PTAB

IPR2018-00945

Google LLC v. Space Data Corporation

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Systems and Applications of Lighter-Than-Air (LTA) Platforms
  • Brief Description: The ’706 patent discloses a system of high-altitude, unmanned balloons that drift with wind currents. The system's purported invention is its termination and recovery capabilities, featuring dual, redundant flight termination devices and power sources designed to separate a payload from the balloon 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 in view of Campbell.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: GAINS (a 1999 conference proceeding titled “GAINS Instrumentation”), and Campbell (Patent 6,167,263).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that GAINS, a system of unmanned superpressure balloons, taught nearly all limitations of claim 1. This included balloons floating above 60,000 feet, a payload with a transceiver for ground communication, a pump and valve for altitude control, a GPS, and dual redundant control and flight termination systems with separate power sources. GAINS also taught terminating flight upon loss of altitude into commercial flight lanes or malfunction and transmitting the last recorded position for recovery. Petitioner argued Campbell supplied the few remaining elements: a transceiver capable of communicating with other airborne platforms and a tether that, when broken, separates the payload from the balloon.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Campbell’s balloon-to-balloon communication with GAINS to enhance GAINS’s known need for over-the-horizon communication, providing a lower-cost, redundant alternative to satellite relays. A POSITA would also incorporate Campbell’s severable tether to enhance safety, a well-known and traditional method for ensuring the payload descends quickly through commercial airspace, avoiding risks associated with a slow, combined descent of the balloon and payload.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have an expectation of success because GAINS already used transceivers for ground communication that could be adapted for balloon-to-balloon communication with minor software modifications. Similarly, severable tethers were a default, well-understood termination method in ballooning with widely known hardware implementations.

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

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: GAINS (a 1999 conference proceeding) and Chocol (a 1990 final report titled "Superpressure Stratospheric Vehicle").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: The core argument relied on the same teachings of GAINS as in Ground 1. Petitioner contended that Chocol, like Campbell, taught the missing elements of a severable tether and balloon-to-balloon communications. Chocol disclosed unmanned superpressure balloons with separate payloads suspended by a severable tether (a nylon cord cut by redundant guillotines) and transceivers for use as "free-floating communication nodes."
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivations were identical to those in Ground 1: enhancing communication capabilities and improving termination safety. Chocol explicitly taught using "off-the-shelf communications systems" for balloon-to-balloon networking, reinforcing the feasibility of upgrading GAINS. Chocol's use of a severable tether for payload disengagement offered the same safety advantages as Campbell's.
    • Expectation of Success: Expectation of success was high because Chocol’s systems were straightforward and used well-known components. A POSITA could readily implement off-the-shelf communication devices and a simple, time-honored tether-and-cutter system into the GAINS platform.

Ground 3: Claims 1, 9-10, 13-14, 24-25, and 28-29 are obvious over Campbell in view of GAINS.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Campbell (Patent 6,167,263) and GAINS (a 1999 conference proceeding).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Campbell, as the primary reference, taught a balloon-based communication network with multiple unmanned balloons drifting above 60,000 feet. Campbell’s system included a payload with a transceiver for ground and balloon-to-balloon communication, a GPS, a processor, and a "first termination device" (a tether release mechanism). Petitioner asserted that GAINS supplied the remaining key limitations: a pump and valve for altitude control, and a "second flight termination device" with a separate power source, representing a mere duplication of parts for redundancy.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would be motivated to 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, a well-known technique. A POSITA would also be motivated to add GAINS’s redundant termination controller and power source to enhance safety and comply with known aviation best practices, as redundancy was standard in aerospace design.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would expect success in adding a pump and valve, as it was a well-known method for altitude adjustment in superpressure balloons. Likewise, adding a redundant controller and power source was a simple duplication of existing components and well within the skill of a POSA.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against the same claims based on Campbell in view of the ICAO Rules (Ground 4) and the FAA Regulations (Ground 5). These grounds argued that the ICAO and FAA rules explicitly required the very features Campbell allegedly lacked—namely, redundant flight termination devices and power sources for heavy unmanned balloons—providing a clear motivation to add them to Campbell's system.

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." The petition contended that the ’706 patent does not require duplicate payload release circuits or cutters, and that two separate controllers (like a primary processor and a backup controller) that can each initiate a single release mechanism would meet this limitation.
  • "A Tether That When Broken Separates The... Balloon And The Payload": Petitioner proposed construing this as "a severable or releasable connector that fastens the payload and balloon envelope in a manner that permits them to be separated." This construction is based on the tether's function and ordinary meaning, rather than being limited to the specific monofilament line shown in the specification.
  • "In Operation, The Unmanned Balloon Substantially Drifts Along With The Wind Currents": Petitioner argued this means "moving over the earth at substantially the speed of, and in substantially the direction of, wind currents." This construction distinguishes the claimed system from those that attempt to maintain a fixed position.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) was inappropriate because the primary prior art references relied upon in the petition (GAINS, Chocol, and the ICAO Rules) were never cited or considered during the patent’s prosecution. The petition asserted that it therefore raised new, non-cumulative arguments that the Patent Office had not previously evaluated, warranting institution of the IPR.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests 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 for obviousness.