in the

drone and the handheld controller, a limitation that is found in only some of the

claims. As explained in detail below, neither of these features is novel. The use of

transceivers for two-way communication was well known prior to the filing date of

the ’580 patent. Indeed, Talbert – a reference that was not presented in the prior

IPRs or considered by the Examiner – explicitly discloses a transceiver for two-

way communication between an RC aircraft and its handheld controller. Similarly,

Sato – a second reference not previously considered – discloses a handheld

controller that determines an inertial gravitational reference. And finally, the

Board has already made a preliminary finding that “Louvel dynamically

determines a gravitational reference.” (Ex. 1028,p. 20). Indeed, Louvel discloses

that its “tilt sensors” measure a “tilt angle deviation” based on a “horizontal

reference,” which is an inertial gravitational reference.

Accordingly, Petitioners respectfully request that institution be granted.

3

II. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

At a high level, the ’580 patent relates to a toy battery-powered “flying

hovercraft.” The following sections summarize the patent specification and the

prosecution history.

A. The ’580 Patent Specification

The specification of the ’580 patent is essentially identical to the

specification of its parent patents. It describes a toy hovercraft that includes three

main portions: (1) four contra-rotating “thrusters;” (2) a “homeostatic” control

system; and (3) a remote controller that controls the hovercraft based on its

orientation in the user’s hand.

More specifically, the “hovercraft” of the ’580 patent is described as

including “at least two pairs of counter-rotating ducted fans to generate lift like a

hovercraft and utilizes a homeostatic hover control system to create a flying craft

that is easily controlled.” (Ex. 1001,6:29-32). This is shown in Fig. 16:

4

This homeostatic flying saucer uses four battery-powered ducted fans

housed completely inside the craft to produce four cones of thrust beneath the

craft. (Id.6:47-52). The bottom-perspective depicted in Figure 20 illustrates the

placement of the four contra-rotating ducted fans.

5

The hovercraft of the ’580 patent is also described as “homeostatic,” which

means that it tends to be neutrally balanced. (Ex. 1003,¶29). The ’580 patent

describes several aspects of the hovercraft that contribute to its homeostaticity –

(1) contra-rotating fans; (2) the angle of the engines; and (3) a control system that

determines how much thrust to provide each engine in order to maintain a specific

orientation. (Ex. 1001,6:60-7:9.)

6

Although the ’580 patent refers frequently to the “homeostatic control

system,” it provides little detail as to how that system works in practice.

Functionally, the system includes an “XYZ sensor arrangement 302 and associated

control circuitry 304 that dynamically determines an inertial gravitational reference

for use in automatic control of the thrust produced by each thruster.” (Id.,11:26-

30). The control system may be implemented “in software” or “in hardware.”

(Id.,11:31,36). The hardware is described as sensors that “sense acceleration and

gravity in the X plane and at least three second sensors that sense acceleration only

in the X plane.” (Id.,11:41-45). These sensors may be “two sets of active

accelerometers” and “two sets of passive accelerometers” in both the X and Y

planes. (Id.,11:52-56). No description of how the software portion operates in

conjunction with the hardware is provided.

The remote control is described as providing “one-handed” operation. This

is accomplished by using “XY axis transducers” in the controller that sense the

orientation of the controller, and transmit corresponding control signals to the

hovercraft. (Id.,13:38-46). The controller is also described as including a “control

stick” that is operated by a user’s thumb and a “video control pad.” (Id.,10:11-15).

The controller is best shown by reference to Figure 22b, reproduced below:

7

B. The Board Institutes IPRs On The Two Parent Patents

After QFO alleged that Parrot infringed the ’239 and ’532 patents, Parrot

filed IPRs challenging the validity of those patents on August 8, 2016. See

IPR2016-01550 (“the ’550 proceeding”) & IPR2016-01559 (“the ’559

proceeding”). On February 16, 2017, the Board instituted trial in both the ’550 and

’559 proceedings.

In the ’550 proceeding, the Board instituted review of claim 10 of the ’239

patent. The Board, however, declined to institute review of claims 1-9, finding that

the ’550 petition presented insufficient evidence of a single claim limitation – the

“battery” system/means – which requires that the thrusters and other electrical

components be powered by an on-board battery.

Likewise, in the ’559 proceeding, the Board instituted review of claims 8-14

of the ’532 patent, but declined to institute review of claims 1-7 and 15-24. As in

8

the ’550 proceeding, the Board found that the ’559 petition presented insufficient

evidence of a “battery” or “electrical-power” system on the hovercraft.

Petitioners filed two additional petitions directed to the remaining claims of

’239 and ’532 patents. In IPR2017-01089 , Petitioners requested that the Board

institute review of claims 1-9, which addressed the “battery” limitations by

presenting grounds not considered in the ’550 petition. Likewise, in IPR2017-

01090 , Petitioners requested IPR on claims 1-7 and 15-24, which raised new prior

art related to the subject battery limitations. The Board has not issued an

institution decision in either of those IPRs.

C. The ’580 Prosecution History

The ’580 application was filed on September 21, 2016—approximately six

weeks after Parrot filed its first two IPRs against the parent patents. QFO initially

filed the application with only a single claim and a contemporaneous request for

track one status (Ex. 1002,pp.27,29-30), which was granted on October 19, 2016.

(Id.,p. 189). On September 23, 2016, QFO filed a preliminary amendment and an

IDS, in which it submitted references that were used to institute IPRs on the earlier

patents. (Id.,pp. 92-182). In the IDS, QFO discussed Louvel, Gordon, and

Thomas. Louvel is used both this petition and in the ’550, ’559, ’089 and ’090

petitions as a primary reference. In distinguishing Louvel, however, QFO stated

only that it failed to disclosed the controller related-limitations; it did not argue

9

that Louvel failed to disclose any other limitations, including the requirement that

the aircraft determine an “inertial gravitational reference.” (Id.,pp. 106-107).

The claims of the ’580 patent application were initially rejected for double

patenting and for failing to comply with the written description requirement.

(Id.,pp. 198-207). After conducting an interview with the Examiner, the applicants

agreed to submit a terminal disclaimer to overcome the double-patenting rejection

and to allegedly overcome the §112 rejections by amending the claims. (Id.,p.

258). The Examiner then issued a Notice of Allowability on February 10, 2017;

however, following the Board’s institution decision in the ’550 and ’559

proceedings, QFO petitioned to withdraw the application from issuance, and the

Examiner considered the grounds of institution. (Id.,pp. 314-315). Thereafter, the

Examiner once again allowed the claims. In his reasons for allowance, he stated

that there were “two distinguishing features” over the art cited in the earlier IPRs:

1) “the bi-directional communications between the remote controller and the

aircraft” and 2) “the determination of the gravitational references in each of the

controller and the aircraft.” (Id.,pp. 340-344). The second finding directly

contradicts the Board’s preliminary finding that “Thomas teaches or suggests that

motion of its handheld enclosure would result in an angular displacement with

respect to an inertial gravitational frame of reference” and that “Louvel

10

dynamically determines a gravitational frame of reference.” (Ex. 1028,p. 19-

20).1

D. The Claims of the ’580 Patent

The ’580 patent recites seventeen claims, comprising four independent

claims (Nos. 1, 7, 13, and 15) and thirteen dependent claims. Claim 1 recites three

primary components: (1) a flying hovercraft containing various off-the-shelf

components, including motors, an RF transceiver, and a battery system; (2) a

homeostatic control system for automatically controlling the motors using a three-

dimensional sensor system; and (3) an RC controller for controlling the desired

orientation of the hovercraft using control software. (Ex. 1001,15:46-16:13).

For ease of reference, the Challenged Claims are reproduced below:

Claim 1

No. Claim Limitation

1a A radio controlled (RC) system for a homeostatic flying craft

controllable by a user remote from the flying craft with a hand-held

controller,

1b the hand-held controller housing a battery-powered microprocessor

system operatively coupled to a sensor system,

1c the RC comprising: a flying structure having lift generated by at least

four electrically powered motors, each motor having at least one blade

driven by the motor that generates a downwardly directed thrust,

1d the flying structure including: a homeostatic control system operably

1 The file histories to the ’580 patent’s parents are summarized in Ex. 1003,39-45.

11

connected to the motors and configured to control the thrust produced

by each motor in order to automatically maintain a desired orientation

of the flying structure,

1e the homeostatic control system including at least a three-dimensional

sensor system and associated control circuitry configured to determine

an inertial gravitational reference for use by the homeostatic control

system to control a speed of each of the motors;

1f a radio frequency (RF) transceiver operably connected to the

homeostatic control system and configured to provide RF

communications with the hand-held controller;

1g and a battery system operably coupled to the motors, the RF

transceiver and the homeostatic control system;

1h(i) and control software that is adapted to be used by the battery-powered

microprocessor system in the hand-held controller

1h(ii) and that is configured to control the flying structure by RF

communications that include control commands corresponding to the

desired orientation of the flying structure based on the sensor system

in the hand-held controller

1h(iii) that is configured to sense a controller gravitational reference and a

relative title of the hand-held controller with respect to the controller

gravitational reference as a result of the user selectively orienting the

hand-held controller.

Claim 2

2a The RC system of claim 1 wherein the RF communications between

the flying structure and the hand-held controller selectively include

data transmissions in addition to the control commands,

2b wherein the data transmissions are selectively configured to include

video images from the flying structure,

2c and wherein software updates are configured to be received by the

hand-held controller from an Internet connection.

Claim 3

12

3 The RC system of claim 1 further comprising instructions configured

to keep the flying structure within 500 feet of the hand-held controller.

Claim 5

5 The RC system of claim 1 wherein the sensor system includes both a

three-dimensional accelerometer sensor system and a three-

dimensional gyroscopic sensor system.

Claim 6

6a The RC system of claim 1 wherein the four motors are arranged as two

pairs of motors that are symmetrically positioned about an X-Y axis

configuration such that one motor of each pair of motors is positioned

opposite the other motor

6b and one of the pairs of motors is configured to counter-rotate relative

to the other of the pairs of motors,

6c and wherein the flying structure weighs less than 42 ounces.

Claim 7

7a A radio controlled (RC) drone controlled by a user operating a hand-

held RC controller separate and remote from the RC drone

comprising:

7b a body supporting two pairs of electrically powered motors, each

motor configured to drive at least one blade to generate aerodynamic

lift;

7c a battery system positioned in the body and operably coupled to the

motors;

7d a control system positioned in the body and operably connected to the

motors and the battery system, the control system configured to

control a downwardly directed thrust produced by each motor using:

7e a radio frequency (RF) transceiver configured to facilitate RF

communications with the RC controller that include commands

corresponding to a desired orientation of the RC drone;

13

7f a sensor system configured to sense a sensed orientation of the body;

7g and a microprocessor system configured to determine a gravitational

reference to use the sensed orientation and the gravitational reference

to control a speed of each of the motors to position the body in

response to the commands corresponding to the desired orientation;

7h(i) and software that is adapted to be used by a battery-powered

microprocessor system in the RC controller

7h(ii) and that is configured to control the RC drone by RF communications

that include control commands corresponding to the desired

orientation of the RC drone based on a sensor system housed in a

hand-held structure of the RC controller

7h(iii) that is configured to sense a gravitational reference and a relative tilt

of the hand-held structure with respect to the gravitational reference as

a result of the user selectively orienting the hand-held structure,

7i such that an actual moment-to-moment orientation of the RC drone

can mimic a corresponding moment-to-moment positioning of the

hand-held structure of the RC controller.

Claim 8

8a The RC drone of claim 7 wherein the RF communications between the

RC drone and the RC controller selectively include data transmissions

in addition to the control commands,

8b wherein the data transmissions are selectively configured to include

video images from a camera onboard the RC drone,

8c and wherein software updates are configured to be received by the

hand-held controller from an Internet connection.

Claim 9

9 The RC drone of claim 7 further comprising instructions configured to

keep the RC drone within a programmed maximum distance from the

RC controller based on the RF communications and to cause the RC

drone to automatically reverse when the RC drone approaches the

14

programmed maximum distance from the RC controller.

Claim 11

11 The RC drone of claim 7 wherein the sensor system includes both a

three-dimensional accelerometer sensor system and a three-

dimensional gyroscopic sensor system.

Claim 12

12a The RC drone of claim 7 wherein the two pairs of motors are

symmetrically positioned on an X-Y plane such that one pair of

motors is positioned at opposite ends of an X axis,

12b and the other pair of motors is positioned at opposite ends of the Y

axis with one of the pairs of motors configured to counter-rotate

relative to the other of the pairs of motors,

12c wherein the flying structure weighs less than 42 ounces.

Claim 13

13a A control system for a hand-held controller configured to control a

radio controlled (RC) drone remote from the hand-held controller,

13b wherein the RC drone is a multi-rotor flying craft having four

electrically powered motors, each motor driving at least one blade

configured to provide aerodynamic lift for the multi-rotor flying craft,

13c a battery system operably coupled to the motors,

13d and a control system configured to automatically control a

downwardly directed thrust produced by each motor in response to

control commands communicated by radio communications,

13e(i) the control system comprising: software that is adapted to be used by

a battery-powered microprocessor system in the hand-held controller

13e(ii) and that is configured to control the RC drone by radio

communications that include control commands corresponding to a

desired orientation of the RC drone based on a sensor system in the

hand-held controller

15

13e(iii) that is configured to sense a gravitational reference and a relative title

of the hand-held controller with respect to the gravitational reference

as a result of the user selectively orienting the hand-held controller,

13f(i) wherein the RC drone is configured to be remotely controlled from the

controller so as to position the RC drone in the desired orientation

based on the control system of the RC drone determining a

gravitational reference for the RC drone and a sensed orientation of

the RC drone

13f(ii) and controlling a speed of each of the motors to position the RC drone

in response to the control commands in the radio communications

corresponding to the desired orientation.

Claim 14

14a The control system of claim 13 wherein radio communications

between the RC drone and the hand-held controller are configured to

include data transmissions in addition to the control commands,

14b and software updates are configured to be received by the hand-held

controller from an Internet connection.

Claim 15

15a A radio controlled (RC) system for a user to remotely control a flying

craft with a hand-held controller,

15b the hand-held controller housing a battery-powered microprocessor

system and a sensor system,

15c the RC system comprising: a flying craft having a structure that

weighs less than 42 ounces and includes:

15d four electrically-powered motors arranged as two pairs of motors, one

of the pairs of motors configured to counter-rotate relative to the other

of the pairs of motors, each motor having at least one blade driven by

the motor configured to generate aerodynamic lift for the flying craft;

15e a control system operably connected to the motors and configured to

control a downwardly directed thrust produced by each motor in order

16

to position the flying craft in a desired orientation,

15f the control system including a three dimensional sensor system that

includes at least a three-dimensional accelerometer sensor and a three-

dimensional gyroscopic sensor and associated control circuitry

configured to determine an inertial gravitational reference for use by

the control system in controlling a speed of each of the motors;

15g(i) a radio frequency (RF) transceiver operably connected to the control

system and configured to provide RF communications with the hand-

held controller that include control commands and data transmissions,

15g(ii) wherein the data transmissions are selectively configured to include

software updates for the control system received by the hand-held

controller from an Internet connection and video images from a

camera onboard the flying craft;

15h and a battery system electrically coupled to the motors, the RF

transceiver and the control system;

15i(i) and software instructions that are adapted to be used by the battery-

powered microprocessor system in the hand-held controller

15i(ii) and that are configured to control the flying craft by RF

communications that include control commands corresponding to the

desired orientation of the flying craft based on the sensor system in the

hand-held controller

15i(iii) that is configured to sense a controller gravitational reference and a

relative title of the hand-held controller with respect to the controller

gravitational reference as a result of the user selectively orienting the

hand-held controller,

15j such that actual moment-to-moment orientation of the flying craft is

capable of mimicking a corresponding moment-to-moment positioning

of the hand-held controller.

Claim 16

16 The RC system of claim 15 further comprising instructions configured

to keep the flying structure within a programmed maximum distance

from the hand-held controller based on the RF communications.

17

E. The ’580 Patent Recites Minor Variations on the Instituted

Claims

As explained in detail in Dr. Girish’s declaration, the claims of the ’580

patent share many common elements with the claims of the ’239 and ’532 patents.

(Ex. 1003,¶¶46-47). Indeed, just like its parents, the ’580 patent simply claims a

combination of common components. QFO attempts to differentiate the ’580

patent by adding incremental detail to the communication system and the hand-

held controller. However, as explained in detail below, these purported

distinguishing features were also known in the prior art and the claims of the ’580

patent are obvious.

F. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art

The art to which the ’580 patent is directed is the field of remote control

aircraft. (Ex. 1003,¶¶59-60). A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would

have at least a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace engineering, or a

comparable degree, in combination with at least two years of practical experience

in the field. (Id.).

III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

In an IPR, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation

(“BRI”) (37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)), in accordance with “their ordinary and customary

meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of

18

the entire patent disclosure.” Nuvasive v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., IPR2013-

00206, Paper No. 17 at 6 (Sept. 23, 2013).

Petitioners submit that express interpretations of the Challenged Claims “are

not necessary.”2 Petitioners reserve the right to respond to, and/or to offer

alternative constructions, to any proposed claim term constructions offered by

Patent Owner.3

IV. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH

CHALLENGED CLAIM

A. Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))

Petitioners request IPR of claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-16 of the ’580 patent and

request that the Board cancel those claims as unpatentable. This petition relies on

the following references, which, unless otherwise noted, were not considered

during the prosecution of the ’580 patent:

2 The Board, in the ’559 proceeding, found that express interpretations of those

challenged claims “are not necessary.” (Ex. 1028,pp. 7-8). The claims in the ’580

patent share many of the same terms as the ’532 patent.

3 The claim constructions presented in this Petition, including where Petitioners

do not propose an express construction, do not necessarily reflect the claim

constructions that Petitioners believe should be adopted by a district court under

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Petitioners take no

position in this petition as to whether the claims are indefinite, and its statement

that no construction is required should not be interpreted to mean that the terms are

definite.

19

Exhibit/short

title

Qualifying Prior Art

Section

1004/Louvel §102(a)/(e)

1005/Sato §§102(a)/(b)

1006/Kroo §102(a)

1007/Talbert §102(e)

1008/Gabai §§102(a)/(e)

1009/Burdoin §§102(a)/(b)

1010/Lee §102(e)

B. Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2))

Petitioners respectfully request that IPR of claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-16 be

instituted because this Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that the

Petitioners will prevail with respect to at least one claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

This petition is based on the following grounds:

# Ground for Challenge

1 Claims 1, 6, 7, 12, and 13 Are Obvious Under Louvel in View of

Sato, Kroo, and Talbert

2 Claims 2, 8, and 14 Are Obvious in Further View of Gabai

3 Claims 3 and 9 Are Obvious in Further View of Burdoin

4 Claims 5, 11, and 15 Are Obvious Under Louvel in View of Sato,

Kroo, Talbert, and Lee

5 Claim 16 Is Obvious in Further View of Burdoin

20

V. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE

UNPATENTABLE

A. Overview of the Cited Prior Art

The following is a summary of the references cited in support of this request.

1. Louvel

Louvel was filed as a PCT application on April 5, 2001, and published on

August 8, 2002. Louvel is prior art to the ’580 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) &

(e). Aside from the discussion of the previous IPRs, Louvel was not substantively

discussed during prosecution.

Louvel discloses a flying, remotely-controlled, saucer-shaped toy that

includes four ducted fans. (Ex. 1004,Abstract;¶¶7-8). As shown in Figure 3,

Louvel includes four propellers that are enclosed within the body of the aircraft

(id.,¶29):

21

The body (40) is a “protection casing with grid-type areas that let the air flow go

through the aircraft.” (Id.,¶38). This is shown in Figure 11:

22

Louvel further describes a control system that uses “closed loop” control.

(Id.,¶¶88-127). Louvel’s control system includes three attitude sensors; two single-

axis “tilt sensors,” i.e. accelerometers, that measure roll tilt and front-rear tilt angle

deviation from a “horizontal reference”; and a yaw sensor made of a miniature

gyrocompass. (Id.,¶¶8,42-47;Ex. 1003,¶81). Together these sensors can detect

movement along the x, y, and z axes. (Ex. 1003,¶81).

Louvel’s closed-loop control system performs calculations based on

feedback from the sensors, and is “intended to perform the flight control [sic] on a

23

stable attitude for the aircraft.” (Ex. 1004,¶90). Specifically, “[w]hen there is no

action on the handle, the control loop uses the data coming from the various

sensors … to converge towards the horizontal normal attitude of the aircraft and to

cancel the yaw movement.” (Id.,¶91). This control system is depicted, for

example, in Figure 9:

2. Sato

Sato describes a wireless, battery-operated controller that can be used to

operate a variety of devices, such as a computer, video games, and a virtual reality

system. (Ex. 1005,7:16-35). Sato refers to this device as the “remote

commander.” (Id.,1:10-18).

24

The Remote Commander operates using a variety of sensors, including

gyroscopes or accelerometers. (Id.,6:12-39;7:1-14). It operates by using these

sensors to detect a deviation from a reference to gravity (Id.,7:1-16;54-60;Figs.

12a-12b):

An embodiment of the Remote Commander is shown in Fig. 13. In this

figure, the remote commander is controlling a racing video game by interpreting

two-dimensional movements made by the user (Id.,Fig. 13;7:18-27):

25

In other embodiments, such as when the Commander is used to control a

Virtual Reality program, the Commander interprets movements in three

dimensions (Id.,Fig. 14):

26

The Remote Commander is further disclosed as being battery operated

(Id.,8:16-44), and as using RF communications (Id.,10:1-8).

3. Kroo

Kroo is raised as an express disclosure of battery-powered motors that drive

a rotor. Kroo is a research paper that describes the author’s work on battery-

operated, micro quadcopters. The ’580 patent specification discusses Kroo’s work,

describing it as a “very tiny battery-powered for rotor craft.” (Ex. 1001,4:45-50).

The ’580 patent incorrectly states that the project was designed “to be used for

aerial mapping of Mars . . . and has no practical guidance on how to make a model-

sized RC flying craft for here on Earth.” (Id.). To the contrary, Kroo specifically

envisioned his quadcopters as being used “indoors or in swarms to provide sensor

information over a wide area,” and “might” also be “attractive for planetary

exploration, of Mars or Titan for example….” (Ex. 1006,p. 504;see also Ex.

1003,¶89). In fact, Kroo constructed multiple prototypes of his quadcopter, which

he tested and demonstrated on Earth. These prototypes are shown, for example, in

Figures 1, 5 and 13, as reproduced below:

28

(Ex. 1006,pp. 504, 509, 515).

29

The same quadcopter was shown in a contemporaneous Kroo publication,

but was printed in color, and is reproduced here for clarity (Ex. 1024,Fig. 2):

The co-filed declaration of Coral Sheldon-Hess further confirms that Kroo was

indexed in a worldwide electronic database catalog and was made available to the

public at least as early as December 12, 2001. (Ex. 1021,¶22). Kroo is, therefore,

prior art to the ’580 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).

4. Talbert

Talbert is directed to a “remote-control powered parafoil aircraft.” (Ex.

1007,Abstract). Talbert was not considered by the Examiner during prosecution.

(Ex. 1002). The aircraft is controlled by a handheld controller containing a

joystick. (Ex. 1007,¶¶35-36;Figs. 1&9).

30

Both the aircraft and the handheld controller contain transceivers for two-way

communication. (Id.,¶35). The information sent via RF include both “control

communication[s]” and “television communication” which transmits data from a

“television camera” on the aircraft to a “television screen” on the control unit.

(Id.,¶¶35,46-47;Fig. 9).

31

5. Gabai

Gabai is directed to an “[a]pparatus for a wireless computer controlled toy

system.” (Ex. 1008,Abstract). The apparatus includes a computer equipped with a

radio interface and a number of toys which are able to receive wireless signals

from a computer. (Id.,¶¶115-16,119-120). The computer is connected via the

Internet to other devices, including advertisers and the toy maker. (Id.,¶¶613-73).

The general architecture of the Gabai system is shown in Figure 56:

(Id.,Fig. 56;see also id.,¶¶59-60,¶¶691-92,Figs. 41 and 44;Ex. 1003,¶¶95-

96).

6. Burdoin

Burdoin discloses a control system for automatically maintaining drones in

formation. (Ex. 1009,Abstract). In particular, the Burdoin’s control system allows

32

“formation flying” of different types of aircraft. (Id.,2:27-39). Aircraft can be

programmed to “follow at relative range,” of each other, i.e., any range desired by

the user. (Id.). Range is maintained through a “range and range rate extractor,”

which determines range based on signals received from the drone being followed.

(Id.,6:1-18).

7. Lee

Lee is directed to a novel MEMS silicon structure for detecting vertical

displacement and method for making the same. (Ex. 1010,1:32-37). Lee goes on

to explain that these manufacturing methods can be combined with “the

conventional silicon fabrication process” “to integrate a three-axis accelerometer

and a three-axis gyroscope on a single wafer,” i.e. a single chip. (Id.,5:5-10).

Thus, Lee discloses a single chip that can detect both “lateral and vertical

displacements.” (Id.;Ex. 1003, ¶100).

B. Ground 1 – Claims 1, 6, 7, 12, and 13 Are Obvious Under Louvel

in View of Sato, Kroo, and Talbert

Claims 1, 6, 7, 12, and 13 are obvious over Louvel combined with Sato,

Kroo, and Talbert. The following sections describe the disclosure in each of these

references as they apply to the challenged claims. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Girish

Chowdhary, has included in his declaration a summary chart with citations for each

of the limitations of these claims. (Ex. 1003,¶277).

33

1. Independent Claim 1

(a) Louvel Combined With Sato Discloses Limitation 1a

and 1b4

Limitation 1a requires a “radio controlled (RC) system for a homeostatic

flying craft controllable by a user remote from the flying craft with a hand-held

controller.” (Ex. 1001,15:46-48). To the extent this preamble is a requirement of

the claims, it is disclosed by Louvel and Sato.

Louvel discloses a remote controlled flying structure – a “light aircraft,

remotely supplied and remotely controlled, propelled by electrical motors.” (Ex.

1004,Abstract). Louvel’s controller is not radio-controlled. Such a controller,

however, is disclosed by Sato. As discussed below in connection with limitation

1h, Sato discloses a hand-held, battery-operated controller that uses radio

communications. (Ex. 1005,4:4-12). That the Remote Commander is hand-held is

illustrated, for example, in Fig. 14:

4 As discussed above, the board has already instituted the ’559 proceeding on claim

8 and the ’550 proceeding on claim 10. Petitioners will identify limitations in the

’580 patent that are similar to the instituted claims in those petitions. Here, the

preamble is similar to the preambles in both the ’550 and ’559 proceedings.

34

Sato’s Remote Commander may be used to control a variety of devices, such

as a computer (id.,5:5-17); video games (id.,7:18-27) and even a virtual reality

system (id.,7:28-34). Moreover, Sato’s controller is battery operated. (Id.,13:36-

40;8:29-35;8:36-44). A POSA would have found it trivial to modify Louvel to

include the handheld, battery-operated controller of Sato. (Ex. 1003,¶¶105,150).

The motivation to combine Louvel and Sato is discussed below in connection with

limitation 1h.

(b) Louvel Discloses Limitation 1c5

Limitation 1c requires that the RC system comprises “a flying structure

having lift generated by at least four electrically powered motors, each motor

5 See limitations 8b in the ’559 proceeding and 10a in the ’550 proceeding.

35

having at least one blade driven by the motor that generates a downwardly directed

thrust.” (Ex. 1001,15:51-54). Louvel discloses this flying structure.

Louvel discloses that the hovercraft generates lift using four electrically-

powered motors, e.g., “four propellers… with vertical axis, that provides the lift

thrust” that are “driven independently by an electric motor, ” and positioned within

the body such that “the air flow go[es] through the aircraft”. (Ex. 1004,¶¶29-

30,38).

(c) Louvel Discloses Limitation 1d6

Limitation 1d requires that the flying structure of 1c include “a homeostatic

control system operably connected to the motors and configured to control the

thrust produced by each motor in order to automatically maintain a desired

orientation of the flying structure.” (Ex. 1001,15:55-58). Louvel discloses this

homoeostatic control system.

Louvel discloses a homeostatic control system (referred to as a “closed loop

control”) operably connected to the propellers, which automatically controls a

thrust produced by each propeller in order to automatically maintain a desired

orientation. (Ex. 1004,¶¶35,42-46,88-121). The “closed loop control” calculates

“[t]he values of the current to be driven through each motor” and uses them “to

perform the flight control on a stable attitude for the aircraft 1.” (Id.,¶90). For

6 See limitations 8d in the ’559 proceeding and 10c in the ’550 proceeding.

36

instance, if the “aircraft is tilting towards the rear, then the correction consists in

increasing the speed of the propeller 12, decreasing the speed of the propeller 10,

meanwhile the speeds of the propeller 10, meanwhile the speeds of the propellers

11 and 13 remain unchanged.” (Id.,¶98).

(d) Louvel Discloses Limitation 1e7

Limitation 1e requires that the homeostatic control system of 1d include “at

least a three-dimensional sensor system and associated control circuitry configured

to determine an inertial gravitational reference for use by the homeostatic control

system to control a speed of each of the motors.” (Ex. 1001,15:58-63). Louvel

discloses these limitations.

Louvel’s homeostatic control system, referred to as “closed loop control,”

includes two “tilt sensors” that are “of the single axis type.” (Ex. 1004,¶¶43-44).

The tilt sensors measure roll and pitch; the third dimension is measured by a “yaw

sensor” that is a “miniature gyrocompass device.” (Ex. 1004,¶¶44-46). The

control system also includes associated circuitry, a microprocessor that performs

calculations based on inputs from these three sensors. (Id.,¶¶89-95). The tilt

sensors determine an inertial gravitational reference that is used by the homeostatic

control system to control the speed of each of the motors. The two tilt sensors

measure the “roll tilt angle” and “pitch tilt angle” by measuring a “deviation from

7 See limitations 8e in the ’559 proceeding and 10e in the ’550 proceeding.

37

the horizontal reference.” (Ex. 1004,¶44). This “horizontal reference” is an

inertial gravitational reference that provides a reference point by which the tilt

sensors measure either roll or pitch, a fact already determined by the Board. (Ex.

1028,p. 20; see also Ex. 1003,¶111). Indeed, this is precisely how tilt sensors

work—by measuring a deviation from a known gravitational reference (e.g., the

“horizontal” reference in Louvel). (Ex. 1003,¶111). Thus, Louvel discloses the

claimed three-dimensional control system.

These sensors are all used to “control a speed of each of the motors.” In the

description of the “closed loop control,” Louvel expressly discloses that the

outputs from the sensors are used to compensate for pitch control, roll control, and

yaw movement control. (Id.,88-108;Figs. 9 & 10). For example, if the pitch

sensor (i.e., sensor 62 in Fig. 9) determines that the aircraft is tilting towards the

front, “then the correction consists in increasing the speed of the propeller (10),

decreasing the speed of the propeller 12, meanwhile the speeds of the propellers 11

and 13 remain unchanged.” (Id.,¶¶96-98). Similar adjustments to the speed of the

motors are made in connection with roll and yaw control (Id.,¶¶99-107).

(e) Talbert Discloses Limitation 1f

Limitation 1f requires a “radio frequency transceiver” that is connected to

the homeostatic control system and communicates via RF with the hand-held

controller. (Ex. 1001,15:64-67). Talbert discloses this transceiver.

38

(i) Talbert Teaches a Transceiver for Bidirectional

RF Communication

Talbert discloses that both the remote-controlled aircraft and the handheld

controller have transceivers. (Ex. 1007,¶¶35-36;Fig. 9). These dual transceivers

permit bidirectional communication, including both “control data” from the

controller to the aircraft and “two-way feed back” from the aircraft to the

controller. (Id.,¶46;Ex. 1004,¶¶61,67-68). Replacing the two-way wired

communication of Louvel with the RF transceiver of Talbert would have been a

trivial modification replacing one type of communication with a known substitute.

(Ex. 1003,¶114).

(ii) A POSA Would have Been Motivated to

Combine Louvel with Talbert

A POSA would have been readily motivated to combine the homeostatic

flying craft and controller of Louvel with the transceiver of Talbert for a variety of

reasons:

Louvel and Talbert are in the same field of endeavor: Both Louvel and

Talbert are within the same field – control of a remote device. Specifically, Louvel

relates to a “remotely controlled and remotely powered” “light aircraft, like a

flying saucer.” (Ex. 1004,¶1). And Talbert relates to a “remote-control powered

parafoil aircraft.” (Ex. 1007,Abstract). Moreover, both reference utilize a hand-

held controller for remote control of the aircraft. (Ex. 1004,¶8;Ex. 1007,¶6).

39

Adding the transceiver of Talbert to the homeostatic flying craft of Louvel

would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another to

obtain predictable results: Given the advantages of the Talbert communication

system, which allows two-way wireless communication of both control

information and data (television), it would have been obvious to a POSA to replace

the wired communication system disclosed in Louvel with the transceiver of

Talbert. (Ex. 1003,¶118). Louvel explicitly notes that the “the weight of the cable

(2) lifted by the aircraft” affects “altitude position” because the weight increases as

the aircraft lifts. (Ex. 1004,¶92). The wireless configuration described by Talbert

would eliminate this complication by removing the need for a physical cable. (Ex.

1003,¶118). Moreover, the disclosure in Talbert that a transceiver could be

included in both the aircraft and the small handheld controller would have shown a

POSA that a similar modification could be made to Louvel. (Id.).

Adding the transceiver of Talbert to the homeostatic flying craft of Louvel

would have constituted the use of known technique to improve a similar device in

the same way: As just described, removing the cable in Louvel and replacing it

with an RF transceiver would improve the device by reducing the weight added by

the cable. Moreover, wireless communication, such as a radio frequency

transceiver was well known in the art. (Id.,¶119). The use of Talbert’s transceiver

40

with Louvel would thus have been a routine design choice well within a POSA’s

knowledge and capabilities. (Id.).

It would have been “obvious to try” adding the transceiver of Talbert to

the homeostatic flying craft of Louvel: There are a finite number of ways for a

craft to communicate with its controller. There are only two initial choices: wired

or wireless. And there are a finite number of wireless communications available to

aircraft and controllers like those described in the current field. (Id.,¶120). Given

the limited number of communication mechanisms and the advantages of wireless

communication over a cable, especially two-way RF communication, it would

have been obvious to try using it in Louvel’s device. (Id.).

A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success when

combining Louvel and Talbert: In addition to being motivated to combine Louvel

and Talbert, a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing

so. As discussed above, both Louvel and Talbert deal with remotely controlling

aircrafts. By 2002, the use RF transceivers was well known and implementing

them on a RC aircraft would be well within the skill set of a POSA. (Id.,¶121).

Moreover, Talbert’s disclosure of an RF transceiver in this context (remote

communication between an aircraft and a handheld controller), would have given a

POSA a reasonable expectation of success when combining Talbert and Louvel to

41

use an RF transceiver for communicating between an aircraft and a controller.

(Id.).

(f) Louvel and Kroo Disclose Limitation 1g

Limitation 1g requires a “battery system” in the hovercraft that is coupled to

the motors, the transceiver, and the control system. Kroo expressly discloses this

battery system.

(i) Kroo Discloses Claim 1’s “battery system”

The ’580 patent’s background of the invention admits that “[r]ecent

advances in battery technology have generated a renewed interest in the field of

remote controlled aircraft and smaller OAVs.” (Ex. 1001,3:66-4:1). Moreover, all

of the components in Louvel’s flying saucer are battery-powered, albeit from a

battery contain in the control unit. (Ex. 1004,¶60).

Kroo discloses a miniature quadcopter, similar to that disclosed in the ’580

patent. In fact, Kroo’s work is expressly described in the ’580 patent specification

as a “battery-powered four rotor craft less than two inches across.” (Ex.

1001,4:48-50). Thus, the ’580 patent establishes that the quadcopter disclosed by

Kroo is battery powered—a fact confirmed by Kroo’s publication. For instance,

Kroo discloses a prototype “with a maximum weight of 10-15g” that “can utilize

existing batteries.” (Ex. 1006,p. 509). Kroo also discloses that these batteries are

used to power electrically-driven rotors (id.,pp. 506-507 (“initial devices consist of

42

electrically driven rotors with energy stored in batteries”)), and the control system

(id.,pp. 513,515 (“motor control electronics” require an “input of 4-9 V” such as

“NiCd or AgO2 chemistries”)). Likewise, Kroo describes that the quadcopter has a

radio receiver powered by the battery. (Id.,pp. 514-515 (describing a “rotorcraft

[that] flies using commercial lithium-ion batteries and is commanded using a

conventional pulse-width modulated signal from a radio-controlled transmitter.”));

Kroo also discloses the types of batteries he used (id.,507) and provides a figure

describing the output of various batteries:

Thus, Kroo discloses that each of the claimed components of the hovercraft

are battery-powered.

That Kroo’s quadcopter is “battery powered” is further clarified by

additional research papers describing his work, which expressly describes his work

43

as “battery powered.” (See, e.g., Ex. 1022; Ex. 1021,¶29 (establishing public

availability of Ex. 1022,p. 28; p. 38).8

Similarly, Kroo’s work was later described Ex. 10239, which includes a

picture of the various components described in Kroo (Ex. 1023):

8 Petitioners do not rely on either Ex. 1022 or 1023 as additional prior art

references. Petitioners raise these publications to confirm the interpretation of the

Kroo reference (Ex. 1006), and that a POSA would have indeed combined Kroo

with the references of record. See, e.g., National Steel Car v. Canadian Pacific

RY, Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004)( references not used as prior art

may nonetheless “be used to demonstrate a motivation to combine implicit in the

knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.”).

9 The public availability and authenticity of this reference is established by Ex.

1021,¶30.

44

(Ex. 1023,Fig. 1-7;see also Ex. 1022,Fig. 50). As shown, the quadcopter includes

an 8-cell NiCd “Battery” for powering a “Linx radio,” “Motor[s]”, and a “PIC17”

micro-controller. (Id.). Kroo, therefore, provides a POSA a “reasonable

expectation of success” of adding batteries to power the components of Louvel.

Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Teva Pharms., 752 F.3d 967, 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see

also Ex. 1003,¶121.

(ii) A POSA Would Have Been Motivated to

Combine Louvel with Kroo

A POSA would have readily combined the battery system described in Kroo

with Louvel. Most significantly, the specification itself provides an express

motivation to do so. Specifically, the ’580 patent describes Kroo’s work as “the

most extensive research project using ducted fans.” (Ex. 1001,4:45-48). Based on

this statement alone, a POSA would have been motivated to adopt the battery

system described in Kroo and adapted it to Louvel. QFO may attempt to argue that

the ’580 patent expressly teaches away from Kroo’s work, because it (incorrectly)

states that “while the research is interesting, the project has no practical guidance

on how to make a model-sized RC flying craft for here on Earth because of the

differences in gravity and air density as compared to Mars.” (Id.,4:52-55). To the

contrary, as discussed above, Kroo expressly envisions using his device on Earth.

(Ex. 1006,p. 504) (describing operation “indoors” or outdoors “in swarms to

provide sensor information over a wide area.”). It is well settled that the

45

hypothetical POSA is aware of the disclosure of all relevant references. See See

Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1452 (Fed. Cir.

1984) (likening a POSA to someone “working in his shop with the prior art

references which he is presumed to know—hanging on the walls around him.”)

Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed.

Cir. 1986). This person would be well-aware of the ’580 patent’s inaccurate

statements regarding Kroo’s work. (Ex. 1003,¶130).

Indeed, Kroo built and tested a working prototype of his device, and

describes in great detail throughout his paper how the individual parts were

designed and fabricated – it goes without saying this was done on Earth:

46

(Ex. 1006,p. 515). Moreover, as discussed above, the specification also touts

“recent advances” in battery technology, as prompting replacement of

“conventional gas-powered engines” with “a combination of high-powered

batteries and light-weight electrical motors.” (Ex. 1001,3:63-4:4). Given these

significant advantages, a POSA would have been highly motivated modify Louvel

47

to use the battery system described in Kroo. (Ex. 1003,¶132). Indeed, as noted

above, the components in Louvel are battery-powered, just not from an on-board

battery, thereby further motivating a POSA to combine Kroo and Louvel. (Ex.

1004,¶60). In addition to realizing greater simplicity and achieving substantial

weight savings as taught in the ’580 patent specification, a POSA would have been

motivated to adopt the battery system described in Kroo because in would increase

the range of Louvel and allow for greater freedom of movement (by dispensing

with the tether), which would increase the user’s enjoyment of the device. (Ex.

1003,¶132).

(g) Louvel and Sato Disclose Limitation 1h(i)–1h(iii)

Limitation 1h includes various limitations related to “control software” that

is used by “hand-held controller.” Sato discloses this control software.

(i) Sato Discloses 1h(i)

Limitation 1h(i) requires “control software” that is adapted to be used by the

battery-powered microprocessor system in the hand-held controller. (Ex.

1001,16:3-5). Such software is expressly disclosed by Sato.

As discussed above, Sato discloses a hand-held, wireless controller it refers

to as the “Remote Commander.” (Ex. 1005,4:4-12). That Remote Commander is

hand-held is illustrated, for example, in Fig. 14 (id.,Fig. 14):

48

Sato’s Remote Commander may be used to control a variety of devices, such

as a computer (id.,5:5-17), video games (id.,7:18-27), or a virtual reality system

(id.,7:28-34). Moreover, Sato’s controller is battery operated. (Id.,13:36-40;8:29-

35;8:36-44).

As shown in Fig. 19, Sato’s battery-operated, hand-held controller includes a

“microprocessor” (id.,Fig. 19,9:5-10:8):

49

Moreover, Sato discloses “control software” that is used by the batter-

powered microprocessor. An algorithm for this software is discussed in

connection with 21a and b (id.,Figs. 21a-b;11:1-13):

50

(ii) Sato Discloses Limitation 1h(ii)

Limitation 1h(ii) requires that the control software of 1h(ii) be configured to

control the flying structure by RF communications that include control commands

corresponding to the desired orientation of the flying structure based on the sensor

system in the hand-held controller. (Ex. 1001,16:5-9). Sato discloses this

limitation.

Sato expressly discloses that its master commander communicates using

radio frequency signals. (Ex. 1005,4:13-16,4:29-32.) Moreover, Sato expressly

discloses that its Master commander transmits “command codes” (the claimed

51

“control commands”) (id.,4:13-16): “Thus, the command code generated by the

controller 5 is modulated by the transmitter 8 in a predetermined manner to be sent

to the predetermined equipment as an infrared-ray signal or a radio signal.”

In one embodiment, for example, these command codes could include “the

Enter command, the Up command, and the Down command.” (Id.,4:22-28). The

algorithm for sending these command codes is illustrated in Fig. 3:

In other embodiments, movements in the x,y,z plane and sensed and converted into

52

command codes for controlling, for example, a video game or a virtual reality

systems. (Id.,7:16-35).

(iii) Sato Discloses Limitation 1h(iii)

Limitation 1h(iii) requires that the control software of 1h be configured to

sense a controller gravitational reference and a relative tilt of the hand-held

controller with respect to the controller gravitational reference as a result of the

user selectively orienting the hand-held controller. (Ex. 1001,16:9-13). Sato

expressly discloses this limitation.

Sato, for example, expressly discloses in one embodiment that internal

sensors “are always held in a constant direction relative to the direction of gravity,”

and thus allows the correct output to be transmitted. (Ex. 1005,7:1-15). Figs. 12a

and b, specifically referenced in this passage, also expressly disclose the claimed

use of a gravitational reference (id., Fig12a-b;see also id.,7:54-60;16:13-17):

53

(iv) A POSA Art Would Have Been Motivated to

Combine Louvel with Sato

A POSA would have been motivated to combine Louvel with Sato for a

variety of reasons.

Louvel and Sato are in the same field of endeavor: Both Louvel and Sato

are in the same field of endeavor – control of a remote device with a handheld

controller. (Ex. 1003,¶147). Louvel relates to an aircraft, which can be remotely

controlled in any direction in space. (Ex. 1004,¶7). And, as discussed above, Sato

relates to a controller that can control a variety of devices, such as a computer (Ex.

1005,5:5-17); video games (id.,7:18-27); and even a virtual reality system

(id.,7:28-34). Indeed, as the Board has previously found, a handheld controller for

a computer “logically would have commended itself to one of ordinary skill in the

54

art considering any need or problem known in the field of remote control aircraft,

especially one with a joystick such as Louvel.” (Ex. 1028,p. 21).

Louvel and Sato address the same problem: Louvel and Sato address the

same problem – maintaining proper orientation of an object. (Ex. 1003,¶148).

Indeed, Louvel describes being “able to perform stationary flight” and “perform

controlled displacements in any of the three directions in space.” (Ex. 1004,¶¶1,7).

Sato similarly discloses a device that performs controlled displacements in any of

the three directions in space. (Ex. 1005,6:18-31).

Replacing Louvel’s controller with Sato’s controller would have been a

simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable

results: Given the advantages of Sato’s controller, it would have been obvious to a

POSA to replace the control mechanism disclosed in Louvel with Sato’s controller.

Louvel discloses a remote control for sending multi-dimensional orientation

information to the flying structure. (Ex. 1004,Fig. 5B;¶¶50-53) (disclosing that the

desired orientation may be specified upon two axes – front/back and left/right).

Sato allows the user to specify such information in a different manner – based on

the controller’s motion in the user’s hand. (Ex. 1005,2:4-13). Moreover, the use

of Sato’s battery-operated controller would have led to many well-known and

appreciated benefits, including portability, freedom of movement, and the ability to

operate in fields far away from power sources – one of the prime areas a toy

55

airplane would be used. (Ex. 1003,¶149). Moreover, Sato’s controller provides a

“remarkably enhanced” human interface which is, of course, a desirable trait for a

toy airplane controller. (Ex. 1005,5:9-13; Ex. 1003,¶149).

Replacing Louvel’s controller with Sato’s controller would have

constituted the use of known technique to improve a similar device in the same

way: As just described, replacing Louvel’s controller with Sato’s would improve

the device by allowing for more user-friendly and accurate control. Moreover,

controllers such as Sato’s were well known in the art. (Ex. 1003,¶150). The use of

a battery-operated controller that used a gravitational reference was nothing more

than a known technique to control a device. (Id.).

It would have been “obvious to try” replacing Louvel’s controller with

Sato’s: There are a finite number of ways to remotely control an object.

Moreover, Louvel and Sato disclose similar control, i.e., sensor-based control.

And given the advantages of the Sato handling mechanism, e.g., improved

accuracy, it would have been obvious to try using the software of Sato in the

handling unit of Louvel. (Id.,¶151).


combining Louvel and Sato: In addition to being motivated to combine Louvel

and Sato, a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.

As discussed above, both Louvel and Sato deal with remotely controlling objects.

56

Given that Sato discloses the use of control software in this context (to remotely

control an object), a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success

when combining Louvel and Sato use an RF transceiver for communicating

between an aircraft and a controller. (Id.,¶152).


The following sections provide a description and citations to the portions of

the prior art references that expressly disclose each limitation of claim 7. The

limitations of claim 7 are expressly disclosed in the prior art for the same reasons

discussed above in connection with claim 1, as detailed below:10

Claim 7

Limitation

Corresponding Claim 1

Limitation(s)

7a 1a

7c 1g

7e 1f

7f 1e

7h(i) 1h(i)

7h(ii) 1h(ii)

7h(iii) 1h(iii)

Therefore, for limitations 7a, 7c, 7e, 7f, and 7h, petitioners rely on the

citations to the prior art identified in claim 1 as set forth in the above chart. There

are some minor differences limitations between the limitations of claim 1 and

10 To be clear, Petitioners are not arguing that the claim language in claim 7 is

exactly the same as claim 1’s language. Rather, Petitioners are simply stating that

the prior art citations for the claim 1 limitations render the analogous claim 7

limitations obvious for the same reasons.

57

limitations 7b, 7d, 7g, and 7i. These limitations are discussed in more detail

below.

(a) Louvel Discloses 7b11

Limitation 7b requires “a body supporting two pairs of electrically powered

motors, each motor configured to drive at least one blade to generate aerodynamic

lift.” (Ex. 1001,16:50-52). This limitation is disclosed by Louvel for the same

reasons discussed regarding limitation 1c, and, specifically, the “four motors”

discussed above are arranged in two pairs. (See Section B(4)(a)).

(a) Louvel and Kroo Disclose 7d12

Limitation 7b requires “a control system positioned in the body and operably

connected to the motors and the battery system, the control system configured to

control a downwardly directed thrust produced by each motor using” (Id.,16:55-

58). This limitation is disclosed by Louvel for the same reasons discussed

regarding limitations 1d and 1g. Specifically, Louvel discloses “a control system

positioned in the body and operably connected to the motors, the control system

configured to control a downwardly directed thrust produced by each motor using”

for the reasons discussed regarding section 1d, and Louvel and Kroo disclose the



58

control system being connected to the battery system for the reasons discussed

regarding section 1g.

(b) Louvel Discloses Limitation 7g13

Limitation 7g requires a “a microprocessor system configured to determine a

gravitational reference to use the sensed orientation and the gravitational reference

to control a speed of each of the motors to position the body in response to the

commands corresponding to the desired orientation.” (Ex. 1001,16:65-17:3).

Louvel discloses this system.

As described above, Louvel discloses a homeostatic control system called a

“closed loop control.” This system includes at least a three-dimensional sensor

system, including “three attitude sensors whose purpose is to provide information

for the closed loop control,” including “two tilt sensors” for “measur[ing] the roll

tilt angle” and “pitch tilt angle,” respectively, that operate along the x and y axes,

and a “yaw sensor” that operates along the z axis. (Id.,¶¶42-46,75-78). These

sensors (and associated circuitry) provide “the angle deviation from the horizontal

reference” in order to maintain homeostatic stabilization in the desired orientation,

e.g., to “converge toward the horizontal normal attitude of the aircraft and to

cancel the yaw movement.” (Id.,¶¶44,91). The “yaw sensor” is a “miniature

gyrocompass” that “use[s] the precession effect generated by the gyrocompass

13 See limitations 8e in the ’559 proceeding and 10c in the ’550 proceeding.

59

device as the aircraft rotates along the Z axis.” (Id.,¶¶46,78). A POSA would

understand that the “three attitude sensors” use a “gravitational reference” to

determine tilt and a “sensed orientation.” (Ex. 1003,¶171).

The gravitational reference and sensed orientation generated by Louvel’s

control system is used to control the speed of the motors to position the body in

response to the commands corresponding to the desired orientation. Specifically,

the control system calculates “[t]he values of the current to be driven through each

motor” and uses them “to perform the flight control on a stable attitude for the

aircraft 1.” (Ex. 1004,¶90). For instance, if the “aircraft is tilting towards the rear,

then the correction consists in increasing the speed of the propeller 12, decreasing

the speed of the propeller 10, meanwhile the speeds of the propeller 10, meanwhile

the speeds of the propellers 11 and 13 remain unchanged.” (Id.,¶98).

(a) Sato Discloses Limitation 7i14

Limitation 7i further requires “such that an actual moment-to-moment

orientation of the RC drone can mimic a corresponding moment-to-moment

positioning of the hand-held structure of the RC controller.” (Ex. 1001,17:14-17).

Sato discloses this limitation.

Specifically, Sato discloses that “when the input apparatus held in the

operator’s hand is moved horizontally or vertically or rotated for example,” that

14 See limitations 8h in the ’559 proceeding and 10f in the ’550 proceeding.

60

motion instructs the object “to perform a corresponding predetermined operation.”

(Ex. 1005,2:4-8; see also Ex. 1003,¶180). And this operation “reflect[s] the

operator’s hand motions.” (Ex. 1005,2:14).



the prior art references that expressly disclose each limitation of claim 13. The

limitations of claim 13 are expressly disclosed in the prior art for the same reasons

discussed above in connection with claim 1, as detailed below:15

Claim 13

Limitation


Limitation(s)

13a 1a

13b 1c

13c 1g

13e(i) 1h(i)

13e(ii) 1h(ii)

13e(iii) 1h(iii)

Therefore, for limitations 13a, 13b, 13c, and 13e, petitioners rely on the



limitations 13d and 13f. These limitations are discussed in more detail below.





61

(a) Louvel and Sato Disclose Limitation 13d16

Limitation 13d requires “a control system configured to automatically

control a downwardly directed thrust produced by each motor in response to

control commands communicated by radio communications.” (Ex. 1001,17:57-

62). This limitation is disclosed by Louvel for the same reasons discussed

regarding limitations 1d and 1h(ii). Specifically, Louvel discloses “a control

system configured to automatically control a downwardly directed thrust produced

by each motor” for the reasons discussed regarding section 1d, and Louvel and

Sato disclose that this is “in response to control commands communicated by radio

communications” for the reasons discussed regarding section 1h(ii).

(b) Louvel Discloses Limitation 13f(i)17

Limitation 13f(i) requires that “the RC drone is configured to be remotely

controlled from the controller so as to position the RC drone in the desired

orientation based on the control system of the RC drone determining a

gravitational reference for the RC drone and a sensed orientation of the RC drone.”

(Ex. 1001,18:6-11). The same disclosures in Louvel applied to 7g disclosure this

limitation.


17 See limitations 8e in the ’559 proceeding and 10d in the ’550 proceeding.

62

(c) Louvel Discloses Limitation 13f(ii)18

Limitation 13f(ii) requires that the RC drone control “a speed of each of the

motors to position the RC drone in response to the control commands in the radio

communications corresponding to the desired orientation.” (Ex. 1001,18:13-15).

The same disclosures in Louvel applied to 7g disclosure this limitation.

4. Dependent Claims 6 and 12

Claims 6 and 12 depend on claims 1 and 7, respectively. Louvel discloses

the additional limitations of claims 6 and 12.

(a) Louvel Discloses Limitations 6a, 6b, 12a, and 12b

Claims 6 and 12 further require that the four motors are arranged as two

pairs of motors, and those pairs are symmetrically positioned about an X-Y axis

configuration, such that one motor of each pair of motors is positioned opposite the

other motor, that one of the pairs of motors counter-rotates relative to the other

pair. Figure 2 of Louvel specifically discloses this arrangement, i.e., one pair of

motors along the x axis and another pair along the y axis, with those on the x axis

rotating the same way as each other, but counter-rotating relative to those on the y

axis (those two motors rotating the same way as each other):

18 See limitations 8e in the ’559 proceeding and 10d in the ’550 proceeding.

63

(Ex. 1004,Fig. 2).

(b) Louvel Discloses Limitations 6c and 12c

Claims 6 and 12 further require that “the flying structure weighs less than 42

ounces.” Louvel discloses such a flying structure. Specifically, Louvel discloses

an aircraft weight of 400g, which is approximately 14.1 ounces. (Id.,¶134;Ex.

1003,¶158).

C. Ground 2 – Claims 2, 8, and 14 Are Obvious in Further View of

Gabai

Claims 2, 8, and 14 depend from claims 1, 8 and 13, respectively. As

explained in detail below, the additional limitations of these claims are disclosed in

Talbert and Gabai.

64

1. Claims 2, 8, and 14

(a) Talbert Discloses Limitations 2a, 2b, 8a, 8b, and 14a

Claims 2a, 2b, 8a, 8b, and 14a require that the communications between the

drone and controller include data transmissions in addition to the control

commands and that the data transmissions include video images. Talbert discloses

these limitations.

Talbert discloses that “control data” is sent from the controller to the aircraft

and that the aircraft can provide “two-way feed back.” (Ex. 1007,¶46). These are

control commands. (Ex. 1003,¶211). In addition, the aircraft contains a

“television camera” and the controller contains a “television screen” and the

camera “sends live video vision from the aircraft body [] to the television screen.”

(Ex. 1007,¶¶35,46). Louvel similarly disclose transmitting video data. (Ex.

1004,¶124).

(b) Gabai Discloses Limitations 2c, 8c, and 14b

Claims 2c, 8c, and 14b require that wherein software updates are configured

to be received by the hand-held controller from an Internet connection. Gabai

discloses this limitation.

Gabai discloses a number of toys which are able to receive wireless signals

transmitted from a computer using a radio interface. (Ex. 1008,¶¶15-16,119-120).

In turn, the computer is connected via the internet to other devices including

65

advertisers and the toy maker. (Id.,¶¶613-73). The general architecture of the

Gabai system is shown in Figure 56:

(Id.,Fig. 56). In particular Gabai discloses sending software updates to the

toy via the computer, for example “software updates” such as “the latest version of

LOIS [Living Objection Internet Service System19] client software” are sent from

the “Creator” to the “Home.” (Id.,¶¶691-92;see also id.,¶¶59-60;Figs. 41,44).

These updates are “pushed and installed automatically.” (Id.,¶692). Thus, Gabai

disclose transmitting software updates to be received by the hand-held controller

from an Internet connection.

19 See Ex. 1008,¶613. A “Living Object” is the “interactive toy.” (Id.,¶727).

66

(c) A POSA Would have Been Motivated to Combine

Louvel with Gabai

Louvel and Gabai are in the same field of endeavor: Both Louvel and

Gabai are within the same field – control of a remote device. (Ex. 1003,¶218).

Specifically, Louvel relates to a “remotely controlled and remotely powered” “light

aircraft, like a flying saucer.” (Ex. 1004,¶1). And Gabai relates to a wirelessly

controlled toy system. (Ex. 1008,Abstract).

Louvel and Gabai address the same problem: Louvel and Gabai address

the same problem – maintaining proper orientation of the remote object. (Ex.

1003,¶219). Indeed, Louvel describes being “able to perform stationary flight.”

(Ex. 1004,¶1). Gabai similarly discloses the ability to “move a portion of the toy”

and to “move the entire toy.” (Ex. 1008,2:1-3). And both references disclose a

similar solution reliant on a suite of sensors. (Ex. 1004,¶8) (“a gyroscopic device,

tilt sensors, yaw movement sensor”); (Ex. 1008,¶121) (each toy has“a movement

sensor 143, which may be, for example, a tilt sensor or an acceleration sensor”).

Adding the software updates of Gabai to the homeostatic flying craft of

Louvel would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another

to obtain predictable results: Given the advantages of Gabai’s software-updating

capabilities, which allows the controller device to adapt over time, it would have

been obvious to a POSA to apply that system to Louvel. (Ex. 1003,¶220). Once

communications between an RC controller and the remote object have been

67

established, the type of messages that are sent over the communications channel is

a design choice. (Id.). As Gabai demonstrates, software updates from the Internet

were known to be one of the many types of messages that could sent over the

communications channel. (Ex. 1008,¶606). A POSA would have recognized that

periodically updating software through the RC controller would allow the control

system to incorporate improvements without connecting the hovercraft to a

physical port. (Ex. 1003,¶220). And implementing the ability to send software

updates from the RC controller to the remote-controller hovercraft would have

been within the ability of a POSA in 2002. (Id.).

Adding the software updates of Gabai to the homeostatic flying craft of

Louvel would have constituted the use of known technique to improve a similar

device in the same way: As just described, adding the ability to update software to

Louvel would allow the control system to incorporate improvements without

connecting to a physical port. Moreover, updating software, including those using

the Internet, was well known in the art. (Id.,¶221). The use of Gabai’s software

updates with Louvel would thus have been a routine design choice well within a

POSA’s knowledge and capabilities. (Id.).

It would have been “obvious to try” adding software updates of Gabai to

the homeostatic flying craft of Louvel: There are a finite number of ways to

improve control in a software-based controller. Use of the Internet to update the

68

software is one of them. Given the limited number of mechanisms for making

improvements to a controller and the advantages of software updates using the

Internet, it would have been obvious to try using it in Louvel’s device. (Id.,¶222).


combining Louvel and Gabai: In addition to being motivated to combine Louvel

and Gabai, a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing

so. As discussed above, both Louvel and Gabai deal with remotely controlling

objects. By 2002, the use updating software using the Internet was well known

and implementing it on a RC aircraft would be well within the skill set of a POSA.

(Id.,¶223). Moreover, Gabai’s disclosure of software updates using the Internet in

this context (remote communication between an object and a controller), would

have given a POSA a reasonable expectation of success when combining Gabai

and Louvel to use software updates to improve the abilities of a controller. (Id.).

D. Ground 3 – Claims 3 and 9 Are Obvious in Further View of

Burdoin

Claims 3 and 9 depend on claims 1 and 7, respectively, and are directed to

ensuring that that the flying structure stays within a set distance of the controller.

These additional limitations are disclosed by Burdoin.

1. Burdoin Discloses Claim 3

Claim 3 requires instructions configured to keep the flying structure within

500 feet of the hand-held controller.

69

Burdoin discloses a method and apparatus for automatically controlling a

formation of drone aircraft. (Ex. 1009,Abstract). Part of Burdoin’s system allows

drones to maintain a constant range between aircraft. (Id.,2:28-39). In one

embodiment, a lead aircraft is under control of a ground system, while other planes

in the formation are programmed to follow at an arbitrary distance. (Id., “[a]ll

other aircraft in the formation are programmed to follow at relative range.”)

To maintain constant range from the lead aircraft, Burdoin’s system includes

an “Airborne Drone Formation Control System (“ADFCS”) (id.,3:13-21). As

shown in Fig. 4, the ADFCS includes a range and range rate extractor:

70

Software running on the ADFCS interrogates on the following drone and, based on

the response sent back from the lead drone via RF signals, the drone maintains a

desired range between it and the lead. (Id.,6:1-18;see also id.,3:26-33). Burdoin

describes in detail the signals exchanged between the leading and following

aircraft. (Id.,6:1-18,6:51-66). The software used for formation control is

illustrated, for example in Fig. 6, and includes “navigation prediction, guidance

control, and AFCC mode control” (id.,7:14-17):

71

Burdoin further provides a block diagram of the formation control software,

which uses a number of parameters to determine how to move the aircraft to

maintain formation:

(Id.,Fig. 7.) These parameters include, for example, in addition to the range,

bearing, and altitude, predictions of the leader’s flight path, and the attitudes, rates,

and airspeed of the follower drone itself. Appropriate aircraft control, such as

throttle, roll, pitch, and yaw, are used as outputs for controlling flight. (Id.,7:17-

40). These parameters would allow the aircraft to reverse itself. (Ex. 1003,¶230).

Moreover, the “range” between the lead and follower is a “defined”

parameter (Ex. 1009,7:17-40), and therefore may be any desired range that is

72

within the maximum communications range of the lead and following aircraft.

Burdoin expressly states that one maximum range is “20 nautical miles.” (Id.,6:29-

34; Ex. 1003,¶231). The claimed “500 feet” is well-within this range and is simply

a design choice. (Ex. 1003,¶231).

Given this explicit and detailed disclosure in Burdoin, it would have been

obvious to modify Louvel to include Burdoin’s control software to maintain a

fixed (e.g., 500 feet) distance from a controller. (Id.,¶232). From a practical

perspective, there is no difference between maintaining a specific distance from a

lead drone (as disclosed in Burdoin) and a remote control (as required by claims 3

and 9). (Id.). In fact, as compared to maintaining a specific distance from a flying

drone, maintaining a distance from a fixed controller (or one that is hardly moving)

would be even less of a challenge. (Id.). Moreover, Burdoin’s method for

maintaining a specified range between aircraft could be readily adopted to a remote

control; both the air aircraft in Burdoin and a remote controller use the RF

frequencies to communicate. (Id.). Modifying Burdoin’s software to interrogate a

remote control rather than a lead drone would have been trivial for a POSA. (Id.).

Likewise, using the parameters discloses in Burdoin, it would have been obvious

for a POSA to modify Louvel such that the drone reverses itself when a maximum

distance is reached. (Id.). Again, this is a trivial implementation based on the

parameters disclosed in Burdoin. (Id.).

73


Claim 9 requires instructions configured to keep the RC drone within a

programmed maximum distance from the RC controller based on the RF

communications and to cause the RC drone to automatically reverse when the RC

drone approaches the programmed maximum distance from the RC controller. For

the same reasons described in connection with claim 3, Burdoin meets this

disclosure.

3. A POSA Would have Been Motivated to Combine Louvel

with Burdoin

Louvel and Burdoin are in the same field of endeavor: Both Louvel and

Burdoin are within the same field – control of a remote device. (Ex. 1003,¶234.

Specifically, Louvel relates to a “remotely controlled and remotely powered” “light

aircraft, like a flying saucer.” (Ex. 1004,¶1). And Burdoin relates to use of

remotely piloted drones, and automatically maintaining their formation. (Ex.

1009,Abstract).

Louvel and Burdoin address the same problem: Louvel and Burdoin

address the same problem – properly controlling aircraft. (Ex. 1003,¶235).

Indeed, Louvel describes being “able to perform stationary flight.” (Ex. 1004,¶1).

Burdoin similarly discloses control software that allows a drone aircraft to

maintain a “defined position with reference to its leader.” (Ex. 1009,3:26-33).

And both references disclose a similar solution reliant on a suite of sensors. (Ex.

74

1004,¶8) (“a gyroscopic device, tilt sensors, yaw movement sensor”); (Ex.

1009,Fig.7)

Adding the control software of Burdoin to the homeostatic flying craft of

Louvel would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another

to obtain predictable results: Given the advantages of the automated control of

Burdoin, which allows the flying craft to avoid harm and maintain communication,

it would have been obvious to a POSA to use that ability in the Louvel device.

(Ex. 1003,¶236). Louvel explicitly notes safety concerns. (Ex. 1004,¶39). The

automated control described by Burdoin would enhance Louvel’s capacity for

safety and improve its communication. (Ex. 1003,¶236).

Adding the control software of Burdoin to the homeostatic flying craft of

Louvel would have constituted the use of known technique to improve a similar

device in the same way: As just described, adding the automated control of

Burdoin would improve Louvel’s craft by enhancing its capacity for safety and

improving communication. Moreover, pre-programming, such as pre-

programming a command for maintaining distance from specified objects, was

well known in the art. (Id.,¶237). The use of Burdoin’s automated control with

Louvel would thus have been a routine design choice well within a POSA’s

knowledge and capabilities. (Id.).

75

It would have been “obvious to try” adding the pre-programmed

instructions Burdoin to the homeostatic flying craft of Louvel: There are a finite

number of ways to ensure that a craft to maintain specific positions. One is to pre-

program it so that it may, e.g., stay safe and maintain communication. Given the

desirability of these characteristics and the limited number of mechanisms for

implementing them, it would have been obvious to try using the pre-programmed

instructions used in Burdoin in Louvel’s device. (Id.,¶238).


combining Louvel and Burdoin: In addition to being motivated to combine

Louvel and Burdoin, a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success

in doing so. As discussed above, both Louvel and Burdoin deal with remotely

controlling aircrafts. By 2002, the use of pre-programmed instructions was well

known and implementing them on a RC aircraft would be well within the skill set

of a POSA. (Id.,¶239). Moreover, Burdoin’s disclosure of the instructions in this

context (remote communication between an aircraft and a controller), would have

given a POSA a reasonable expectation of success when combining Burdoin and

Louvel to use the instructions in an aircraft. (Id.).

76

E. Ground 4 – Claims 5, 11, and 15 Are Obvious Under Louvel in

View of Sato, Kroo, Talbert, and Lee



the prior art references that expressly disclose each limitation of claim 15.

Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Girish Chowdhary, has included in his declaration a

summary chart with citations for each of the limitations of this claim. (Ex.

1003,¶277).

The limitations of claim 15 are expressly disclosed in the prior art for the

same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1, as detailed below:20

Claim 15

Limitation


Limitation(s)

15a 1a

15b 1b

15e 1d

15h 1g

15i(i) 1h(i)

15i(ii) 1h(ii)

15i(iii) 1h(iii)

Therefore, for limitations 15a, 15b, 15e, 15h, and 15i, petitioners rely on the






77


limitations 15c, 15d, 15f, 15g, and 15j. These limitations are discussed in more

detail below.

(a) Louvel Discloses Limitation 15c

Limitation 15c requires “a flying craft having a structure that weighs less

than 42 ounces.” (Ex. 1001,18:26-27). Louvel discloses such a flying structure.

Specifically, Louvel discloses an aircraft weight of 400g, which is approximately

14.1 ounces. (Ex. 1004,¶134;Ex. 1003,¶¶158,245).

(b) Louvel Discloses Limitation 15d21

Limitation 15d requires “four electrically-powered motors arranged as two

pairs of motors, one of the pairs of motors configured to counter-rotate relative to

the other of the pairs of motors, each motor having at least one blade driven by the

motor configured to generate aerodynamic lift for the flying craft.” (Ex.

1001,18:28-34). Louvel discloses this arrangement for the same reasons discussed

above in connection with limitations 1c, 6, and 12.

(c) Louvel and Lee Disclose Limitation 15f22

Limitation 15f requires “the control system including a three dimensional

sensor system that includes at least a three-dimensional accelerometer sensor and a


22 See limitations 8e in the ’559 proceeding and 10e in the ’550 proceeding.

78

three-dimensional gyroscopic sensor and associated control circuitry configured to

determine an inertial gravitational reference for use by the control system in

controlling a speed of each of the motors.” (Ex. 1001,18:38-45). Louvel and Lee

disclose this limitation.

As discussed in connection with claim 1e, Louvel discloses a control system

including a three-dimensional sensor system and associated control circuitry to

determine an inertial gravitational reference for use by the control system in

controlling a speed of each of the motors. Claim 15f further specifically requires

that the sensor system include “a three-dimensional accelerometer sensor and a

three-dimensional gyroscopic sensor.” This sensor arrangement was by no means

unique as of August 2002. To the contrary, the combination of a three-dimensional

accelerometer and three-dimensional gyroscope were well known to be part of an

inertial measurement unit (“IMUs”) and attitude heading and references systems

used in inertial navigation units, including on aircraft. (Ex. 1010,1:19-46; Ex.

1003,¶251).

Lee discloses a novel MEMS structure that integrates “a three-axis

accelerometer and a three-axis gyroscope on a single wafer.” (Ex. 1010,5:5-10,

1:40-49). A POSA would understand that such an integrated silicon wafer would

be particularly well-suited for use on a small aircraft such as that disclosed by

Louvel. (Ex. 1003,¶252). Indeed, as noted above, Louvel discloses a three-axis

79

sensor arrangement that is part of Louvel’s homeostatic control system (“closed

loop control”). A POSA would understand that the integrated chip disclosed by

Lee is small and efficient such that it can be used to provide the measurements for

the homeostatic control system of Louvel. (Id.).

(d) A POSA Would have Been Motivated to Combine

Louvel with Lee

Adding the gyroscope/accelerometer combination of Lee to the sensor

system of Louvel would have been a simple substitution of one known element

for another to obtain predictable results: Given the advantages of a sensor system

using both gyroscopes and accelerometers, it would have been obvious to a POSA

to add the compact gyroscope/accelerometer combination of Lee to the three-

dimensional sensor system of Louvel. (Id.,¶253). Louvel explicitly discloses a

three dimensional sensor system and as noted above, other prior art sensor systems

used on aircraft paired a three-dimensional gyroscope with a three-dimensional

accelerometer for use in guiding and controlling the aircraft. (Ex. 1010,Abstract).

A POSA would have recognized that the new single-chip device disclosed in Lee

permitted this well-known sensor pairing to be applied to small a RC aircraft such

as that disclosed in Louvel. (Ex. 1003,¶253).

Adding the gyroscope/accelerometer combination of Lee to the sensor

system of Louvel would have constituted the use of known technique to improve

a similar device in the same way: As just described, adding the

80

gyroscope/accelerometer combination of Lee to the sensor system of Louvel would

permit a POSA to implement a well-known sensor pairing on the system. IMUs

(which contain a three-axis gyroscope and a three-axis accelerometer) were well

known to improve the control of aircraft. (Id.,¶254). Using the compact sensor

arrangement disclosed in Lee would have permitted a POSA to implement this

well-known sensor-pairing on Lovuel to achieve the same improved control as on

other aircraft. (Id.).

It would have been “obvious to try” adding the gyroscope/accelerometer

combination of Lee to the sensor system of Louvel: There are a finite number of

ways for a craft to sense its position. Accelerometers and gyroscopes are among

the most common. And Louvel itself uses both. Likewise, there are only three

axes to measure when controlling an aircraft. Given the limited number of sensor-

system components and the advantages of a sensor system with both

accelerometers and gyroscopes, it would have been obvious to try using the

gyroscope/accelerometer combination of Lee in Louvel’s device. (Id.,¶255).


combining Louvel and Lee: In addition to being motivated to combine Louvel

and Lee, a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.

As discussed above in Section(B)(1)(d), using the combination of a three-

dimensional gyroscope and a three-dimensional accelerometer on aircraft control

81

systems was well known. A POSA would have expected that implementing such a

sensor pairing would work properly, just as it had for other aircraft control system.

Moreover, implementing the gyroscope/accelerometer combination of Lee with

Louvel would have been well within the ability of a POSA. (Id.,¶256). Indeed, as

noted above, the compact structure of Lee makes it particularly well-suited for use

on a small RC aircraft such as disclosed by Louvel. (Id.).

(e) Talbert Discloses Limitation 15g(i)

Limitation 15g(i) requires “a radio frequency (RF) transceiver operably

connected to the control system and configured to provide RF communications

with the hand-held controller that include control commands and data

transmissions.” (Ex. 1001,18:46-49). Talbert discloses “a radio frequency (RF)

transceiver operably connected to the control system” for the same reasons

described in claim 1f. Talbert discloses the configuration “to provide RF

communications with the hand-held controller that include control commands and

data transmissions” for the same reasons described in limitations 2a, 8a, and 14a.

Talbert discloses data transmission including “video images from a camera

onboard the flying craft” for the same reasons described in claims 2b and 8b.

(f) Gabai Discloses Limitation 15g(ii)

Limitation 15g(ii) requires “wherein the data transmissions are selectively

configured to include software updates for the control system received by the

82

hand-held controller from an Internet connection and video images from a camera

onboard the flying craft.” (Ex. 1001,18:50-54). Gabai discloses “the data

transmissions are selectively configured to include software updates for the control

system received by the hand-held controller from an Internet connection” for the

same reasons described in claims 2c, 8c, and 14b.

(g) Sato Discloses Limitation 15j

Limitation 15j further requires “such that actual moment-to-moment

orientation of the flying craft is capable of mimicking a corresponding moment-to-

moment positioning of the hand-held controller.” (Ex. 1001,19:1-4). The same

disclosures in Sato applied to 7i disclose this limitation.

2. Dependent Claims 5 and 11

Claims 5 and 11 depend on claims 1 and 7, respectively. Claims 5 and 11

further require that the sensor system include both a three-dimensional

accelerometer sensor system and a three-dimensional gyroscopic sensor system.

Louvel and Lee disclose this limitation for the same reasons identified in claim

15f.

F. Ground 5 – Claim 16 is Obvious in Further View of Burdoin

1. Dependent Claim 16

Claim 16 depends on claim 15. Claim 16 further requires “instructions

configured to keep the flying structure within a programmed maximum distance

83

from the hand-held controller based on the RF communications.” (Ex. 1001,19:5-

8).


Based on the same disclosures and motivation to combine as claims 3 and 9,

Burdoin discloses claim 16.

G. Secondary Considerations Do Not Support A Finding Of Non-

Obviousness

At this stage of these proceedings, Petitioners have no burden to identify and

rebut secondary considerations. Rather, Patent Owner must first present a prima

facie case for such consideration, which Petitioners should then have the chance to

rebut. Sega of Am., Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2015-01453, at *10 (Mar. 10,

2015). For that reason, the Board typically rejects arguments against institution

based on objective indicia, so that the Petitioners can have a fair opportunity to

address any secondary indicia evidence on reply. See, e.g., Petroleum Geo-

Services Inc. v. WesternGeco LLC, IPR2015-01478, at *22 (Mar. 17, 2015).

VI. MANDATORY NOTICES

Pursuant 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1), the following mandatory notices are

provided as part of this Petition.

A. Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioners certify that Parrot S.A., Parrot

Drones S.A.S., and Parrot Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.

84

B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))

1. Related Patent Office Proceedings

The ’532 and the ’239 patents, both in the same family as the ’580 patent as

described above, are the subject of four petitions (two each) for IPR filed by

Parrot. The ’532 patent is the subject of two petitions: IPR2017-01090 and

IPR2016-01559. The ’239 patent is the subject of two petitions: IPR2017-01089

and IPR2016-01550. Parrot is not aware of any other related proceedings at the

U.S. Patent Office.

2. Related Litigation

After filing this petition, Parrot intends to file an amended complaint in

Parrot S.A. et al. v. QFO Labs, Inc., No. 16-682-GMS (D. Del.) adding counts

seeking a judicial declaration that Parrot does not infringe the ’580 patent and that

the claims of the ’580 patent are invalid. In the above-titled action, Parrot is also

seeking a judicial declaration that Parrot does not infringe the ’239 and ’532

patents and that the claims of the ’239 and ’532 patents are invalid. In addition,

QFO has filed a lawsuit alleging that Parrot infringement the ’239 and ’532

patents. See QFO Labs, Inc. v. Parrot S.A. et al., No. 16-cv-03443-JRT-HB (D.

Minn.). Upon information and belief, QFO intends to file an amended complaint

adding claims of infringement of the ’580 patent to the Minnesota action.

85

3. Related Applications

U.S. Patent Application No. 14/791,293, which is currently pending, claims

priority to PCT/US03/27415, the same parent application as the ’580 patent.

C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) and Service

Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4))

Petitioners provide the following counsel and service information. Pursuant

to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition.

LEAD COUNSEL BACK-UP COUNSEL

James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46729)

[email protected]

Postal and Hand Delivery Address:

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &

SULLIVAN, LLP

51 Madison Ave, 22nd Floor

New York, New York 10010

Tel: (212) 849-7000

Fax: (212) 849-7100

Matthew A. Traupman (Reg. No. 50832)

[email protected]

Postal and Hand Delivery Address:


SULLIVAN, LLP

51 Madison Ave, 22nd Floor


Tel: (212) 849-7000

Fax: (212) 849-7100

D. Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a))

The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee required for this

Petition for Inter Partes Review to Deposit Account No. 50-5708. Any additional

fees that might be due are also authorized.

86

VII. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R

§§ 42.101, 42.104, AND 42.108)

A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a); 37 C.F.R.

§§ 42.101(a)-(c))

Petitioners hereby certify that the ’580 patent is available for Inter Partes

Review and that the Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting Inter

Partes Review challenging the claims of the ’580 patent on the grounds identified

herein. Petitioners further certify that the prohibitions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 315 (a)-(b)

are inapplicable.

VIII. CONCLUSION

Petitioners have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-3, 5-9,

and 11-16 of the ’580 patent are obvious in view of the prior art. Accordingly,

inter partes review of those claims is requested.

DATED: May 10, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

By /s/ James M. Glass

James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46729)

[email protected]

Matthew A. Traupman (Reg. No. 50,832)

[email protected]

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART

& SULLIVAN, LLP

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor

New York, NY 10010

Tel: (212) 849-7000

Fax: (212) 849-7100

Attorneys for Petitioners Parrot S.A., Parrot

Drones S.A.S., and Parrot Inc.

87

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a) and (d), the undersigned hereby certify that

the PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW complies with the type-volume

limitation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(i) and (b)(i) permitting a preliminary response of

up to 14,000 words because, exclusive of the exempted portions, it contains 13,923

words as counted by the word processing program used to prepare the paper.

Date: May 10, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ James M. Glass

James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46,729)


SULLIVAN, LLP

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor


[email protected]

Lead Attorney for Petitioners Parrot S.A.,

Parrot Drones S.A.S. and Parrot Inc.

88

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies service pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and

42.105 on the Patent Owner on a CD by USPS Priority Mail Express® of a copy of

this Petition for Inter Partes review and supporting materials at the correspondence

address of record for the ’580 patent:

Charles Lemaire

Jonathan Rixen

Lemaire Patent Law Firm, P.L.L.C.

14565 Grand Ave

Burnsville, MN 55337

Dated: May 10, 2017 By: /s/ James M. Glass

James M. Glass

(Reg. No. 46729)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Documents

Transcript of UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE