PTAB

IPR2017-01400

Parrot SA v. QFO Labs Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Radio-Controlled Flying Craft
  • Brief Description: The ’580 patent relates to a toy battery-powered flying craft, described as a "hovercraft," which uses at least two pairs of counter-rotating ducted fans for lift. The system includes a "homeostatic" control system to maintain stability and is operated by a hand-held remote controller that directs the craft based on the controller's own orientation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Louvel, Sato, Kroo, and Talbert - Claims 1, 6, 7, 12, and 13 are obvious over Louvel in view of Sato, Kroo, and Talbert.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Louvel (Application # 2002/0104921), Sato (Patent 5,453,758), Kroo (a 2002 research paper), and Talbert (Application # 2002/0193914).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these four references teaches every limitation of the independent claims. Louvel was asserted to disclose the base flying craft: a remotely-controlled, saucer-shaped toy with four ducted fans and a "closed loop" control system using tilt and yaw sensors to maintain stable flight. However, Louvel’s controller is wired. To remedy this, Petitioner contended that Sato teaches a wireless, battery-operated, hand-held controller that uses sensors to detect its orientation relative to gravity and transmit corresponding control commands. To provide for an onboard power source, Petitioner relied on Kroo, which discloses a miniature, battery-powered quadcopter and teaches using an onboard battery to power the motors and control system. Finally, to enable wireless, two-way communication, Petitioner argued that Talbert teaches using RF transceivers in both an aircraft and its hand-held controller for bidirectional communication of control commands and data feedback.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the references to achieve a predictable and improved device. A POSITA would combine Louvel with Sato to replace the dated joystick with a modern, wireless, motion-sensitive controller. A POSITA would incorporate Talbert’s RF transceivers to replace Louvel’s physical tether, thereby reducing weight and increasing the craft’s operational freedom. Finally, a POSITA would integrate Kroo’s onboard battery system to create a fully untethered craft, a clear design goal for a toy aircraft.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making this combination. Each reference addresses a known component or problem in the field of remote-controlled aircraft, and integrating them (onboard power, wireless motion control, RF communication) involves applying known techniques to achieve their expected functions and predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over the Combination of Ground 1 in Further View of Gabai - Claims 2, 8, and 14 are obvious.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The primary combination from Ground 1, plus Gabai (Application # 2001/0021669).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that dependent claims 2, 8, and 14 add the limitation of receiving software updates on the hand-held controller via an Internet connection. Gabai was asserted to disclose a wireless, computer-controlled toy system where software updates, such as a new version of the client software, are automatically pushed from a creator's server over the Internet to the toy.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to add Gabai's Internet update capability to the controller from Ground 1. This would allow for improvements and new features to be added over time without requiring a physical connection, which was a known technique for improving software-based consumer electronics and a routine design choice.

Ground 3: Obviousness over the Combination of Ground 1 in Further View of Burdoin - Claims 3 and 9 are obvious.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The primary combination from Ground 1, plus Burdoin (Patent 5,521,817).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that dependent claims 3 and 9 add instructions to keep the flying craft within a programmed maximum distance from the controller, and to automatically reverse when that distance is approached. Burdoin was asserted to disclose a control system for automatically maintaining drone formation, which includes a "range and range rate extractor" to maintain a constant, pre-programmed relative distance between aircraft.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Burdoin's range-keeping functionality as a safety and convenience feature. This would prevent the toy craft from flying out of control or communication range, representing a simple application of automated control software to solve a common and known problem in remote-controlled devices.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for claims 5, 11, 15, and 16. These grounds relied on the primary combination of Louvel, Sato, Kroo, and Talbert, with the further addition of Lee (Patent 6,739,189) for its disclosure of an integrated three-axis accelerometer and gyroscope on a single chip, and Burdoin for its range-keeping functionalities.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-16 of Patent 9,645,580 as unpatentable.