PTAB

IPR2014-00732

Parrot SA v. Drone Technologies Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Remote-Controlled Motion Apparatus With Acceleration Self-Sense And Remote Control Apparatus Therefor
  • Brief Description: The ’748 patent describes a system for controlling a remote vehicle, such as a hobby airplane. The system includes a remote controller and a vehicle, both of which contain "acceleration sensing modules," to allow a user to guide the vehicle by physically moving the remote controller.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Spirov, Bathiche, and Shkolnikov - Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, and 12 are obvious over Spirov in view of Bathiche and/or Shkolnikov.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Spirov (Application # 2006/0144994), Bathiche (Patent 7,145,551), and Shkolnikov (Application # 2004/0263479).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Spirov taught nearly all elements of independent claim 1. Spirov disclosed a remote control system for a flying hovercraft where both the controller and the craft have accelerometers to detect their motion. Spirov taught two control modes: one using only sensed motion and another combining sensed motion with manual joystick input. The only element Petitioner asserted Spirov did not explicitly teach was a "configuration switch module" allowing a user to select between three modes: (1) sensed motion only, (2) manual input only, and (3) a combination of both.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that both Bathiche and Shkolnikov taught the missing element. Bathiche disclosed an input device with a switch to change between an orientation sensor mode and a manual joystick/button mode. Shkolnikov disclosed an electronic device, usable as a remote control, that could be configured to respond to manual inputs, motion, or a combination of both. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these teachings with Spirov to provide a "manual-only" mode, a widespread and desirable feature for versatility in radio-controlled aircraft.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because adding a switch to enable a conventional, manual-only control mode was a routine and well-understood design choice for remote controllers.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Spirov, Bathiche, Shkolnikov, and Barr - Claims 6 and 7 are obvious over Spirov in view of Bathiche and/or Shkolnikov and Barr.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Spirov (Application # 2006/0144994), Bathiche (Patent 7,145,551), Shkolnikov (Application # 2004/0263479), and Barr (Patent 7,219,861).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 to address the specific limitations of claims 6 and 7, which require the remote-controlled device to be an airplane with a driving unit to adjust the pitch of a wing (e.g., main wing, horizontal stabilizer). While the primary combination taught the control system, Barr was introduced for its specific teachings on applying such controls to a conventional model aircraft. Barr disclosed a guidance system for a radio-controlled aircraft that uses signals to adjust ailerons, a rudder, and an elevator.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that Spirov expressly stated its system could be used for various flying vehicles, including airplanes. A POSITA seeking to apply Spirov's motion-based control system to a conventional airplane would have been motivated to consult prior art like Barr to implement the specific control surfaces, demonstrating a clear pathway for combination.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Spirov, Bathiche, Shkolnikov, and Fouche - Claims 8 and 9 are obvious over Spirov in view of Bathiche and/or Shkolnikov and Fouche.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Spirov (Application # 2006/0144994), Bathiche (Patent 7,145,551), Shkolnikov (Application # 2004/0263479), and Fouche (Patent 6,751,529).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims 8 and 9, which required the controlled device to be a helicopter with a driving unit to adjust the rotation speed or pitch of a rotor. Fouche was introduced because it taught a control system for a model helicopter, including specific mechanisms for controlling a main rotor with adjustable speed and pitch, as well as a tail rotor.
    • Motivation to Combine: As with the airplane-specific ground, Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would have been motivated to apply Spirov’s versatile control system to other flying vehicles like helicopters. Fouche provided the well-known and necessary details for implementing control of helicopter rotors, making the combination obvious for achieving a motion-controlled helicopter.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against claims 2, 4, and 10. These arguments asserted that the limitations—comparing signals (claim 2), calculating a "difference of motion" (claim 4), and converting a radio signal to baseband (claim 10)—were either inherently disclosed in Spirov or would have been obvious additions based on standard, ubiquitous techniques in control systems and radio communications known to a POSITA.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "difference of motion" (Claim 4): Petitioner argued this term was vague but, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, should be construed as "calculations related to motion that causes a change in orientation." Petitioner contended that interpreting it to require a velocity calculation from an accelerometer signal alone, as the patent might imply, would require an impossibility.
  • "information of the remote controller's motion in the 3D space" (Claim 12): Petitioner proposed this term be interpreted broadly as "any motion in three dimensional space, including motion in one or two dimensions." Petitioner argued that a narrower construction requiring detection of all possible motion in 3D space would be untenable and render the claim impossible, as accelerometers alone cannot achieve this.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Petitioner's central technical contention was that the system described in the ’748 patent is functionally inoperable as claimed. It was argued that accelerometers alone are incapable of detecting all types of motion in space, as they cannot distinguish between acceleration due to gravity and acceleration from translational velocity changes. This inherent limitation means that the claimed "acceleration sensing modules" could not provide the unambiguous motion data necessary to control an aircraft as described in the patent.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’748 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.