Google LLC v. Space Data Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-00944
• Patent #: 9,632,503
• Filed: April 20, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Space Data Corporation
• Challenged Claims: 1-6, 8, 9, 15, 20, and 28

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Systems And Applications Of Lighter-Than-Air (LTA) Platforms
• Brief Description: The ’503 patent relates to a system of high-altitude, free-floating balloons. The disclosed invention focuses on improving flight safety and recovery through the use of redundant termination systems, where first and second flight termination devices with separate power sources can independently end a flight in response to system malfunctions or dangers to air traffic.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over GAINS and Campbell - Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 15, 20, and 28 are obvious over GAINS in view of Campbell.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: GAINS (a 1999 conference paper titled “GAINS Instrumentation”) and Campbell (Patent 6,167,263).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that GAINS, which described a system of 400 unmanned superpressure balloons for long-duration stratospheric flights, taught nearly every element of the challenged claims. This included a plurality of platforms floating above 60,000 feet, each with a payload containing a transceiver, GPS, pressure sensor, processor, and a pump/valve for altitude control. Critically, GAINS emphasized safety through redundancy, disclosing fully redundant primary and secondary controllers that constituted "first and second flight termination devices," each with its own independent power source (multiple battery sets and solar panels), and each capable of terminating flight due to malfunction or entering commercial flight lanes.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner contended that GAINS did not explicitly disclose a severable tether or balloon-to-balloon communication, both of which were taught by Campbell. A POSITA would combine Campbell's severable tether with the GAINS system to enhance safety, as separating the payload for a faster, more controlled descent through commercial airspace was a known and preferred termination method. A POSITA would also incorporate Campbell's balloon-to-balloon communication to extend the over-the-horizon communication capabilities already sought by GAINS, creating a more robust and lower-cost network relay.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success was expected because implementing a severable tether and configuring existing transceivers for balloon-to-balloon communication were routine modifications using well-understood, off-the-shelf technology.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Campbell and GAINS - Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 15, 20, and 28 are obvious over Campbell in view of GAINS.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Campbell (Patent 6,167,263) and GAINS (1999 conference paper).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Campbell provided a strong primary reference, disclosing a communications network of multiple unmanned balloons drifting in the stratosphere. Each Campbell platform included a payload, a severable tether for flight termination, a transceiver for balloon-to-balloon and ground communication, a processor, and GPS. Campbell thus taught the core architecture of the claimed system.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a POSITA would have been motivated to supplement Campbell's system with features from GAINS. Specifically, a POSITA would add a second flight termination device and a second power source as taught by GAINS to enhance safety through redundancy, which was standard practice in the aerospace industry. A POSITA would also add GAINS's pump and valve system to Campbell’s unpowered balloons to gain the significant advantage of altitude control for steering and station-keeping.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would expect success in adding a redundant controller and a well-known pump-and-valve (ballonet) system to Campbell, as these were known design choices with predictable results.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Campbell and ICAO Rules - Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 15, 20, and 28 are obvious over Campbell in view of Campbell ’248 and the ICAO Rules.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Campbell (Patent 6,167,263), Campbell ’248 (Patent 5,645,248), and ICAO Rules (international aviation standards from 1990).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground again used Campbell as the base system. Petitioner noted Campbell incorporates by reference Campbell ’248, which explicitly taught using a pump and valve with a ballonet to achieve altitude control in a superpressure balloon. The core missing elements from Campbell were the redundant termination device and redundant power source.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued that the primary motivation to modify Campbell was regulatory compliance. The ICAO Rules, which were authoritative international standards, explicitly required heavy unmanned free balloons to be equipped with "at least two payload flight termination devices or systems... that operate independently of each other" and that respond to malfunction or danger to air traffic. This provided a compelling, if not mandatory, reason for a POSITA to add a second, independently powered termination controller to the Campbell system.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Modifying Campbell to comply with the ICAO Rules would have been a straightforward task involving the duplication of a known controller and power supply, for which a POSITA would have a high expectation of success.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining GAINS with Chocol (a 1990 technical report) and combining Campbell with FAA Regulations, which relied on similar arguments for adding a severable tether or redundant termination systems, respectively.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "First and second flight termination devices": Petitioner proposed that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this phrase meant first and second devices capable of initiating or causing flight termination. This construction does not require duplicate mechanical release hardware (e.g., two cutters), but could be satisfied by two independent controllers (like those in GAINS) capable of triggering a single release mechanism.
• "A tether that when broken separates the unmanned balloon and the payload": Petitioner proposed this meant a severable or releasable connector fastening the payload and balloon envelope in a manner that permits them to be separated. This covers mechanisms that sever a line as well as those that release a connection.
• "...substantially drifts along with the wind currents": Petitioner proposed this phrase meant moving over the earth at substantially the speed of, and in substantially the direction of, wind currents, consistent with an unpowered, free-floating platform.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under § 325(d) was inappropriate because the core prior art and invalidity arguments were never considered during prosecution. The petition asserted that GAINS, Chocol, and the ICAO Rules were never cited or analyzed by the Examiner. The patent was granted after an expedited "Track One" examination with no substantive rejections, meaning the specific combinations and detailed mappings presented in the petition were entirely new.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-6, 8, 9, 15, 20, and 28 of the ’503 patent as unpatentable for obviousness.