PTAB

IPR2016-01778

Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co Ltd v. Chen Shane

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Two-Wheel, Self-Balancing Vehicle with Independently Movable Foot Placement Sections
  • Brief Description: The ’278 patent discloses a two-wheel, self-balancing vehicle where a user stands on two separate foot placement sections. These sections are coupled but can move independently, allowing the user to control each wheel separately for movement and steering via a control logic system that processes data from sensors associated with each foot section.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Sasaki - Claims 1 and 3-9 are anticipated by Sasaki.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sasaki (Makiko Sasaki et al., Steering Control of the Personal Riding-type Wheeled Mobile Platform (PMP), 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Sasaki discloses every limitation of claims 1 and 3-9. Sasaki's self-balancing Personal Riding-type Wheeled Mobile Platform (PMP) included a flexible standing plate over four force sensors. Petitioner contended that as a rider shifts their weight, the two sides of this flexible plate deform and move independently relative to each other, meeting the "independently movable foot placement sections" limitation. The PMP’s board computer, which processes data from the force sensors using state feedback control equations to drive the left and right wheels for stabilization, was argued to be the claimed "control logic." Dependent claims were mapped to features like the linear positioning of the foot sections between the wheels (claim 3), the flexible frame (claim 4), and the housing sections containing the motors and sensors (claim 5).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Ishii and Jiang - Claim 2 is obvious over Ishii in view of Jiang.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ishii (Application # 2008/0147281) and Jiang (Patent 7,367,572).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted Ishii discloses all limitations of claim 1. Ishii teaches a two-wheel vehicle with separate left and right step plates (4L, 4R) coupled by a link mechanism, allowing them to move independently to navigate uneven surfaces. This vehicle uses a control unit that processes signals from pressure and posture sensors to independently control the left and right wheels. Claim 2 adds the limitation that the foot placement sections are "rotatably coupled." Petitioner argued that while Ishii's coupling is a link mechanism, it would have been obvious to replace it with the rotational coupling taught by Jiang.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Ishii and Jiang to provide a simpler, more effective steering control mechanism. Ishii's steering control on inclined surfaces was complex. Jiang taught that providing separate foot plates with a rotational mechanism (a shared pivot shaft) allows a rider to easily adjust their center of gravity for steering. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Jiang’s simpler rotational coupling into Ishii’s self-balancing vehicle to achieve better steering control with predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known steering mechanism (rotational coupling from Jiang) to a known type of vehicle (a self-balancing transporter from Ishii) to achieve the predictable benefit of improved steering control.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Kamen, Nishikawa, and Jiang - Claims 1-9 are obvious over the combination of Kamen, Nishikawa, and Jiang.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kamen (Patent 6,367,817), Nishikawa (Patent 7,481,291), and Jiang (Patent 7,367,572).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued this combination teaches all elements of claims 1-9. Kamen, a foundational patent for the Segway, taught the core principles of a self-balancing vehicle using a pitch sensor and control system to drive a motor. Kamen acknowledged that its single-wheel embodiment could be unstable laterally and could be modified to a two-wheel version. Nishikawa taught using two separate, self-balancing wheeled platforms, one for each foot like roller skates, to improve stability and control. Jiang, as in Ground 2, taught a torsional mechanism (a shared pivot shaft) to rotatably couple two separate foot platforms.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would first have been motivated to improve the lateral stability of Kamen's single-wheel vehicle by adopting Nishikawa's approach of using two separate platforms, one for each foot. This modification would predictably result in a more stable vehicle with two points of contact on the ground. To the extent this "roller-skate" configuration was not considered "coupled," a POSITA would then be motivated to physically connect the two modified Kamen/Nishikawa platforms using the torsional pivot mechanism from Jiang. This would create a single, stable, two-wheeled vehicle with independently movable, rotatably coupled foot platforms, achieving the benefits of stability and intuitive differential steering.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining these known elements—a base self-balancing controller (Kamen), a dual-platform stability configuration (Nishikawa), and a rotational coupling for steering (Jiang)—was argued to be a combination of familiar elements according to known methods that would yield predictable results.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on the combination of Sasaki and Jiang (for claim 2), Sasaki and Kakinuma (for claim 9), and Ishii and Imai (for claims 5-7), as well as an anticipation challenge against claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9 by Ishii.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for the construction of the term "control logic" (claims 1 and 6). While disagreeing with the Patent Owner's position in a related ITC investigation, Petitioner adopted it for the purposes of the petition: "electronic control circuitry, such as a programmed automatic controller or processor." This construction was applied to argue that the board computer in Sasaki, the control unit in Ishii, and the control system in Kamen all meet the limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-9 of the ’278 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.