Google LLC v. Space Data Corporation

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-00946
• 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 describes a system of high-altitude, lighter-than-air (LTA) platforms, or balloons, designed to operate in a communications network. The invention focuses on a flight termination and recovery system featuring redundant components to ensure safety and control.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 15, 20, and 28 are obvious over WO710 and the ICAO Rules.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: WO/2001/01710 (“WO710”) and International Standards, Rules of the Air (“ICAO Rules,” 9th ed. July 1990).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that WO710, an earlier application from the Patent Owner, taught a constellation of high-altitude communication balloons with nearly all claimed features, including a processor, GPS, pressure sensor, and an altitude-adjusting pump and valve system. However, WO710 terminated flight by rupturing the balloon envelope, lacking a severable tether. The ICAO Rules, which set international aviation standards, allegedly supplied the missing elements by requiring heavy unmanned balloons to have: (1) a tether to suspend the payload that allows for separation, and (2) at least two independent payload flight termination devices, with redundant power sources, that must trigger in response to malfunction or danger to air traffic.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would combine WO710 with the ICAO Rules to ensure compliance with authoritative, internationally recognized safety standards for unmanned balloon flight. Implementing a severable tether and redundant termination systems as required by the ICAO Rules was a known method to enhance the safety and reliability of the balloon system disclosed in WO710, particularly for separating the payload for a quicker, controlled descent.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved implementing well-known, standardized safety components (redundant cutters, power supplies, and tethers) into the known balloon platform of WO710.

Ground 2: Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 15, 20, and 28 are obvious over WO710 and Chocol.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: WO710 and Chocol (“Superpressure Stratospheric Vehicle,” Final Report, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, Sept. 15, 1990).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground again used WO710 as the primary reference for a high-altitude communications balloon system. Petitioner contended that Chocol, a report on long-duration superpressure balloons, explicitly disclosed the elements WO710 lacked. Specifically, Chocol taught a system with a severable tether (a nylon cord) and redundant flight termination devices (two explosive guillotines) triggered by independent circuits and powered by multiple parallel batteries. Chocol’s termination devices were designed to respond to conditions like loitering below 60,000 feet (danger to air traffic) or loss of communications (malfunction).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would be motivated to incorporate Chocol’s robust, redundant, and tether-based termination system into the WO710 platform to improve safety and reliability. Separating the payload from the balloon envelope for landing, as taught by Chocol, was a known and preferred method over the combined descent resulting from WO710’s envelope-rupture method, as it allowed for a faster and safer passage through commercial airspace.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have expected success in this combination because it involved integrating a time-honored and straightforward termination design (a line and cutters) into a balloon system. Although Chocol noted a single premature test flight, Petitioner argued the underlying design principle was sound and widely used in the art.

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

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Chocol, Campbell ’248 (Patent 5,645,248), and the ICAO Rules.

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: In this ground, Chocol served as the primary reference, allegedly disclosing a free-drifting superpressure balloon system with nearly all claimed elements, including a severable tether, dual termination devices responsive to malfunction/danger, redundant power supplies, a processor, pressure sensor, and GPS. Petitioner argued the only key element missing from Chocol was a pump and valve for active altitude adjustment. This element was supplied by Campbell ’248, which taught a well-known “ballonet” system using a pump and valve to adjust the amount of air ballast inside a balloon for altitude control. The ICAO Rules were cited to reinforce the teachings of redundancy.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would have been motivated to add the pump and valve system from Campbell ’248 to Chocol’s balloon to gain the significant advantage of altitude control. This would allow for "steering" the balloon by moving it between different altitudes to catch favorable wind currents, thereby controlling its position, spacing, and ability to conduct scientific measurements at various altitudes.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination had a high expectation of success because adding a ballonet system for altitude control was a well-known, widely implemented, and reliable technique in various types of balloons.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining WO710 with FAA Regulations (which mirrored the ICAO Rules) and combining Chocol with GAINS (a 1999 conference paper on balloon instrumentation that also taught pump-and-valve altitude control and redundant systems). These grounds relied on similar rationales for adding redundant termination and altitude control systems.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• “First And Second Flight Termination Devices”: Petitioner proposed this term be construed as “first and second devices capable of initiating or causing flight termination.” This construction does not require duplicate physical release mechanisms (e.g., cutters) but can be satisfied by redundant controllers that initiate a single release mechanism.
• “A Tether That When Broken Separates The Unmanned Balloon And The Payload”: Petitioner proposed this means “a severable or releasable connector that fastens the payload and balloon envelope in a manner that permits them to be separated.”
• “In Operation, The Unmanned Balloon Substantially Drifts Along With The Wind Currents”: Petitioner proposed this means “moving at substantially the speed of, and in substantially the direction of, wind currents.”

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Loss of Priority Date: A central contention for Grounds 1-3 was that the ’503 patent was not entitled to its claimed 2001 priority date. Petitioner argued the priority application failed to provide written support for the claim limitation requiring both the first and second flight termination devices to be responsive to a “danger to air traffic.” The priority document allegedly disclosed that the secondary termination device could only terminate in response to a “malfunction.” This alleged defect would make WO710, published in January 2001, prior art to the challenged claims under §102(b).

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate because the key prior art and arguments were never considered during the patent’s prosecution. Specifically, the Chocol reference and the ICAO Rules were never cited or analyzed by the Examiner. While WO710 was listed in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted after the notice of allowance, it was one of hundreds of references and was never substantively reviewed or discussed by the Examiner.

7. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-6, 8, 9, 15, 20, and 28 of Patent 9,632,503 as unpatentable.