Remote Imaging Solutions LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2021

IPR2020-00345 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 19
571-272-7822 Date: June 28, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

DJI TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
REMOTE IMAGING SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Patent Owner.
____________

IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2
____________

Before KEN B. BARRETT, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Final Written Decision
Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
35 U.S.C. § 318(a)

IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background and Summary
On December 23, 2019, Petitioner, DJI Technology, Inc., filed a
Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent No.
8,918,230 B2 (Ex. 1001, the “’230 Patent”). Paper 2 (“Petition” or “Pet.”).
On April 14, 2020, Patent Owner, Remote Imaging Solutions, LLC, waived
filing of a Preliminary Response. Paper 8.
On June 29, 2020, applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C.
§ 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that
Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we
instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–18 of the ’230 Patent. Paper 9.
On September 21, 2020, Patent Owner filed its Response to the
Petition. Paper 11 (“PO Resp.”). On December 14, 2020, Petitioner filed a
Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, and on January 25, 2021, Patent Owner
filed a Sur-Reply. Paper 12 (“Reply”); Paper 13 (“Sur-Reply”).
Oral Hearing took place on March 30, 2021. The Hearing Transcript
is included in the record. Paper 18.
After considering the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we
determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 1–18 of the ’230 Patent are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018);
37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2019).
B. Real Parties in Interest
Petitioner identifies the real parties in interest as itself, SZ DJI
Technology Co., Ltd., DJI Europe B.V., iFlight Technology Company
Limited, DJI Japan K.K, and DJI Research LLC. Paper 6, 1.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

3
Patent Owner identifies itself as the real party in interest. Patent
Owner’s Mandatory Notices, Paper 5, 2.
C. Related Matters
Patent Owner has asserted the ’230 Patent in the following cases:
Case Name Case Number Court Case Filed
Remote Imaging
Solutions LLC v. DJI
Technology, Inc.
2:19-cv-02670-
JAK-AFM1
Central District
of California
04/08/2019
Remote Imaging
Solutions LLC v.
Parrot SA
1:19-cv-00620 District of
Delaware
04/02/2019
Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices, Paper 5, 2; Pet. 106.
D. The ’230 Patent
1. Summary of Specification
The ’230 Patent is titled “Teleoperation of Unmanned Ground
Vehicle” and relates to wirelessly controlling one or more unmanned
vehicles with a smart phone. Ex. 1001, codes (54), (57). The smart phone
receives video streams from an unmanned vehicle and displays controls on a
touch-sensitive display screen. Id. at code (57), 1:67–2:1. An operator can
manipulate the controls to direct the unmanned vehicle. Id. at 2:2–3.
Figure 1 of the ’230 Patent is reproduced below.

1 Patent Owner misidentifies the case as 6:19-cv-02670. Patent Owner’s
Mandatory Notices, Paper 5, 2.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

4

In Figure 1, unmanned vehicle controller (e.g., smart phone 110)
communicates with unmanned vehicle 120 (e.g., a PackBot robot). Id. at
4:21–24. Unmanned vehicle 120 includes a camera 125, robotic arm 124,
and flippers 122a, 122b. Id. at 4:25–26. An operator (not shown)
manipulates vehicle controls (e.g., drive control 105a, flipper control 105b,
gear control 105c, camera control 105d) that are displayed on touch-screen
video display 107 of smart phone 110 to direct unmanned vehicle 120. Id. at
4:26–31. Smart phone 110 wirelessly transmits the operators’ directions
over network 130. Id. at 4:32–33. Upon receipt, unmanned vehicle 120
executes the operator’s directions. Id. at 4:33–35.
Drive control 105a enables the operator to direct the unmanned
vehicle to move in any direction. Id. at 4:36–37. Flipper control 105b
enables the operator to direct flippers 122a, 122b. Id. at 4:37–39. Gear
control 105c enables the operator to control the maximum speed that the
unmanned vehicle can travel. Id. at 4:39–41. Camera control 105d enables
the operator to control unmanned vehicle camera 125 to take snap shots and
video. Id. at 4:41–43. Controls may be provided to store a frame of the
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

5
video stream as a picture on the smart phone, and to command the
unmanned vehicle’s camera to zoom in or out. Id. at 2:31–34; 4:41–43;
7:26–50. Controls may also be provided to command unmanned vehicle 110
to assume one or more predetermined poses. Id. at 2:34–36; 7:26–31.
In addition to the controls, smart phone 110 may display a geographic
map and arrows to indicate the heading of unmanned vehicle 120. Id. at
2:43–50, 8:28–35. Smart phone 110 may receive and display information on
objects within a predetermined distance of the unmanned vehicle. Id. at
2:37–42; 8:23–27. A separate joystick may be provided to control
movement of the unmanned vehicle. Id. at 2:21–23, 6:51.
Smart phone 110 may convert information to direct unmanned vehicle
120 into a protocol recognizable by the unmanned vehicle, or convert
information received from the unmanned vehicle into a protocol used by the
smart phone. Id. at 2:4–9; 3:33–38; 4:63–64. Smart phone 110 may be
connected to a separate radio frequency (RF) transmitter via a wire cable to
establish communication with the unmanned vehicle. Id. at 5:1–7.
2. Prosecution History
During prosecution of the ’230 Patent, the Examiner issued two office
actions. Pet. 7; Ex. 1002, 89–108, 171–189. The first office action rejected
the claims as anticipated by US 2012/0072023 to Ota. Ex. 1002, 174.
Applicant filed a Rule 131 Affidavit to swear behind Ota, which the
Examiner accepted as removing Ota as a reference. Ex. 1002, 95, 113–161.
In the Affidavit, Applicant indicated that “South Florida students built
a rudimentary robot controller on the iPhone” with “4 directional arrows for
drive forward/back and turn left/right, and a small video display showing the
robot’s video stream.” Pet. 7; Ex. 1002, 125. Petitioner contends Applicant
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

6
identified the University of South Florida (“USF”) work as “prior art” and
the work of its “closest competitor” but did not submit any USF documents
in an Information Disclosure Statement (“IDS”). Pet. 7–8; Ex. 1002, 125.
Applicant also indicated that “3 files in the software are from iRobot’s
developer’s documentation” but did not identify or submit any documents
from iRobot related to the functionality incorporated into the alleged
invention. Pet. 8; Ex. 1002, 125. All the while, Petitioner contends,
Applicant continued to pursue claim limitations broad enough to encompass
“the rudimentary robot controller” designed by USF students and the
functionality of iRobot’s robots. Pet. 7–8, Ex. 1002, 125.
In the second office action, the Examiner rejected certain claims over
US2006/0271251 A1 to Hopkins, which uses a Personal Digital Assistant
(“PDA”) to control an unmanned vehicle. Pet. 8; Ex. 1002, 89–96. The
Examiner determined it would have been obvious to modify Hopkins’s PDA
as a smart phone with controls to direct an unmanned vehicle, a statement
which Applicant allegedly did not rebut. Pet. 8; Ex. 1002, 93. In response
to the second office action, Applicant rewrote the allowable claims into
independent form to obtain issuance of the ’230 Patent. Pet. 8; Ex. 1002,
69–77.
E. Challenged Claims
Claims 1, 7–9, 14–15, and 17–18 of the ’230 Patent are independent.
Claims 2–6 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Claims 10–13
depend from claim 9. Claim 16 depends from claim 15. Claim 14 is set
forth below with annotated numbering of steps:
14. [preamble] A computerized method for controlling an unmanned
vehicle, comprising:
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

7
[14A] receiving, by a smart phone, a request to control the unmanned
vehicle;
[14B] establishing, by the smart phone, wireless communication
between the smart phone and the unmanned vehicle;
[14C] receiving, by the smart phone, a video stream generated by the
unmanned vehicle;
[14D] displaying the video stream and vehicle controls on a touch-
sensitive display screen within the smart phone;
[14E] manipulating the vehicle controls to direct the unmanned
vehicle;
[14F] receiving, by the smart phone, information of objects within a
distance of the unmanned vehicle; and
[14G] displaying, on the smart phone, the unmanned vehicle with the
objects positioned relative to the unmanned vehicle based the
information.

Ex. 1001, 11:17–33.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

8
F. Evidence
Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references2:
Lenser US 2008/0027591 A1 January 31, 2008 Ex. 1005
iPhone PackBot
Operator Control
Unit (OCU)
(“USF Video”)
Video3 June 19, 2008 Ex. 1006
A Native iPhone
Pack Bot OCU
(“USF Abstract”)
Proceedings to the
2009 HRI Conference
March 26, 2009 Ex. 1007
Phillips US 2008/0027590 A1 January 31, 2008 Ex. 1008
Jamieson US 2009/0037024 A1 February 5, 2009 Ex. 1009
Nielsen US 8,355,818 B2 January 15, 2013 Ex. 1010
Miyazawa4 JP 2004-64418 A February 26, 2004 Ex. 1011

2 Petitioner alleges that all of the prior art references were published before
the ’230 Patent’s earliest alleged priority date of January 21, 2011. Pet. 3–4.
Petitioner contends that these references are prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) and (b) (pre-Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-
29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”)). Id. Petitioner also alleges that Lenser
and Nielsen are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Id. Patent Owner does
not refute Petitioner’s prior art assertions and evidence. On the evidence
presented, we determine that the references are prior art to the ’230 Patent
for the reasons that Petitioner asserts. Accordingly, we will treat these
references as prior art in this decision.
3 Petitioner contends the USF Video (Ex. 1006) is prior art because it was:
(1) posted on YouTube on June 19, 2008, without privacy restrictions;
(2) linked to or embedded by two major online news websites on June 20,
2008; (3) actually viewed on YouTube more than 57,000 times by December
2010; (4) publicly displayed at the March 2009 HRI Conference; and
(5) archived online in the proceedings of the same conference by March 26,
2009. Pet. 17–23.
4 Petitioner provides a certified English translation of Miyazawa as
Exhibit 1012.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

9
Petitioner also supports its challenges with a declaration from Robin
Murphy, Ph.D. Ex. 1003. Patent Owner does not rely on any declarant
testimony to support its arguments. See Sur-Reply 8.
G. Asserted Prior Art and Grounds
Petitioner asserts the following ground of unpatentability:
Challenged Claim(s) 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
14, 15, 17, 18 1035 Lenser, USF References6
16 103
Lenser,
USF References,
Jamieson
7–10, 12, 13 103
Lenser,
USF References,
Phillips
11 103
Lenser,
USF References,
Phillips, Nielsen
1, 3, 4, 6 103
Lenser,
USF References,
Miyazawa
2 103
Lenser,
USF References,
Miyazawa, Jamieson
5 103
Lenser,
USF References,
Miyazawa, Phillips

Pet. 5.

5 Because the claims at issue have an effective filing date prior to the
effective date of the AIA’s amendments to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
(March 16, 2013), we apply the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 in this
Decision.
6 “USF References” refers collectively to the USF Video and USF Abstract.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

10
H. Prior Art Summaries
1. Lenser (Ex. 1005)
Lenser describes a system for controlling multiple remote vehicles
using an OCU with a touch-screen interface. Ex. 1005, code (57). The
OCU sends commands to remote vehicles to perform autonomous behaviors
in a cooperative effort. Id. The system generates obstacle detection
information from image data received from a time-of-flight sensor or a
stereo vision camera sensor. Id.
Lenser’s Figure 13 is reproduced below.

Lenser’s Figure 13 illustrates exemplary interaction among an operator,
OCU, and one or more remote vehicles. Id. ¶ 32. The operator issues
commands to the remote vehicles via the OCU, which sends out data to a
processor on each remote vehicle via a wireless LAN. Id. ¶¶ 99; 287. The
processor of each remote vehicle uses the data from the OCU to control one
or more behaviors of that remote vehicle. Id. ¶ 99.
Lenser’s Figure 12 is reproduced below.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

11

Lenser’s Figure 12 illustrates an embodiment of the OCU. Id. ¶ 31. The
OCU includes a processor, a display, and an input device such as a handheld
controller. Id. ¶ 92. The processor is described as “any suitably powerful
processor, including, for example, a tablet PC” with “802.11 wireless
capability and graphics with direct rendering and a touch-screen interface
such as a stylus interface.” Id. ¶ 94. Lenser describes the OCU can be
implemented as a “tablet PC with touch screen input.” Id. ¶ 104.
Lenser’s Figure 14A is illustrated below.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

12

Figure 14A shows an initial screen displayed by an OCU. Id. ¶ 33. On the
left side, Lenser’s Figure 14A lists Robots 1 to 4 as unmanned vehicles
available for control by the OCU with separate buttons. Id. ¶ 105. Selection
of one or more buttons results in display of the corresponding status window
for the selected robot(s), as shown in Lenser’s Figure 16, which is
reproduced below. Id. ¶¶ 106–107.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

13

Figure 16 shows the status window for the selected robot vehicle, which is
“Robot 3” in this example. Id. ¶¶ 36, 106. Lenser’s OCU displays a live
video feed from a camera mounted on the selected remote vehicle, as shown
in the bottom left corner of Figure 16. Id. ¶ 115. Lenser’s Figure 16 also
shows various vehicle controls. Id. ¶¶ 111–117. For example, the operator
can use the bottom right corner of the touch screen to control movement of
the selected unmanned vehicle. Id. ¶ 116. The maximum speed of the
unmanned vehicle can be controlled at the middle right of Figure 16 (where
“Slow” is indicated). Id. The display also includes buttons at the right
middle to control the remote vehicle’s flippers (where “Flipper Stop” is
indicated). Id. ¶ 114. Accordingly, Lenser’s OCU display permits selection
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

14
of one or multiple remote vehicles, allowing the operator to view their status
or control their behavior simultaneously. Id. ¶ 107.
2. USF Video (Ex. 1006)
The USF Video allegedly shows an iPhone used as an OCU to control
functions of an iRobot PackBot robot vehicle over two years before the
January 21, 2011 filing date of the ’230 Patent. Pet. 15. Petitioner contends
the USF Video was presented in a demonstration at the 2009 ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Human/Robot Interaction (HRI) and was posted
on YouTube and other websites. Pet. 15–22.
A screenshot of the USF Video, reproduced below, shows streaming
video from the robot’s camera. Ex. 1006 (at 0:13) (underlined text
annotated by Petitioner; plain text in video).

IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

15
In the screen shot above, arrow buttons on the lower left drive the robot
vehicle forward, backwards, left and right. Id. (at 0:25–32). Arrow buttons
on the right operate the vehicle’s flippers. Id. (at 0:18–21).
Another screen shot of the USF Video is shown below, and indicates
it was posted on YouTube. Ex. 1006 (at 0:35) (plain text in video).

In the screen shot above, the USF Video shows an operator pressing the
forward arrow on the iPhone display to move the PackBot vehicle forward.
Id. In addition, the captioning indicates the iPhone is connected to the
PackBot’s Wi-Fi network. Id.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

16
3. USF Abstract (Ex. 1007)
The USF Abstract is titled “A Native iPhone Packbot OCU” and
discusses details of the implementation of a Packbot operator control unit
(OCU) using Apple’s iPhone SDK. Ex. 1007, col. 1. The USF Abstract
indicates the USF iPhone OCU connects to the PackBot’s AdHoc Wi-Fi
network. Id. at col. 2. The USF Abstract indicates when the application
starts, it begins listening for multicast video packets from a specified
PackBot vehicle and also begins sending drive commands to take control of
the vehicle. Id. The iPhone interface shows live streaming video from the
PackBot vehicle as well as controls to drive the vehicle forward, backwards,
left, and right. Id.
4. Jamieson (Ex. 1009)
Jamieson relates to an architecture and methods for automatically
configuring OCUs based on configuration schema and protocol definitions
provided from a robot or payload. Ex. 1009 ¶ 2. Jamieson’s Figure 3 is
reproduced below.

IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

17
Jamieson’s Figure 3 shows a flow chart of a control event path for control
inputs to an OCU. Id. ¶ 48. Joystick 302 or keyboard 304 generate control
events as XML messages passed to event queue at step 306. Id. The control
events are mapped to generic functions at step 308. Id. ¶ 51. Dispatch step
310 looks up the robot’s protocol adapter 314 in robot database 312, and
maps the generic function to a network packet. Id. Robot protocol adapter
314 then communicates the network packet to the robot, which implements
or handles the command. Id. ¶ 53.
5. Phillips (Ex. 1008)
Phillips discloses a device to control an unmanned ground vehicle
(UGV) via a wireless communication link. Ex. 1008 ¶ 74. Phillips device
seeks to simplify control of a remote vehicle by switching between tele-
operation and autonomous behavior. Id. ¶¶ 2, 77. Tele-operation involves
use of an operator control console by manipulating an input device such as
joystick. Id. ¶ 4. Autonomous behavior may be carried out independently
by the remote vehicle. Id. ¶¶ 5, 125. Autonomous behavior may include
having the remote vehicle assume a predefined pose of its body, arms,
flippers, neck, and head. Id. ¶¶ 228–229.
Phillips’s Figure 11 is reproduced below.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

18

Phillips’s Figure 11 shows a user interface of a control system. Id. ¶ 18.
The user interface shows a video feed from the vehicle’s camera, and
various controls for taking a snapshot of the video feed, zooming in and out,
and controlling the vehicle to move into predefined poses. Id. ¶¶ 123, 125.
6. Nielsen (Ex. 1010)
Nielsen discloses a robot that senses hazards in an environment and
communicates them to a remote controller for display on a graphical user
interface. Ex. 1010, code (57). Nielsen’s Figure 21 is reproduced below.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

19

Nielsen’s Figure 21 is a user interface window showing an environment map
of the environment proximate to the robot. Id. at 5:8–11. In Figure 21, a
user intervenes in the robot’s behavior by dragging a navigation target from
first position 1330A to second position 1330B. Id. at 40:18–22. The user
interface determines a new vector 1318 indicating the direction from the
robot’s current position to the new navigation target at 1330B and sends
instructions to the robot on how to move to the new navigation target. Id. at
40:38–43.
7. Miyazawa (Ex. 1012)
Miyazawa relates to remote control of a camera and driving means of
a communication apparatus. Ex. 1012, code (57). Miyazawa’s Figure 1 is
reproduced below.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

20

Miyazawa’s Figure 1 shows a wireless communication system with mobile
phone 10, communication apparatus 20, imaging means 25, and controller
30. Id. ¶ 28. The mobile phone 10 and controller 30 are connected together.
Id. Wireless communication is performed between mobile phone 10 and
imaging means 25 and between communication apparatus 20 and controller
30. Communication apparatus 20 includes driving means such as a wheel or
motor and functions as a radio-controlled car. Id.
Miyazawa discloses that any communication scheme and bandwidth
can be used to support wireless communications. Id. ¶ 29. However,
Miyazawa prefers to use a relatively large capacity image signal from the
imaging means 25 to mobile phone 10. Id. Communication of a simple
control signal from the controller 30 to the communication apparatus 20 can
be done using infrared or short waves that are used for radio-controlled cars,
keyless entry, and the like. Id.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

21
II. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standards
A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) where present, objective
evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
(1966).
B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Petitioner contends “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
at the time of the claimed invention would have had a bachelor’s degree in
computer science or equivalent training and experience, and at least two
years of experience in the field of unmanned vehicles.” Pet. 9; Ex. 1003
¶¶ 12–15. Petitioner further contends “[a]dditional work or research
experience can substitute for less or different education, and vice-versa.”
Pet. 9; Ex. 1003 ¶ 14. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition
of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp.
To establish the level of ordinary skill in the art, we look to various
factors including “the types of problems encountered in the art; prior art
solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made;
sophistication of the technology; and education level of active workers in the
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

22
field.” In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom
Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir.
1986)). Problems encountered in the art are identified in the background
sections of the ’230 Patent as well as in Lenser, USF Abstract, Phillips,
Jamieson, Nielsen, and Miyazawa. See generally Ex. 1001, 1:21–56;
Ex. 1005; Ex. 1007; Ex. 1008, Ex. 1009, Ex. 1010, Ex. 1011. Solutions
proposed for these problems are also disclosed in the ’230 Patent and the
prior art references. See generally Ex. 1001, 1:58–3:55; Ex. 1005; Ex. 1007;
Ex. 1008; Ex. 1009; Ex. 1010; Ex. 1011. We observe that innovations were
made at a moderate to high rate in this art at the time of the invention, and
we find the sophistication of the technology to be moderate to high. See
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–31; see generally Ex. 1001, 1:13–3:55; Ex. 1007; Ex. 1008;
Ex. 1009; Ex. 1010; Ex. 1011. On the evidence presented, the education
level of active workers in the field aligns with Petitioner’s definition of a
POSITA. See Pet. 9; Ex. 1003 ¶ 14. Considering these factors, we agree
with and adopt Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA, with the exception that
we set the level of experience at two years, not “at least two years” as
Petitioner contends. Petitioner’s use of the qualifier “at least” introduces
ambiguity and encompasses skill levels beyond what was ordinary. We
apply this level of ordinary skill in the art in our obviousness analysis.
C. Claim Construction
We construe the challenged claims under the same standard used by a
federal court in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b) (2019); see Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for
Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,341 (Oct. 11, 2018) (now codified at
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

23
37 C.F.R. pt. 42 (2019)). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). This standard is articulated
in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) and its
progeny. Under the Phillips standard, we look to intrinsic evidence
including the words of a claim, the remainder of the specification, and the
prosecution history, as well as extrinsic evidence concerning relevant
scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (citing Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water
Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the
extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
We now turn to consider Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s contentions
concerning claim construction.
1. Claim 14’s “receiving . . . information of objects” and
“displaying . . . the unmanned vehicle with the objects
positioned relative to the unmanned vehicle based on the
information”
Petitioner contends that none of the terms of the ’230 Patent requires
explicit construction to resolve the patentability of the challenged claims in
view of the prior art in this proceeding. Pet. 9.
Patent Owner disagrees. PO Resp. 26–30. Patent Owner argues that
claim 14’s “receiving . . . information of objects” and “displaying . . .
information” should be construed as meaning “that the ‘information’
received and displayed is descriptive of the object and is separate from the
information that is received from the unmanned vehicle’s sensors.” Id. at 30
(emphasis added, alterations in original).
Petitioner replies that Patent Owner’s construction improperly imports
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

24
three limitations into claim 14: (1) receiving and displaying the information
of objects; (2) the received and displayed information is descriptive of the
object; and (3) the received and displayed information is separate from the
information received from the unmanned vehicle’s sensors. Reply 3.
The language of a claim provides “substantial guidance as to the
meaning of particular claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. The
relevant language of claim 14 is as follows:
[14F] receiving, by the smart phone, information of objects
within a distance of the unmanned vehicle; and
[14G] displaying, on the smart phone, the unmanned vehicle
with the objects positioned relative to the unmanned vehicle
based [on] the information.
Ex. 1001 at 11:29–33. The claim language is clear that the smart phone
receives information of objects and uses it to display the unmanned vehicle
with the objects positioned relative thereto.
Claims are read in view of the specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1315. In relevant part, the ’230 Patent’s Specification provides as follows:
FIG. 4F illustrates the objects within the radar view indicator
430 on a map.
. . .
In various embodiments, the smart phone can receive object
information[7] from radars, command and control centers, text
messages, phone messages, email, other unmanned vehicles, or
operator input. The object information can include geolocation
information, and/or a friendly or non-friendly indicator.
FIG. 4G illustrates a menu that an operator can use to add an
object to the radar view indicator 430. FIG. 4H illustrates a

7 We determine that the claimed “information of objects” refers to the same
thing as the “object information” described in the Specification given the
closeness of their wording and meaning, and the lack of anything else
comparable in the Specification.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

25
menu that an operator can use to obtain information related to
each object within the radar view indicator 430.

Ex. 1001 at 8:23–45. Thus, the Specification describes that the “object
information” can originate from a variety of sources, and can be of various
types, including geolocation and/or friendly/non-friendly information.
Geolocation information, of course, is useful in displaying the objects
relative to the unmanned vehicle, as recited in claim 14.
The ’230 Patent’s Figures 4F, 4G, and 4H are reproduced below.

As explained, Figure 4F illustrates objects within the radar view indicator on
a map; Figure 4G shows a menu that an operator can use to add an object to
the radar view indicator; and Figure 4H illustrates a menu that an operator
can use to obtain information about an object, including “Near Me,”
“Friendlies,” and “Hostiles” options.
The prosecution history offers little help toward understanding the
meaning of the disputed claim limitations. Although the prosecution history
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

26
indicated that claim 148 was allowable over the prior art of record,9 the
Examiner’s reasons for allowance were not specific and did not address the
particular claim limitations at issue here in any detail. See Ex. 1002, 44.
Nor did the applicant’s remarks offer any insights useful to understanding
the disputed claim language. See generally Ex. 1002. In sum, the
prosecution history contains no discussion of the meaning of disputed claim
language, and reveals no disavowal of claim scope touching upon the
disputed claim limitations.
Patent Owner does, however, mention that the prosecution history
includes an iPhone SUGV Controller Presentation given by the inventors of
the ’230 Patent. PO Resp. 33–36 (citing Ex. 1002, 127–161). Patent Owner
asserts that the presentation shows that information of objects near an
unmanned vehicle can be modified by the operator with spot reporting and
free text chats. These features are largely redundant, however, to those
taught by the ’230 Patent in Figures 4F, 4G, and 4H and related description.
Patent Owner also contends an amendment to include the disputed
limitations was the reason the examiner allowed claim 14. While this may
be so, as noted, the Examiner merely stated “it is found none of the cited
prior art of record discloses or suggests [] each and every limitation[] as now
required in the independent claims.” Ex. 1002, 44. This sheds little if any
light on the meaning of the disputed claim language.

8 Claim 14 of the ’230 Patent was originally identified as claim 9 in the
prosecution history but was renumbered by the Office prior to issuance of
the ’230 Patent.
9 The prior art considered by the examiner did not include the references
asserted by Petitioner in this proceeding. Compare Section I.F, with
Ex. 1001, code (56).
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

27
Likewise, the extrinsic evidence in the record provides little help in
understanding the meaning of the claim terms. Petitioner’s expert,
Dr. Robin Murphy, does not testify about the meaning of the claim language
at issue. See generally Ex. 1003. Patent Owner proffers no expert testimony
or other extrinsic evidence to support its proposed claim construction. See
generally PO Resp.; Sur-Reply.
Patent Owner contends that claim 14 requires receiving and
displaying the “information of objects” which includes information about the
object like geolocation information and friendly/non-friendly indicators. PO
Resp. 26–27. Patent Owner’s contention may be understood in conjunction
with the ’230 Patent’s Figure 4F, supra. Figure 4F shows a smart phone
display with objects (rectangle and diamond) on a map within a radar view
indicator. Ex. 1001, 8:23–24. Object 431 is indicated as “Friendly 1” and
object 433 as “Hostile 6.” The location of the unmanned vehicle “PackBot
123” is also shown in Figure 4F.
Claim 14, however, recites the display of objects (rectangle and
diamond in Figure 4F) positioned relative to the unmanned vehicle, not the
display of information about the objects (“Friendly 1” and “Hostile 6”
indicators in Figure 4F), as Patent Owner contends. PO Resp. 26. Patent
Owner appears to read into claim 14 the receiving and displaying of object
information, such as geolocation or a friendly/hostile indicator. But the
claim language recites “displaying . . . the unmanned vehicle with the objects
positioned relative to the unmanned vehicle based on the information [of
objects].” Ex. 1001, 11:31–33. Thus, claim 14 recites the display of
objects, not information about the objects. Accordingly, we agree with
Petitioner that Patent Owner improperly reads from the Specification into
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

28
claim 14 a limitation of displaying information about the objects. Reply 3.
We decline to import such limitation into the claim.
Patent Owner also attempts to read into claim 14 the limitation that
the received and displayed information is descriptive of the object. The
plain language of the claim, however, does not require that the information
received and displayed describes the object, for example, as friendly or
hostile. The Specification describes object information broadly as including
the source of the information (radars, command and control centers, text
messages, phone messages, email, other unmanned vehicles, or operator
input) in addition to information that could be considered descriptive of an
object (geolocation and friendly/non-friendly indicator). Ex. 1001, 8:36–41.
Thus, the Specification does not limit the object information to only
descriptive information, nor is there any language in the claim limiting
“information of objects” to descriptive information. It would be improper to
read a specific embodiment from the specification into the claim when the
claim language is broader than the embodiment. SuperGuide Corp. v.
DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We decline
to read this limitation into the claim.
Patent Owner also argues that the received and displayed information
in claim 14 is separate from the information received from the unmanned
vehicle’s sensors. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that “the specification
distinctly points out radar data, and describes the information that an
operator can review as separate from the radar data.” PO Resp. 30 (citing
Ex. 1001, 8:40–45, Figs. 4G, 4H). We find no support in the Specification
for the distinction Patent Owner attempts to draw.
Instead, the Specification states that “the smart phone can receive
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

29
object information from radars, command and control centers, text
messages, phone messages, email, other vehicles, or operator input.”
Ex. 1001, 8:36–39. A radar is a type of sensor, and the Specification does
not preclude a radar from being onboard an unmanned vehicle and used to
determine the position of objects in proximity to it. To the contrary,
evidence in the ’230 Patent suggests that some embodiments may include a
radar on the unmanned vehicle.
For example, the ’230 Patent’s Figure 4E is reproduced below:

Figure 4E shows a radar view indicator 430 with the unmanned vehicle at its
center. “Radar view indicator 430 is a top down view showing an object’s
location 431 within a radius (r) of the unmanned vehicle.” Ex. 1001,
8:12–14. That the unmanned vehicle is at the center of the radar view
indicator in Figure 4E suggests that the radar is onboard the unmanned
vehicle since the center commonly denotes the radiation source (the antenna)
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

30
on a radar display.10 Also, Petitioner’s expert testifies that use of radar on
unmanned vehicles was known in the art. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 55, 118. Considering
this evidence, it is not surprising that the ’230 Patent foregoes the details of
how to implement a radar on its unmanned vehicle.
Patent Owner’s proposed distinction that there are two kinds of object
information—one related to radar information, and the other to operator-
reviewable information—also fails because the Specification describes
operator-reviewable information as relating to the radar view indicator.
Ex. 1001, 8:36–45. Thus, the distinction that Patent Owner attempts to draw
is not supported by the Specification because the alleged two kinds of
information are both described as radar-related and thus are not
distinguishable on the basis Patent Owner proposes.
It is also noteworthy that the ’230 Patent concludes with the following
statement:
One skilled in the art can appreciate the invention may be
embodied in other specific forms without departing from the
spirit or essential characteristics thereof. The foregoing
embodiments are therefore to be considered in all respects
illustrative rather than limiting of the invention described herein.
Scope of the invention is thus indicated by the appended claims,
rather than by the foregoing description, and all changes that
come within the meaning and range of equivalency of the claims
are therefore intended to be embraced therein.
Id. at 9:43–53 (emphasis added). This language from the Specification
supports that the applicant intended the claims to be interpreted broadly,
without reading limitations from the specification into the claims.

10 Such a radar display may be referred to as a ‘plan position indicator.’ See
definition at https://www.merriam-webster.com (last viewed 6/10/21).
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

31
2. Claim 11’s “displaying one or more arrows . . . the one
or more arrows indicate a heading for the unmanned vehicle
such that the unmanned vehicle can reach a specified location”
Patent Owner contends that the language of claim 11 requires
displaying one or more arrows indicating a specified location to where the
unmanned vehicle is to head. PO Resp. 44. As support, Patent Owner
points to the specification, stating that “[t]he arrow indicates the direction to
direct the unmanned vehicle to move in to reach the object’s location.” Id.
(citing Ex. 1001, 8:28–30). Patent Owner contends “[t]here is no claim or
specification in the ’230 patent disclosing the need for a changed navigation
target prior to the displaying of an arrow.” Id. at 43. Patent Owner seeks
interpretation of the claimed heading arrow to distinguish over vector 1318
in Nielsen’s Figure 21, which Patent Owner contends appears only when the
navigation target changes, but which Petitioner contends is shown regardless
of whether the navigation target changes. Id. at 43–44; Reply 26.
Petitioner argues that the claim does not preclude a change of the
navigation target. Reply 25. We agree with Petitioner’s argument. We find
nothing in the intrinsic evidence, i.e., the claims, Specification, and
prosecution history, to support Patent Owner’s interpretation. Nor does the
extrinsic evidence, including expert testimony, support that the one or more
arrows must indicate a heading of the unmanned vehicle such that it can
reach a specified location that is unchanged. We decline to import such a
limitation into claim 11.
Patent Owner also argues that claim 11 requires that the “one or more
arrows” of claim 11 must be continuously displayed. As support for this
contention, Patent Owner notes the statement from the Specification that “as
the operator directs the unmanned vehicle in the direction of the arrow, the
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

32
arrow continually updates to compensate for the change in position of the
unmanned vehicle.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:28–32). However, the
immediately preceding sentence states “[i]n some embodiments, the operator
can tap the object’s location 431 and an arrow appears on the screen.”
Ex. 1001, 8:27–29. Hence, the Specification is clear that the arrow is not
continuously displayed. Accordingly, we decline to read into claim 11 that
the “one or more arrows” are continuously displayed.
3. Conclusion on Claim Construction
We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed constructions which
would improperly import limitations into the claims. Instead, we give the
claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, which is “the meaning
that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at
the time of the inventions.” Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915
F.3d 788, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Specifically, we read claim 14 to mean “displaying . . . objects” not
“displaying . . . information of objects.” Nor is claim 14 limited to
information that is descriptive of the object or that originates from a source
separate from the unmanned vehicle, as Patent Owner proposes.
For claim 11, we read “displaying one or more arrows” not to require
continuous display, and we interpret “specified location” to encompass one
that is updated or changed as well as one that is unchanged from the
originally specified location.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

33
D. Ground 1: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 Based
on Lenser and the USF References
Petitioner contends claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 would have been
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of Lenser and
the USF References (the USF Video and USF Abstract). Pet. 9–60.
1. Motivation to Combine Lenser and USF References
Petitioner contends that a POSITA would have been motivated to
combine the teachings of Lenser and the USF References to implement
Lenser’s OCU functionality on an iPhone as taught by the USF References.
Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 72–81. Petitioner contends Lenser does not limit
the devices that can be used for its OCU, and describes preferable
characteristics as being lightweight and mobile with a small form factor
suitable to carry in a backpack, with an easy-to-use touch-screen interface,
and with adequate computer processing power. Pet. 24; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 93–94.
Petitioner contends that Lenser’s teachings would have motivated a POSITA
to research other devices with these capabilities, and would have led to the
USF References and their demonstration of controlling an iRobot PackBot
vehicle with an iPhone. Pet. 24; Ex. 1003 ¶ 73. Petitioner contends that a
POSITA would have known that the iPhone had the listed advantages.
Pet. 25; Ex. 1003 ¶ 74.
Petitioner also contends that the USF References motivate the
combination with Lenser because they taught the advantages for using an
iPhone to control a robot, including reduction in size and weight, packability
and portability, without requiring a stylus. Pet. 25; Ex. 1007, col. 1.
Petitioner contends that a POSITA would recognize these characteristics to
be highly advantageous for operating in dangerous conditions and remote
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

34
areas. Pet. 25; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75–76. Petitioner contends the iPhone’s
advantages, as described by USF researchers, match Lenser’s preferred OCU
requirements, and would have motivated a POSITA to integrate Lenser’s
OCU functionality into the iPhone-based OCU of the USF References.
Pet. 25–26; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75–76.
Petitioner contends the combination of Lenser and the USF
References is the simple substitution of one known element (Lenser’s tablet
OCU functionality) for another (USF’s iPhone OCU) to obtain predictable
results (controlling an unmanned vehicle from a device with a handheld
touchscreen using Wi-Fi). Pet. 26; Ex. 1003 ¶ 77. Petitioner cites U.S.
Patent Publication 2010/0084513 A1, filed in 2009, as confirming that
substituting a smart phone for a tablet PC was simple, and that smart phones
and tablet PCs are near equivalents for controlling unmanned vehicles, and
stressing the advantages of using a device with a small form factor, such as a
sufficiently capable smartphone or small tablet PC. Pet. 26; Ex. 1043 ¶ 11.
Petitioner further contends that a POSITA would have had a
reasonable expectation of success in combining Lenser’s OCU functionality
with USF’s iPhone OCU. Pet. 26; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–81. Petitioner contends
that the iPhone includes the necessary hardware features of Lenser’s tablet,
including a touchscreen, a processor, and a Wi-Fi transceiver. Pet. 26;
Ex. 1005 ¶ 94; Ex. 1003 ¶ 78. Petitioner contends that the USF References
prove that the concept of controlling a UGV using an iPhone was feasible
and ready for further improvements. Id. In addition, Petitioner contends
that smart phone control of a ground vehicle using an Android phone was
disclosed in 2008, and that smart phone control of an unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV) was documented as early as 2006. Pet. 27; Ex. 1037;
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

35
Ex. 1024. Petitioner further contends that a 2010 YouTube video
demonstrated control of a Parrot AR.Drone with an iPhone. Pet. 27–28;
Ex. 1038 (at 0:55 and 3:48); Ex. 1039; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–81. In addition,
Petitioner contends that UC Berkeley researchers controlled a UAV using a
web page on an iPhone. Pet. 29; Ex. 1007; Ex. 1040; Ex. 1003 ¶ 81.
Petitioner contends that these efforts support a POSITA’s reasonable
expectation of success and motivate the combination of Lenser and the USF
References. Pet. 29.
Patent Owner argues that one would not have been motivated to
combine any of the prior art references. PO Resp. 46–47. Patent Owner
criticizes Petitioner’s rationale for the combination as “formulaic” and
asserts Petitioner provided no evidence that the “information of objects” was
a “known technique.” Id. at 47. Patent Owner further argues that Lenser
merely displays red dots showing the position of detected obstacles, and that
“Lenser does not disclose other information of the objects near the
unmanned vehicle other than simple object detection, much less information
of the objects being friendly or non-friendly.” Id.
Patent Owner’s arguments hinge critically on its interpretation of the
claim as reciting the display of information of objects. As discussed at
length in Section II.C.1, claim 14 recites the display of objects, not
information of objects. Although Patent Owner characterizes Petitioner’s
reliance on simple substitution of one known element for another as
“formulaic,” we determine that Petitioner properly and adequately applied
the simple substitution rationale to the facts of this case. See KSR at 417.
Consequently, Patent Owner’s argument does not show any deficiency in
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

36
Petitioner’s stated reasons to combine the prior art references or the
reasonable expectation of success.
Reviewing Petitioner’s evidence, we agree that Petitioner has made a
sufficient showing that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine
Lenser and the USF References with a reasonable expectation of success in
arriving at the claimed subject matter.
We proceed to examine the combination of teachings or the prior art
references with respect to each limitation of claim 14.
2. Claim 14
a) Summary of Petitioner’s Contentions Regarding
Claim 14
Petitioner contends that Lenser discloses OCU functionality showing
most of claim 14’s limitations, except that Lenser implements its OCU on a
PDA tablet, not a smart phone. Pet. 23. Petitioner contends that the iPhone
described in the USF References is a smart phone that a POSITA would
have substituted for Lenser’s PDA tablet, thus meeting claim 14’s
limitations. Pet. 24, 26.
b) Petitioner’s Reading of Claim 14 on the Prior Art
Combination
Petitioner reads the preamble of claim 1411 on the combined
references as follows.

11 We need not, and do not, determine whether the preamble of claim 14 is
limiting, because Petitioner shows sufficiently that the asserted prior art,
specifically, the combination of Lenser and the USF References, teaches the
preamble. We reach the same conclusion for the preambles of all other
independent claims and thus do not further address those preambles
expressly below.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

37
[preamble] 14. A computerized method for controlling an unmanned
vehicle, comprising:
Petitioner contends that the combination of Lenser and the USF
References teaches claim 14’s preamble. Pet. 30–32; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 83–90.
Specifically, Petitioner contends Lenser discloses controlling one or more
remote vehicles. Pet. 30; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 11–12. Petitioner further contends
that Lenser discloses “computerized” because its OCU and vehicles include
a processor running software. Pet. 31; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 71, 89, 92, 94, 97–98,
100; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84–87. Petitioner contends that Lenser’s vehicles are
“unmanned” because they are remotely controlled and no human rides in the
vehicles. Pet. 31; Ex. 1005, code (57), ¶ 65, Figs. 1–6; Ex. 1003 ¶ 88.
Petitioner further alleges that the USF References teach a
“computerized method for controlling an unmanned vehicle.” Pet. 31
(emphasis added); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 89–90. Specifically, Petitioner notes that the
USF Abstract discusses implementation of a Packbot OCU using Apple’s
iPhone SDK. Pet. 31; Ex. 1006 (at 0:03 and 0:06); Ex. 1007, col. 2.12
Petitioner contends that the USF Video shows an operator interacting with
buttons on an iPhone touchscreen interface (“computerized method”) to
control an iRobot PackBot (“unmanned vehicle”). Pet. 31–32; Ex. 1003
¶¶ 89–90.
Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that claim 14’s preamble is
taught by the combination of Lenser and the USF References.
Claim 14 further recites:
[14A] receiving, by a smart phone, a request to control the unmanned
vehicle;

12 At points in this discussion, Petitioner uses incorrect exhibit numbers.
Exhibit 1006 is the USF Video, and Exhibit 1007 is the USF Abstract.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

38
Ex. 1001, 11:19–20 (emphasis added).
Petitioner contends that the combination of Lenser and the USF
References discloses the “control request” limitation 14A. Pet. 34–37;
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 91–96, 132–137. Specifically, Petitioner contends Lenser’s
OCU includes buttons or icons for launching control applications for
respective Robots 1–4 depicted on the left side in Lenser’s Figure 14A
(shown above). Pet. 34; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 17, 105; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 91, 133. If the
operator presses a button to select a remote vehicle, the screen shown in
Lenser’s Figure 16 results, which includes various controls for the selected
remote vehicle. Pet. 35; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 106–107, 116; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93, 135.
Petitioner contends that Lenser’s OCU therefore “receiv[es] . . . a request to
control the unmanned vehicle[s].” Pet. 36; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 91–93, 132–136
(alterations in original). Petitioner further contends it would have been
obvious to a POSITA to incorporate a button or icon on a touchscreen
surface, as taught by Lenser, on USF’s iPhone OCU so that an operator
could launch the PackBot application on the iPhone. Pet. 37; Ex. 1003 ¶ 94.
Petitioner contends use of buttons or icons to launch applications was well-
known and routine prior to the ’230 Patent. Pet. 37; Ex. 1003 ¶ 94.
Petitioner asserts that Lenser’s OCU application running on an iPhone
OCU receives an operator’s input to start an application, select one or more
vehicles from the initial screen (Lenser’s Figure 14A), and control the
vehicles from the detailed vehicle page (Lenser’s Figure 16) to control one
or more unmanned vehicles. Pet. 37; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 91–95, 132–137.
According to Petitioner, this constitutes “receiving, by a smart phone, a
request to control the unmanned vehicle[s].” Pet. 37 (alterations in
original).
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

39
Reviewing the foregoing evidence, Petitioner has made a sufficient
showing that the “control request” limitation 14A is taught by the
combination of Lenser and the USF References.
Claim 14 further recites:
[14B] establishing, by the smart phone, wireless communication
between the smart phone and the unmanned vehicle;
Ex. 1001, 11:21–22 (emphasis added).
Petitioner contends that the combination of Lenser and the USF
References discloses limitation 14B. Pet. 40–43; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 97–103.
Petitioner contends that Lenser’s OCU includes an antenna/radio for
wireless communication. Pet. 37; Ex. 1005 ¶ 92. Petitioner contends that
Lenser’s Figure 13 (shown above) depicts an OCU communicating with
each of remote vehicles via a wireless LAN, thus teaching “establishing . . .
wireless communication” with the vehicles. Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1005 ¶ 287;
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 97–99. Petitioner also asserts that the USF Abstract describes
that the iPhone connects to the Packbot’s AdHoc Wi-Fi network and
corroborates the implicit teaching of Lenser that the OCU must establish
wireless communication in order to communicate with the vehicles. Pet. 38;
Ex. 1007, col. 2; Ex. 1006 (at 0:37); Ex. 1003 ¶ 100. Petitioner asserts that
the combination of Lenser and USF References therefore teaches
“establishing, by the smartphone, wireless communication between the
smart phone and the unmanned vehicle[s].” Pet. 39; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 97–102.
Reviewing the foregoing evidence, Petitioner has made a sufficient
showing that the “establishing” limitation 14B is taught by the combination
of Lenser and the USF References.
Claim 14 further recites:
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

40
[14C] receiving, by the smart phone, a video stream generated by the
unmanned vehicle;
Ex. 1001, 11:23–24 (emphasis added).
Petitioner contends that the combination of Lenser and the USF
References discloses limitation 14C. Pet. 40–43; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 103–105.
Petitioner contends Lenser’s remote vehicles transmit real-time video
streams to the OCU. Pet. 40; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 64, 84, 91; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 103, 144.
Petitioner further contends the USF Abstract describes that the iPhone
PackBot OCU (“smart phone”) receives live video streams generated by the
PackBot (“unmanned vehicle”). Pet. 40–42; Ex. 1006 (at 0:13, 0:49, and
1:31); Ex. 1007, col. 2. Petitioner further contends Lenser contemplates
selecting multiple remote vehicles at once so that their associated video
feeds are displayed simultaneously. Pet. 42–43; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 84, 107.
Fig. 45; Ex. 1003 ¶ 145.
Reviewing the evidence submitted, Petitioner has made a sufficient
showing that the “video stream” limitation 14C is taught by the combination
of Lenser and the USF References.
Claim 14 further recites:
[14D] displaying the video stream and vehicle controls on a touch-
sensitive display screen within the smart phone;
Ex. 1001, 11:25–26 (emphasis added).
Petitioner contends that the combination of Lenser and the USF
References discloses limitation 14D. Pet. 45–49; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 106–111.
Petitioner contends Lenser’s Figure 16 (shown above) discloses a video
display from a selected remote vehicle in the bottom left portion. Pet. 45;
Ex. 1003; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 106, 115. Petitioner further contends that the bottom
right portion of Lenser’s Figure 16 can be manipulated by an operator to
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

41
control the selected vehicle using a touch-screen. Pet. 45; Ex. 1005 ¶ 116.
Petitioner contends Lenser’s OCU therefore includes “a touch-sensitive
display screen.” Pet. 45; Ex. 1003 ¶ 109. Petitioner contends that Lenser
discloses a number of controls displayed on the touch screen of Figure 16,
including ones for brake release, flipper rotation, and speed control. Pet. 46;
Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 112–116. Petitioner contends the USF Abstract explains that
the PackBot OCU user interface shows live streaming video as well as
buttons to drive the vehicle forward, backwards, left, and right as shown in
the USF Video. Pet. 47–49; Ex. 1006 (at 0:13 and 0:18); Ex. 1007, col. 2;
Ex. 1003 ¶ 110. Accordingly, Petitioner contends the combination of
Lenser’s OCU with an iPhone described in the USF References discloses the
“displaying” limitation 14D. Pet. 49.
Reviewing the evidence, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that
the combination of Lenser and the USF References teaches the “displaying”
limitation 14D.
Claim 14 further recites:
[14E] manipulating the vehicle controls to direct the unmanned
vehicle;
Ex. 1001, 11:27–28 (emphasis added).
Petitioner contends that the combination of Lenser and the USF
References discloses limitation 14E. Pet. 49–52; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 112–115.
Petitioner contends that the bottom right portion of Lenser’s Figure 16 for
the selected remote vehicle can be manipulated to control the vehicle using
touch-screen interaction to control its speed and turning. Pet. 49–50;
Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 106, 116. Specifically, the y-axis can be manipulated by the
operator to control the speed of the robot vehicle, and the x-axis can be
manipulated to control the amount of turning relative to translation. Pet. 50;
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

42
Ex. 1005 ¶ 116. Therefore, the vehicle controls are manipulated to direct the
selected unmanned vehicle. Pet. 50; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 112–113, 155–156.
Petitioner contends, by manipulation of Lenser’s touchscreen controls, that
the operator issues commands for the remote vehicle(s) via an OCU that
sends out data wirelessly to a processor on each of the remote vehicles.
Pet. 50; Ex. 1005 ¶ 99.
Petitioner contends that the USF Abstract discloses that the OCU user
interface “shows live streaming as well as buttons to drive the vehicle
forward, backwards, left, and right.” Pet. 50; Ex. 1007, col. 2. Petitioner
contends a screenshot from the USF Video discloses the operator
manipulates the arrow controls on the iPhone OCU to drive the PackBot.
Pet. 50–51; Ex. 1006 (at 0:34); Ex. 1003 ¶ 114. Petitioner contends that the
USF Abstract explains that the OCU “send[s] drive commands to take
control of the vehicle.” Pet. 51 (alteration in original); Ex. 1007. Petitioner
contends that the combination of Lenser and the USF References discloses
“manipulating the vehicle controls to direct the unmanned vehicle” as
claimed. Pet. 51–52; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 112–115, 154–157.
Reviewing the evidence, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that
the combination of Lenser and the USF References teaches the
“manipulating” limitation 14E.
Claim 14 further recites:
[14F] receiving, by the smart phone, information of objects within a
distance of the unmanned vehicle; and
Ex. 1001, 11:28–29 (emphasis added).
Petitioner contends the combination of Lenser and the USF
References discloses limitation 14F. Pet. 52–55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 116–120.
Petitioner contends that Lenser’s remote vehicle includes “a range-finding
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

43
system 121 that can scan the environment surrounding the remote vehicle to
detect reflective surfaces of objects such as walls, automobiles, trees,
furniture, etc.” Pet. 52; Ex. 1005 ¶ 70. Petitioner contends that Lenser’s
vehicle also includes a 3D camera and associated mapping payload that can
be a primary sensor for obstacle detection, mapping, and localization. Pet.
52; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 80–81. Petitioner contends that the range-finding and 3D
camera systems gather “information of objects within a distance of the
unmanned vehicle.” Pet. 52 (emphasis omitted); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 116–118.
Petitioner contends that Lenser’s vehicles “transmit data, e.g., video
streams and map data, to the OCU during a mission.” Pet. 52; Ex. 1005
¶ 84. Petitioner contends that the transmitted data includes data collected by
the range finder and 3D camera. Pet. 52; Ex. 1005 ¶ 70; Ex. 1003 ¶ 119.
Petitioner contends Lenser’s OCU receives this data. Petitioner further
contends that a POSITA would have implemented Lenser’s OCU with the
iPhone described in the USF References. Pet. 54.
Reviewing the evidence, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that
the “receiving” limitation 14F is taught by the combination of Lenser and
the USF References.
Claim 14 further recites:
[14G] displaying, on the smart phone, the unmanned vehicle with the
objects positioned relative to the unmanned vehicle based the
information.
Ex. 1001, 11:30–31 (emphasis added).
Petitioner contends that the combination of Lenser and the USF
References discloses limitation 14F. Pet. 52–55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 121–122.
Petitioner contends that Lenser displays “the remote vehicle’s view of its
surrounding area as determined, for example, by a range finder (e.g., a
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

44
SwissRanger) and 3D camera.” Pet. 53; Ex. 1005 ¶ 115. Petitioner
contends that in Lenser’s Figure 16, “[t]he bottom right corner includes the
remote vehicle’s view of its surrounding area,” with “the remote vehicle
being drawn to scale in the center of the display.” Pet. 53 (alteration in
original); Ex. 1005 ¶ 115. Petitioner contends that Lenser’s Figure 16
includes red dots showing the position of detected obstacles. Pet. 53;
Ex. 1005 ¶ 115. Petitioner contends that because the vehicle’s view is
determined by the range finder and 3D camera mapping functionality, the
displayed tangible obstacles corresponds to the “objects” of the “displaying”
limitation 14F. Pet. 53; Ex. 1005 ¶ 115; Ex. 1003 ¶ 119. Petitioner contends
that Lenser’s display illustrated in Figure 16 shows a representation of the
vehicle (center) and the objects’ locations relative to the vehicle. Pet. 53;
Ex. 1003 ¶ 119. Petitioner contends that a POSITA would have been
motivated to implement Lenser’s OCU with an iPhone as described in the
USF References. Pet. 54. Petitioner thus contends that the combination of
the Lenser and USF References discloses the “displaying” limitation 14G.
Pet. 54–55.
Reviewing the evidence, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that
the combination of Lenser and the USF References teaches the “displaying”
limitation 14G.
c) Patent Owner Arguments
Patent Owner argues that Lenser’s tablet PC is not a “smart phone” as
claimed. PO Resp. 31–32. Patent Owner states that Lenser merely uses a
tablet PC (an HP TC1100 running SuSe 9.2 Linux operating system) which
is large, bulky, and heavy, making it difficult to carry. Id.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

45
Patent Owner’s argument attacks Lenser individually and does not
consider its combination with the USF References, which teach a smart
phone. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
Patent Owner also argues that Lenser and the USF References do not
disclose receiving “information of objects” and “displaying . . . the objects.”
PO Resp. 32–33, 37–38. Specifically, Patent Owner contends Lenser’s
range finder (SwissRanger) merely displays red dots that show the position
of detected obstacles or matter, and that the information of objects is more
than mere detection of reflective surfaces or production of red dots that show
the positions of detected matter, as disclosed in Lenser. Id. at 33. Patent
Owner does not explain why Lenser’s dots do not indicate objects.
Consequently, we do not find this argument persuasive to overcome
Petitioner’s evidence.
Patent Owner next argues that Lenser “does not teach receiving or
displaying information that is descriptive of the object, or information that is
received separately from things like command and control centers, text
messages, phone messages, email, other unmanned vehicles, or operator
input.” PO Resp. 33, 36–39. As we explained in Section II.C.1, we do not
construe claim 14 to require display of information descriptive of the object
or that the information is received separately from a source that is not the
unmanned vehicle. Instead, claim 14 recites displaying objects positioned
relative to the unmanned vehicle. Consequently, Patent Owner’s argument
is not supported by language in the claim as properly construed.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

46
d) Conclusion for Claim 14
In light of the foregoing discussion, we determine that Petitioner has
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 14 is unpatentable over
the combination of Lenser and the USF References. Petitioner makes a
sufficient showing that each limitation of claim 14 is taught or suggested by
the combination of Lenser and the USF References, and that a person of
ordinary skill in the art had reason to combine the references, with a
reasonable expectation of success in arriving at method of claim 14.
3. Claim 15
Claim 15 has similarities to claim 14 except that it involves control of
a plurality of unmanned vehicles rather than just one. See Ex. 1001. The
only limitation in claim 15 that we find to differ materially from those of
claim 14 is “selecting, by the smart phone, one of the plurality of unmanned
vehicles.” Pet. 33 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s evidence for claim 14
relies on Lenser’s Figures 14A and 16. Pet. 34–37. Specifically, Petitioner
contends (starting from the initial screen in Lenser’s Figure 14A) that “[i]f
the operator presses a button to select a detected remote vehicle, a detailed
window is displayed (see Fig. 16 . . .)” that allows “the operator to perform
low-level control (teleoperation) and/or view telemetry and video data from
the selected remote vehicle.” Pet. 55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 106, 158–160. As with
claim 14, the USF References demonstrate Lenser’s features may be
implemented on a smart phone.
4. Claim 17
Claim 17 is materially similar to claim 14 except that it involves a
plurality of multiple unmanned vehicles and the last step recites “toggling
between displaying the video stream and controls of each of the plurality of
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

47
unmanned vehicles based on operator input” (limitation 17G using
Petitioner’s nomenclature). Petitioner contends this limitation is taught by
selection of different robot buttons in Lenser’s Figure 14A to show video
stream and controls for the respective selected robots in Figure 16.
Pet. 55–56 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 106–107, 169–171; Ex. 1005 ¶ 94).
5. Claim 18
Claim 18 is materially similar to claim 14 except that it further limits
the selecting, displaying and manipulating limitations to two vehicles:
“selecting, by the smart phone, two of the plurality of the unmanned
vehicles,” “displaying the video stream and controls of the two selected
vehicles on a display screen within the smart phone,” and “manipulating
controls to direct the two selected unmanned vehicles.” Pet. 33, 57.
Petitioner contends that Lenser’s Figure 14A allows an operator to select
two robot vehicles. Pet. 58; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 107, 280–287; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 180–
181. Petitioner further contends that Lenser’s Figure 45, reproduced below,
discloses the “displaying” and “manipulating” features for two unmanned
vehicles. Pet. 58–60; Ex. 1005 ¶ 284; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 182–186, 112–115, 154–
157.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

48

Lenser describes Figure 45 as “an OCU display allowing an operator to
control two teamed remote vehicles.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 62. Petitioner contends
that the combination of Lenser and the USF References discloses each
limitation of claim 18 of the ’230 Patent. Pet. 60.
6. Conclusion for Ground 1
We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments for patentability of
claim 14 but determine that they do not outweigh Petitioner’s evidence of
unpatentability. Patent Owner presents no arguments for patentability
specific to claims 15, 17, and 18. See generally PO Resp.; Sur-Reply.
Petitioner shows by preponderance of the evidence that claims 14, 15,
17, and 18 are unpatentable for the reasons summarized above and stated in
the Petition. Petitioner makes a sufficient showing that each limitation of
these claims is taught or suggested by the combination of Lenser and the
USF References, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art had reason to
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

49
combine the references, with a reasonable expectation of success in arriving
at the methods recited in these claims.
E. Ground 2: Asserted Obviousness of Claim 16 Based on
Lenser, USF References, and Jamieson
Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and further recites “wherein the
establishing of a wireless communication further comprises transmitting, by
the smart phone, a signal to each of the plurality of unmanned vehicles, such
that the signal changes to a protocol of the particular unmanned vehicle the
signal is transmitting to.” Petitioner notes that Lenser teaches that its OCU
“allow[s] the operator to control heterogeneous remote vehicles having
different sensors, different capabilities, and different behavior
programming.” Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 99). Petitioner also points out
that while Lenser describes various embodiments with reference to particular
standards and protocols, Lenser states that its invention is not limited to
those standards and protocols. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 288). Petitioner
contends that Jamieson provides details teaching the claimed limitation.
Pet. 60–63.
Petitioner states that Jamieson discloses an architecture for
configuring an OCU based on “protocol definitions provided from a robot.”
Pet. 61 (quoting Ex. 1009 ¶ 2). Jamieson’s OCU processes user operations
from a joystick, for example, along a control event path, and a protocol
adapter generates commands to a robot according to its specific protocol. Id.
at 61–62 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 51, Fig. 3; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 191–192). Petitioner
notes that Jamieson determines “the robot’s protocol adapter in the robot
database 312.” Id. at 62 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 51).
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

50
As to motivation, Petitioner contends that a POSITA would have
incorporated Jamieson’s protocol adapter in the iPhone OCU of the Lenser
and USF References for a variety of reasons. Pet. 62–65. Specifically,
Petitioner contends the following: (1) Lenser describes the goal but not the
details of communicating with and controlling heterogeneous remote
vehicles, so one would have looked to the prior art like Jamieson for the
details (Pet. 62 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 93); Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 99));
(2) Jamieson is in the same field as Lenser and the USF References (Pet. 62
(citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 59, Fig. 1; Ex. 1005 ¶ 87)); (3) Jamieson describes the
limitations of traditional single-protocol OCUs and teaches tools for creating
controller configurations for varied robot types to allow dynamic protocol
switching (Pet. 63–64 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 4–5, code (57))); (4) one would
have been motivated to expand the number and types of vehicles that can be
controlled with a single OCU (Pet. 65 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 196; Ex. 1009
¶ 35)); and (5) the capability of controlling a variety of unmanned vehicles
would be beneficial for certain users (e.g., the military) who require a variety
of unmanned vehicles with different capabilities on specific missions
(Pet. 65 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 196)).
Petitioner contends that a POSITA would have had a reasonable
expectation of success in combining teachings of Jamieson with those of
Lenser and the USF References. Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 197). Petitioner
contends that (1) Lenser, Jamieson and the USF References all describe an
OCU for controlling the iRobot Packbot (id.); and (2) “[t]he modification of
the iPhone OCU would be a software upgrade and would not require
modification of the unmanned vehicles themselves because Jamieson’s
system allows communication with various types of legacy robots without
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

51
‘software upgrades’ to the vehicles” (Pet. 64–65 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 41;
Ex. 1003 ¶ 197)).
Patent Owner presents no arguments for patentability specific to
claim 16. See generally PO Resp.; Sur-Reply.
We determine that Petitioner’s evidence shows the unpatentability of
claim 16 by a preponderance of the evidence for the reasons summarized
above and stated in the Petition. Petitioner shows that each limitation of
claim 16 is taught or suggested by the prior art, and that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have had reason to combine the references with a
reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the method of claim 16.
F. Ground 3: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 7–10, 12, and 13 Based on
Lenser, USF References, and Phillips
1. Claims 7–9
Petitioner contends that independent claims 7–9 each include the same
preamble and limitations denoted in claim 14 as 14P and 14A–14E in
Petitioner’s nomenclature. Pet. 65. Petitioner contends that each of claims
7–9 recite certain additional limitations including: “providing a control to
store a frame of the video stream as a picture on the smart phone” [7F];
“providing a control to command one or more cameras on the unmanned
vehicle to zoom in or out” [8F]; and “providing one or more controls to
command the unmanned vehicle to one or more predetermined poses” [9F].
Id. Petitioner acknowledges that Lenser and the USF References do not
explicitly disclose these features, but contends these were well-known
features taught by Phillips. Pet. 65–66 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 74, 123, 125, Fig.
11).
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

52
Petitioner contends that a POSITA would have been motivated to
integrate Phillips’s predetermined poses functionality and camera controls
into the iPhone OCU of the Lenser and USF References. Pet. 66. Petitioner
contends Lenser discloses an OCU for controlling an unmanned vehicle with
some level of autonomy in response to high-level commands from the OCU.
Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 11). Petitioner notes that Lenser also discloses that a
robot’s pose can affect its ability to automatically traverse obstacles. Pet. 67
(citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 146). Petitioner acknowledges, however, that Lenser does
not disclose how to change the pose of its vehicle. Id.
Petitioner contends that Phillips, filed the same day by iRobot
Corporation and claiming priority to the same provisional application as
Lenser, emphasizes the need to allow remote vehicles to accomplish certain
behaviors autonomously, either continuously or on user command. Pet. 67
(citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 5). Petitioner also notes that Phillips discloses different
poses have different advantages and benefits, such as to allow driving on
bumpy or flat terrain. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 202–203; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 228,
235, 236; Figure 39 elements P14 and P20). According to Petitioner,
Phillips’s autonomous capabilities reduce training requirements and simplify
operation of the UGV. Pet. 68–69 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 4, 127, 228, Fig. 11;
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 205).
As to motivation, Petitioner contends that a POSITA would have
combined “Phillips with Lenser and the USF References to provide
additional camera controls including snapshots and zooming.” Pet. 69
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 206). Petitioner contends that a POSITA would
understand that recording snapshots based on video frames can provide
valuable information about the surrounding of a robot that can be viewed at
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

53
a later time, a feature useful for reconnaissance and route clearing missions.
Id. Petitioner further asserts that a POSITA would understand that the zoom
functionality is useful in dangerous scenarios encountered by UGVs such as
explosive ordinance disposal, and allows the operator to observe the UGV’s
surroundings without moving closer to a dangerous object or exposing the
UGV’s presence. Id.
Petitioner contends that a POSITA would have had a reasonable
expectation of success in combining Phillips with Lenser and the USF
References. Pet. 70 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 207). Petitioner argues that the
combination involves simple modification to the software programs in the
OCU, and merely adds a readily available zooming camera or robot arm on
the vehicle. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 208). Petitioner further notes that Lenser
and Phillips are patent applications by the same company disclosing
structurally similar remote vehicles and OCUs. Id. (citing Lenser Fig. 12;
Phillips Fig. 1). Petitioner contends iRobot’s PackBot incorporated these
features before the ’230 Patent’s critical date. Id. (citing Ex. 1019; Ex. 1020
(PackBot specs); Ex. 1003 ¶ 207).
Petitioner also contends “[t]he combination is simply the user of a
known technique (Phillips’s poses, camera controls, and robot arm controls)
to improve similar devices (the robot and OCU of the Lenser/USF
References combination) in the same ways that the features improve
Phillips’ unmanned vehicle system.” Pet. 70 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 209). In
addition, Petitioner notes that Phillips’s and Lenser’s user interfaces are
similar. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 111–117, Fig. 16; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 123–130, Fig.
12).
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

54
Petitioner contends that the preamble P and limitations A–E of claims
7–9 correlate identically to the preamble and limitations of claim 14 and thus
are taught by the combination of Lenser and the USF References in the same
manner set forth for claim 14. Pet. 71 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 83–115).
For claim 7, Petitioner contends that Phillips discloses “snap shot
recordings” using a robot’s handheld controller by selecting the “SNAP
SHOT” icon in Figure 11 to capture a video frame stored locally on the
smart phone. Pet. 72 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 88, 123, 126; Ex. 1003 ¶ 219).
Petitioner contends that the combination of Lenser, the USF References, and
Phillips discloses “providing a control to store a frame of the video stream
as a picture on the smart phone” [7F]. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 218–219).
For claim 8, Petitioner notes that Phillips’s user interface provides a
control to command a camera to zoom in and out. Pet. 73 (citing Ex. 1008
¶¶ 107, 110, 123; Fig. 11). Petitioner contends that the combination of
Lenser, the USF References, and Phillips discloses “providing a control to
command one or more cameras on the unmanned vehicle to zoom in or out”
[8F]. Id. (citing ¶¶ 227–229).
For claim 9, Petitioner notes that Phillips’s OCU interface provides
icons that allow the vehicle to perform “a variety of autonomous assist
options such as predefined poses” which are stored in memory in advance of
their initiation by the operator. Pet. 74 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 125, Fig. 11;
Ex. 1003 ¶ 238). Operator selection of an icon commands the robot into the
pose which it does autonomously without the operator having to manipulate
the controls. Pet. 75 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 227–245; Ex. 1003 ¶ 239, Fig. 14).
Petitioner notes that Phillips discloses several examples of poses. Pet. 75–76
(citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 143, 227–238, Figs. 14, 39, 40). Petitioner contends that
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

55
the combination of Lenser, USF References and Phillips therefore discloses
“providing one or more controls to command the unmanned vehicle to one
or more predetermined poses” [9F]. Pet. 76 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 237–241).
2. Claim 10
Petitioner asserts that the combination of Lenser, USF References,
and Phillips discloses claim 10’s “displaying the controls and a geographic
map on the display screen within the smart phone.” Pet. 77 (citing Ex. 1003
¶¶ 242–244). Specifically, Petitioner asserts that Lenser’s initial screen in
Figure 14A includes a map view window showing a map of the remote
vehicle’s environment, and also shows controls for the vehicle’s brakes. Id.
(citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 105, Fig. 14A).
3. Claim 12
Petitioner asserts that the combination of the Lenser, USF References,
and Phillips discloses claim 12’s “receiving information to rotate the
unmanned vehicle.” Pet. 78 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 246). Specifically,
Petitioner asserts that the bottom right portion of Lenser’s Figure 16 is a
touch screen, and the “x-axis of the screen can be manipulated by the user to
control the amount of turning compared to translation.” Pet. 78–79 (quoting
Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 115–116) (alteration in original). Petitioner contends that when
the operator manipulates the x-axis of the screen, the OCU “receiv[es]
information to rotate the unmanned vehicle.” Pet. 79 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 246)
(alteration in original).
4. Claim 13
Petitioner contends that while Lenser does not refer to its flippers as
robotic arms, Phillips discloses that its UGV has robotic arms whose
movement is controlled by commands to the robot. Pet. 79 (citing Ex. 1005,
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

56
¶ 257; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 160, 181, Figs. 20, 29A). Petitioner asserts that Phillips
thus discloses “receiving information to move a robotic arm on the vehicle.”
Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 249–252).
5. Conclusion for Ground 3
Patent Owner presents no arguments for patentability specific to
claims 7–10, 12, and 13. See generally PO Resp.; Sur-Reply.
We determine that Petitioner shows by preponderance of the evidence
that claims 7–10, 12 and 13 are unpatentable for the reasons summarized
above and stated in the Petition. Petitioner makes a sufficient showing that
each limitation of claims 7–10, 12, and 13 is taught or suggested by the
combination of Lenser, the USF References, and Phillips, and that a person
of ordinary skill in the art had reason to combine the references, with a
reasonable expectation of success in arriving at methods of claims 7–10, 12,
and 13.
G. Ground 4: Asserted Obviousness of Claim 11 Based on Lenser, the
USF References, Phillips, and Nielsen
1. Petitioner Contentions
Claim 11 depends from claim 9 and recites “displaying one or more
arrows, the video stream, and the controls on the display within the smart
phone, wherein the one or more arrows indicate a heading for the
unmanned vehicle such that the unmanned vehicle can reach a specified
location.” Ex. 1001, 11:6–11 (emphasis added). Petitioner contends that,
although Lenser does not disclose one or more arrows indicating a heading
such that the unmanned vehicle can reach a specified location, Nielsen does
disclose this limitation. Pet. 81.
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

57
Specifically, Petitioner contends that Nielsen discloses a graphical
user interface that displays a map of the environment proximate the robot.
Pet. 81 (citing Ex. 1010, code (57), 5:8–11). Petitioner contends Nielsen’s
interface uses a “vector 1318 between the robot and the second position
1330B of the navigation target.” Id. (citing Ex. 1010, 40:33–35). Petitioner
asserts Nielsen further discloses that as the user drags the second position
1330B around, the vector 1318 updates to instruct “the robot on how to
move to achieve the new second position.” Id. (citing Ex. 1010, 40:38–43).
Petitioner contends Nielsen therefore discloses an arrow (vector 1318) that
indicates a heading for the unmanned vehicle such that it can reach a
specified location (second position 1330B). Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 255–
256).
Petitioner contends that a POSITA would have been motivated to
combine Nielsen’s Figure 21 to replace the lower left of Lenser’s Figure 16,
and that the combined system would display the arrows, live video stream,
and controls simultaneously. Pet. 81–82 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 257–262).
Specifically, Petitioner contends that Nielsen is analogous art in the field of
remote control of unmanned vehicles. Pet. 82–83. Petitioner contends that a
POSITA would have been motivated to enhance Lenser’s interface to assist
the operator with setting navigation targets and understanding where and
how the robot is moving toward the targets. Pet. 82 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 116–
117, 214–216, 218, Figs. 27–28; Ex. 1003 ¶ 258). Petitioner contends that a
POSITA would have been motivated to add this functionality to allow the
smart phone OCU operator to adjust the target if the robot took an undesired
heading. Pet. 83 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 258).
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

58
Petitioner also contends that Phillips motivates the combination by
disclosing a robot heading arrow on the right side of Figure 11, as well as
heading arrows of prior mission movements in Figure 12. Pet. 83–84 (citing
Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 125–126; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 259–260).
Petitioner contends that a POSITA would have had a reasonable
expectation of success because Nielsen demonstrates the feasibility of
adding a heading arrow to the display, and teaches a similar control
mechanism as Lenser’s waypoints behavior. Pet. 85 (citing Ex. 1010,
40:22–43, Fig. 21; Ex. 1003 ¶ 261).
Petitioner further contends that claim 11 recites no more than a
combination of prior art elements (Nielsen’s vector arrow and Lenser’s
target heading) according to known methods (displaying the arrow relative
to the robot as shown in Nielsen) to yield predictable results (a graphical
display of the robot’s heading relative to a navigation target). Pet. 86.
2. Patent Owner Arguments
Patent Owner argues for patentability of claim 11 on the basis that
Lenser does not disclose the use of one or more arrows indicating a heading
such that the unmanned vehicle can reach a specified location. PO Resp. 40.
Patent Owner’s argument attacks Lenser individually and does not properly
consider its combination with the other references, particularly Nielsen. See
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Patent Owner also attacks the USF References
individually and does not address what a POSITA would have understood
from the combination. PO Resp. 41.
Patent Owner further argues that the ’230 Patent requires continuous
display of its heading arrow, whereas Nielsen’s vector is only present upon
change of the target location. PO Resp. 43–44 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:31–34).
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

59
As discussed in Section II.C.2, we determine this argument is not supported
by the ’230 Patent, which states that the arrow appears on the screen when
the operator taps the object’s location. Thus, claim 11 does not require that
the arrow is continuously displayed.
In addition, Patent Owner argues that the ’230 Patent indicates the
heading for a specified location to which the unmanned vehicle is to move in
the future, and not merely indicating the direction in which the unmanned
vehicle currently happens to be facing or traveling towards. PO Resp. 44.
We considered this argument in Section II.C.2 and do not agree with it. Just
like the ’230 Patent, Nielsen’s vector 1310 indicates the direction of travel to
the specified location 1330B. Ex. 1010, 40:38–43, Fig. 21. Patent Owner’s
argument does not expose any deficiency in Petitioner’s evidence that the
combination teaches claim 11.
Patent Owner criticizes Phillips as disclosing arrows indicating
direction of travel or previous mission paths. PO Resp. 44–46. Petitioner
acknowledged this difference and combined Nielsen for its teaching of the
arrow indicating the direction of travel to a specified location.
Consequently, Patent Owner’s argument does not show any weakness in
Petitioner’s evidence that claim 11 is unpatentable.
Patent Owner argues generally that Petitioner has not shown that one
would have been motivated to combine the prior art references; that
Petitioner’s argument is formulaic; that Petitioner’s expert testimony adds
little to Petitioner’s argument; and that Petitioner offers no explanation for
why a POSITA would have found claim 11 “as a whole” obvious. PO Resp.
48. However, Patent Owner does not address with sufficient particularity
any flaw in Petitioner’s stated reasons to combine the prior art references,
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

60
which reasons we find persuasive as explained above. Consequently, Patent
Owner’s arguments do not overcome Petitioner’s showing that claim 11 is
unpatentable.
3. Conclusion for Ground 4
We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments for patentability of
claim 11 but determine that they do not outweigh Petitioner’s evidence of
unpatentability.
We determine that Petitioner shows by preponderance of the evidence
that claim 11 is unpatentable for the reasons summarized above and stated in
the Petition. Petitioner makes a sufficient showing that each limitation of
claim 11 is taught or suggested by the combination of the Lenser, the USF
References, Phillips, and Nielsen, and that a person of ordinary skill in the
art had reason to combine the references, with a reasonable expectation of
success in arriving at the method of claim 11.
H. Ground 5: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 Based on
Lenser, USF References, and Miyazawa
1. Claim 1
Petitioner contends that claim 1 includes an identical preamble and
common limitations A–E as recited in claim 14 as limitations 14P, 14A–14E
respectively. Pet. 86. Petitioner notes that claim 1 further recites the
following “RF transmitter” limitations:
[1F] transmitting, by the smart phone, an initiation request via a
cable to a rf transmitter;
[1G] transmitting, by the rf transmitter, the initiation request to
the unmanned vehicle;
[1H] receiving, by the rf transmitter, a message from the
unmanned vehicle; and
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

61
[1I] transmitting, by the rf transmitter, the message from the
unmanned vehicle to the smart phone via the cable to the smart
phone.
Id. Petitioner contends the combination of Lenser, USF References, and
Miyazawa discloses these “rf transmitter” limitations. Pet. 87, 90–91 (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 83–115, 273–278).
Petitioner contends that a POSITA would have been motivated to
combine Miyazawa’s RF transmitter with the iPhone OCU of the Lenser and
the USF References. Pet. 88 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 268–272). Petitioner
contends that Lenser discloses an OCU simultaneously receiving high-rate
video and communicating low-rate control signals to a UGV, and notes that
video signals can burden wireless systems by using excessive bandwidth.
Pet. 88 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 111–118; Ex. 1003 ¶ 268). Petitioner contends
that a POSITA would have known that using the same wireless
communication system for video and control signals is risky, particularly in
dangerous missions encountered by Lenser’s UGV, and could force
unexpected delays in control signals, making it difficult to remotely control
the vehicle. Id. Petitioner contends that Lenser’s solution of turning off the
video signal “does not address situations where both the video signal and a
fast, reliable control signal are necessary to the mission.” Pet. 88–89.
Petitioner contends a POSITA therefore would have looked to the prior art
for a solution to allow fast, reliable control signaling without having to
disable video. Pet. 89.
Petitioner contends that a POSITA would have been motivated to
combine Miyazawa with the iPhone OCU because the resulting system
separates the wireless communication for the low-rate vehicle control signals
from the high-rate video signals, as taught by Miyazawa, such that the video
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

62
signal would not affect the reliability or latency of the vehicle control signal.
Pet. 89 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 269). Petitioner contends a POSITA would have
recognized further benefits in the combination because of the varied terrain
scenarios contemplated by Lenser, because connecting the OCU to an RF
transmitter via a cable expands the available communication options outside
of those built-in to the OCU, and because low throughput protocols consume
less energy than sending the same control signals over a network capable of
handling high-rate video signals. Pet. 89 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 269).
Petitioner contends a POSITA would have had a reasonable
expectation of success in combining Miyazawa with Lenser and the USF
References. Pet. 89 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 269). Petitioner contends that
Miyazawa, like Lenser, discloses remote control of an unmanned vehicle
using a mobile device (Pet. 89–90 (citing Ex. 1012, code (57))); uses
wireless communication to control the vehicle and provides a video feed
from the vehicle to the mobile device (Pet. 90 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 89, 95,
111–117, Figs. 13, 16; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 29, 35, 38, 41, Fig. 1)); and uses
preexisting technologies for low-rate wireless communications (Pet. 90
(citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 29; Ex. 1003 ¶ 270). Petitioner further asserts that a
POSITA would have known that cables could be connected to iPhones for
communication with other devices (Pet. 90 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 270)).
Petitioner further contends that the combination results from
application of a known technique (Miyazawa’s separate
transmitters/receivers for control signals and video signals) to a known
device (the Lenser/USF OCU) ready for improvement to yield the
predictable result of a system with a video signal that does not impede the
vehicle control signal. Pet. 90 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 271).
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

63
Turning to the RF transmitter limitations, Petitioner notes that claim 1
recites “transmitting, by the smart phone, an initiation request via a cable to
a rf transmitter” [1F]. Pet. 91. Petitioner contends Miyazawa’s mobile
phone 10 is connected to controller 30 by a cable. Pet. 92 (citing Ex. 1012
¶ 38). Petitioner contends Miyazawa’s controller 30 is an RF transmitter
because it includes transmitting means that transmits short wave signals,
signals for a radio controlled car, keyless entry, or the like. Id. (citing
Ex. 1012 ¶ 29, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 281). Petitioner asserts that Miyazawa’s
mobile phone transmits control signals, such as instructions to move the
remote vehicle, to the RF transmitter via a cable. Id. (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 41;
Ex. 1003 ¶ 282). Petitioner contends that because Miyazawa’s cable
connects the phone to the controller via connection I/F 17, this instruction
signal is “transmitted . . . via a cable to an RF transmitter.” Id. (citing
Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 37–38; Ex. 1003 ¶ 282) (alterations in original).
Petitioner contends that the initiation request may be part of the
establishment of wireless communications, or it may be considered an
initiation request because it initiates actions by the UGV. Pet. 91–93 (citing
Ex. 1005 ¶ 99; Ex. 1007; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 279–280, 282–283). As examples of
initiating actions, Petitioner notes Miyazawa’s phone transmits a signal to
start or stop recording by the imaging means, or to instruct the imaging
means to start transmission of a video signal. Pet. 93 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 35,
42, 44; Ex. 1003 ¶ 283). The ’230 Patent may be read to imply that the
initiation request is part of establishing communications, but claim 1 recites
that the establishing communication and RF transmitter steps are not the
same step. See Ex. 1001, 4:59–5:7. Regardless of whether the initiation
request is part of or separate from the establishing communication step,
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

64
Petitioner contends the combination of Lenser, the USF References, and
Miyazawa disclose limitation 1F of claim 1. Pet. 93 (citing Ex. 1003
¶¶ 279–284).
Petitioner notes that claim 1 further recites “transmitting, by the rf
transmitter, the initiation request to the unmanned vehicle” [1G]. Pet. 93.
As discussed, Petitioner contends that Miyazawa’s controller is an RF
transmitter that establishes a wireless communication link and
communicates requests to initiate actions by the UGV. Pet. 93–94 (citing
Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 41–42; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 282–283, 285–286).
Petitioner notes that claim 1 further recites “receiving, by the rf
transmitter, a message from the unmanned vehicle” [1H]. Pet. 94.
Petitioner notes that Lenser discloses the receipt of “message[s] from the
unmanned vehicle” including “operation complete” and “robot is stuck.” Id.
(Ex. 1005 ¶ 90; Ex. 1003 ¶ 287). Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA
would have been motivated to communicate these messages from the UGV
to the OCU using the low-rate, high-reliability control path between the RF
transmitter and the UGV because the messages provide control-related
feedback to the OCU and do not require high data rates associated with
video signals.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 287). Petitioner further contends that
a POSITA would have been motivated to implement a two-way link because
Miyazawa does not limit the control path to one-way links, and two-way
links were common and well-known. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 288). Petitioner
further notes that Miyazawa discloses embodiments that communicate the
video signal over the same link as the control signal, which would require a
two-way link. Id. (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 69, Fig. 5). Petitioner contends that,
when sent from the UGV on the control link of the combined control system,
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

65
Lenser’s feedback messages would be “receiv[ed] by the rf transmitter.”
Pet. 94–95 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 288). Petitioner contends that the combination
of Lenser, the USF References, and Miyazawa thus discloses “receiving, by
the rf transmitter, a message from the unmanned vehicle” [1H]. Pet. 95
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 287–289).
Claim 1 further recites “transmitting, by the rf transmitter, the
message from the unmanned vehicle to the smart phone via the cable to the
smart phone” [1I]. Ex. 1001, 10:5–7. Petitioner contends that it established
that a POSITA would have been motivated to communicate Lenser’s
feedback messages from the remote vehicle to an RF transmitter such as
Miyazawa’s controller 30. Pet. 95 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 287–289). Petitioner
contends that a POSITA similarly would have been motivated to transmit
these feedback messages from the RF transmitter to the OCU via the cable to
complete communication of the message from the remote vehicle to the
OCU. Pet. 95 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 290). Petitioner concludes that the
combination of Lenser, the USF References, and Miyazawa discloses
limitation 1I.
2. Claim 3
Petitioner contends Lenser discloses that the OCU can communicate
with the remote vehicle through a wireless LAN. Pet. 96 (citing Ex. 1005
¶ 287, Fig. 13). Petitioner contends the combination of Lenser, the USF
References, and Miyazawa therefore discloses “establishing communication
with the unmanned vehicle via a wireless local area network” as recited in
claim 3. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 292–294).
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

66
3. Claim 4
Petitioner contends the combination of Lenser, USF References, and
Miyazawa discloses “providing a joystick for governing the acceleration,
deceleration, and direction of travel of the unmanned vehicle” as recited in
claim 4. Pet. 96 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 297–299). Referring to Lenser’s
Figure 16, Petitioner contends an operator can manipulate the y-axis on the
screen to control the speed of the robot and the x-axis to control the amount
of turning relative to translation, and that these actions amount to “governing
the acceleration, deceleration, and direction of travel of the unmanned
vehicle.” Pet. 96–97 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 116; Ex. 1003 ¶ 297).
Petitioner further contends Lenser’s touchscreen control in Figure 16
(lower right) is similar to the ’230 Patent’s software joystick in Figure 4A
(lower left). Pet. 97 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:51; Ex. 1005 ¶ 116; Ex. 1003 ¶ 297).
Petitioner notes that Lenser also discloses a physical joystick (Fig. 9) that
could be used with its OCU. Id. Petitioner contends that a POSITA would
have been motivated to provide a physical joystick as a peripheral with the
iPhone OCU to provide more precise control of vehicle movement. Id. at 98
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 298). Petitioner contends that the combination renders
claim 4 obvious. Pet. 99.
4. Claim 6
Petitioner contends that the combination of Lenser, USF References,
and Miyazawa discloses “providing a control to set a maximum speed of the
unmanned vehicle” as recited in claim 6. Pet. 99 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 300–
301). Specifically, Petitioner contends that Lenser’s Figure 16 shows a
selection box to select a maximum translation speed of the remote vehicle.
Pet. 99–100 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 116).
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

67
5. Conclusion for Ground 5
Patent Owner presents no arguments for patentability specific to
claims 1, 3, 4, and 6. See generally PO Resp.; Sur-Reply.
We determine that Petitioner shows by preponderance of the evidence
that claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 are unpatentable for the reasons summarized above
and stated in the Petition. Petitioner makes a sufficient showing that each
limitation of these claims is taught or suggested by the combination of the
Lenser, the USF References, and Miyazawa, and that a person of ordinary
skill in the art had reason to combine the references, with a reasonable
expectation of success in arriving at methods recited in these claims.
I. Ground 6: Asserted Obviousness of Claim 2 based on Lenser, USF
References, Miyazawa, and Jamieson
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites “receiving, by the smart
phone, information to direct the unmanned vehicle [2A]; converting, by the
smart phone, the information into a protocol recognizable by the unmanned
vehicle [2B]; and transmitting, by the smart phone, the converted
information to the unmanned vehicle [2C].” Ex. 1001, 10:8–15 (emphasis
added). Petitioner notes that the subject matter of claim 2 is substantially the
same as that of claim 16. Pet. 101. Petitioner contends that Lenser’s Figure
16 (bottom right) can be manipulated by the operator to control the speed
and turning of the remote vehicle, and that when the operator manipulates
the controls, the iPhone OCU of the combination “receiv[es] . . . information
to direct the unmanned vehicle.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 303) (alterations in
original).
Petitioner further notes that Jamieson receives a control event
generated by user interactivity with a user interface device such as a joystick
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

68
constituting “information to direct the unmanned vehicle” received by the
smart phone OCU in the combined system. Pet. 102 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 48;
Fig. 3; Ex. 1003 ¶ 304). Petitioner contends the combination therefore
discloses “receiving, by the smart phone, information to direct the
unmanned vehicle” [2A]. Pet. 102–103 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 303–304).
Petitioner further notes that Jamieson’s control event is converted into
a robot-specific network packet and transmitted to the robot. Pet. 103 (citing
Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 42, 51–52, Fig. 3; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 304–307). Petitioner thus
contends that the combination discloses “converting, by the smart phone, the
information into a protocol recognizable by the unmanned vehicle” [2B] and
“transmitting, by the smart phone, the converted information to the
unmanned vehicle” [2C]. Pet. 104 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 305–307).
Petitioner contends that, as noted in Ground 2 (see Section II.E),
Lenser’s controlling heterogeneous unmanned vehicles with different
capabilities would have motivated a POSITA to look to the prior art for
teachings relating to control of various unmanned vehicles within a single
OCU. Pet. 104 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 99; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 194–196, 310). Petitioner
contends that a POSITA would have combined Jamieson with Lenser, the
USF References, and Miyazawa for the same reasons as discussed in Ground
2. Pet. 104 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 310, 193–197).
Patent Owner presents no arguments for patentability specific to
claim 2. See generally PO Resp.; Sur-Reply.
We determine that Petitioner shows by preponderance of the evidence
that claim 2 is unpatentable for the reasons summarized above and stated in
the Petition. Petitioner makes a sufficient showing that each limitation of
these claims is taught or suggested by the combination of the Lenser, the
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

69
USF References, Miyazawa, and Jamieson, and that a person of ordinary
skill in the art had reason to combine the references, with a reasonable
expectation of success in arriving at the claimed method.
J. Ground 7: Asserted Obviousness of Claim 5 based on Lenser, USF
References, Miyazawa, and Phillips
Petitioner asserts that the combination of Lenser, USF References,
Miyazawa, and Phillips discloses “providing a controller to govern
movement of one or more robot arms of the unmanned ground vehicle” as
recited in claim 5. Pet. 104 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 310–317). Petitioner notes
that Phillips discloses a UGV having controllable arms, and that an operator
controls the arms by sending drive commands to the mobile robot. Id.
(citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 160, 181). Petitioner contends Phillips’s Figure 20
shows upper and lower robot arms whose movements are governed by a
controller. Pet. 105 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 160; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 314–316).
Petitioner contends a POSITA would have been motivated to combine
Lenser, USF References, Miyazawa, and Phillips to add a robot arm to the
unmanned vehicle and provide control of the robot arm on the OCU.
Pet. 105 (Ex. 1003 ¶ 313). Petitioner further contends a POSITA would
have been motivated to make this combination to enhance the functionality
of Lenser’s robot, allowing it to grasp or manipulate objects in the mobile
robot’s environment. Pet. 105–106 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 159–160, 181–182;
Ex. 1003 ¶ 313).
Patent Owner presents no arguments for patentability specific to
claim 5. See generally PO Resp.; Sur-Reply.
We determine that Petitioner shows by preponderance of the evidence
that claim 5 is unpatentable for the reasons summarized above and stated in
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

70
the Petition. Petitioner makes a sufficient showing that each limitation of
the claim is taught or suggested by the combination of the Lenser, the USF
References, Miyazawa, and Phillips, and that a person of ordinary skill in the
art had reason to combine the references, with a reasonable expectation of
success in arriving at methods recited in this claim.
III. CONCLUSION13
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude:

13 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claims
in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the issuance of this
decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice
Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or
Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding. See 84 Fed. Reg.
16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner chooses to file a reissue application
or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we remind Patent
Owner of its continuing obligation to notify the Board of any such related
matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2).
Claims
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
Claims
Shown
Unpatentable
Claims
Not shown
Unpatentable
14, 15,
16, 17
103 Lenser,
USF References
14, 15, 16, 17
16 103 Lenser,
USF References,
Jamieson
16
7–10, 12,
13
103 Lenser,
USF References,
Phillips
7–10, 12, 13
11 103 Lenser,
USF References,
Phillips, Nielsen
11
1, 3, 4, 6 103 Lenser,
USF References,
Miyazawa
1, 3, 4, 6
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

71

IV. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that claims 1–18 of the ’230 Patent are unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

2 103 Lenser,
USF References,
Miyazawa,
Jamieson
2
5 103 Lenser,
USF References,
Miyazawa, Phillips
5
Overall
Outcome
1–18
IPR2020-00345
Patent 8,918,230 B2

72
For PETITIONER:
Lori Gordon
Steven Peters
KING & SPALDING LLP
Lgordon-ptab@kslaw.com
speters@kslaw.com

Yin Cheung
DJI TECHNOLOGY, INC.
yin.cheung@dji.com

For PATENT OWNER:
Jonathan Szarzynski
SZARZINSKY PLLC
jon@patentdallas.com