Google LLC v. Space Data Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-00945
• Patent #: 9,643,706
• Filed: April 20, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Space Data Corporation
• Challenged Claims: 1, 9-10, 13-14, 24-25, 28-29

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Systems and Applications of Lighter-Than-Air (LTA) Platforms
• Brief Description: The ’706 patent discloses systems for high-altitude, lighter-than-air platforms, focusing on redundant termination and recovery systems. The invention claims systems with dual flight termination devices, each with a separate power source, designed to terminate flight in response to malfunctions or danger to air traffic.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 9-10, 13-14, 24-25, and 28-29 are obvious over GAINS and Campbell.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: GAINS (a 1999 conference paper on the Global Air-Ocean In-Situ System) and Campbell (Patent 6,167,263).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that GAINS, a system of unmanned superpressure balloons, teaches nearly every element of independent claim 1. This includes balloons operating above 60,000 feet, a payload with a transceiver for ground communication, a pump and valve for altitude control, GPS, a processor, and dual redundant flight termination systems with independent power sources. GAINS also taught terminating flight upon malfunction or entering commercial flight lanes and transmitting the balloon's last recorded position to aid recovery. Petitioner asserted that Campbell, which discloses a constellation of stratospheric balloons forming a communications network, supplies the two elements not explicitly taught by GAINS: a transceiver capable of balloon-to-balloon communication and a severable tether that separates the payload from the balloon for termination.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Campbell’s teachings with GAINS to enhance GAINS's existing communication capabilities. Incorporating balloon-to-balloon communication as taught by Campbell would facilitate over-the-horizon data relay, providing a lower-cost and more redundant alternative to satellite communications. Further, a POSITA would be motivated to use Campbell's severable tether to improve the safety of the GAINS system, allowing the payload to descend quickly through commercial airspace upon termination, a known safety benefit.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in combining these features. GAINS already employed transceivers that could be adapted for balloon-to-balloon communication with minor software modifications. Similarly, implementing a severable tether mechanism was a well-known, traditional approach in ballooning with readily available hardware.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 9-10, 13-14, 24-25, and 28-29 are obvious over GAINS and Chocol.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: GAINS (a 1999 conference paper) and Chocol (a 1990 report on a Superpressure Stratospheric Vehicle).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an argument similar to Ground 1, with GAINS providing the foundational system. Petitioner contended that Chocol, like Campbell, teaches the missing elements of a severable tether and balloon-to-balloon communication. Chocol described unmanned superpressure balloons with separate payloads suspended by a tether that can be cut by redundant guillotines to terminate flight. Chocol’s payload also included transceivers for communication with other balloons, describing them as "free-floating communication nodes."
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine was identical to that in Ground 1: to enhance communication range and redundancy at a lower cost than satellites and to improve termination safety. Chocol explicitly taught the use of "off-the-shelf" communication systems for this purpose.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success. Chocol's design for a severable tether—a simple line with cutters—was a straightforward and time-honored approach in ballooning. Adding balloon-to-balloon communication capability to GAINS's existing transceivers was a predictable modification.

Ground 3: Claims 1, 9-10, 13-14, 24-25, and 28-29 are obvious over Campbell, Campbell ’248, and the ICAO Rules.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Campbell (Patent 6,167,263), Campbell ’248 (Patent 5,645,248, incorporated by reference in Campbell), and the ICAO Rules (International Standards, Rules of the Air, 1990).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Campbell teaches a balloon-based communication network that drifts in the stratosphere, including features like a transceiver, GPS, a processor, and a single termination device (a releasable tether). Campbell ’248 taught a pump and valve system within a "ballonet" to control altitude in superpressure balloons. Petitioner argued the key missing elements—a second flight termination device, two separate power sources, and termination based on malfunction or danger to air traffic—are explicitly required by the ICAO Rules for heavy unmanned free balloons.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA designing a balloon system as described in Campbell would be motivated to comply with established, authoritative international safety regulations like the ICAO Rules. These rules mandated redundant, independently operating flight termination devices to enhance safety, providing a clear reason to modify Campbell’s system to include a second device and power source.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success, as the combination involved implementing well-understood safety requirements. Duplicating a termination controller and power supply was a standard practice in aerospace engineering to achieve redundancy and was well within the skill of a POSITA.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Campbell with GAINS (Ground 3) and combining Campbell/Campbell ’248 with FAA Regulations (Ground 5), which relied on similar redundancy and regulatory compliance arguments.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "First And Second Flight Termination Devices": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "first and second devices capable of initiating or causing flight termination." Petitioner contended the specification describes controllers that initiate termination and does not require duplicate physical release mechanisms (e.g., cutters).
• "A Tether That When Broken Separates The... Balloon And The Payload": Petitioner proposed this term means "a severable or releasable connector that fastens the payload and balloon envelope in a manner that permits them to be separated." This construction covers known mechanisms for separating a payload upon termination.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) would be inappropriate because critical prior art and arguments were never considered during the patent's prosecution. Specifically, Petitioner noted that GAINS, Chocol, and the ICAO Rules were never cited or analyzed by the Examiner. While FAA regulations were listed in a large IDS, the relevant sections concerning flight termination requirements were not specifically highlighted or discussed. Therefore, Petitioner contended that the petition raised entirely new questions of patentability.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 9-10, 13-14, 24-25, and 28-29 of the ’706 patent as unpatentable.