You are on page 1of 72

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Shenzhen Zhiyi Technology Co., Ltd.,


Petitioner

v.

iRobot Corporation,
Patent Owner.

Patent No. 8,600,553 to Svendsen et al.

IPR Case No. IPR2017-02133

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 1-2,


4, 8, 11-12, 21-22, AND 25 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,600,553
UNDER 35 U.S.C. 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. 42.100 ET
SEQ.
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF EXHIBITS ...........................................................................................iv


I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(1) FOR
INTER PARTES REVIEW..............................................................................1
A. Real Party in Interest Under 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(1) ............................1
B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(2) ....................................1
C. Lead and Backup Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3) and
Service Information under 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(4)............................... 2
II. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.15 ........................................3
III. CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT UNDER 37 C.F.R.
42.24(D) ..........................................................................................................3
IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.104 ...........................3
A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. 42.104(a) ............................3
B. Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b) and
Relief Requested...................................................................................3
V. OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................5
A. Overview of the 553 Patent.................................................................5
B. Background of the 553 Patent .............................................................7
1. Priority Date ...............................................................................7
2. Prosecution of the 553 Patent ...................................................7
C. The Challenged Claims ......................................................................11
D. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) ...............................11
E. Claim Construction ............................................................................12
F. Overview of the Prior Art...................................................................12
1. Overview of Suckmaster Article (Ex. 1004-Article) ............... 12
2. Overview of Suckmaster Source Code (Ex. 1005-Code) ........ 14
3. Overview of Jones-490 (Ex. 1009-Jones) ................................20
4. Overview of Park-707 (Ex. 1010-Park) ...................................22
VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION .....................................................23

ii
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

A. Ground 1: Anticipation Based on Suckmaster Article (including


incorporated and published Suckmaster Code) Ground 2:
Obviousness Based on Suckmaster Article and Suckmaster
Code ....................................................................................................23
1. The scope and content of the prior art .....................................23
2. Rationale for Combining Suckmaster Article and
Suckmaster Code......................................................................24
3. Challenged Claims for Grounds 1 and 2 ..................................25
B. Ground 3: Obviousness Based on Suckmaster Article (including
incorporated and published Suckmaster Code) and Jones-490.......... 50
1. The scope and content of the prior art .....................................50
2. Rationale for Combining Suckmaster Article (including
incorporated and published Suckmaster Code) and Jones-
490 ............................................................................................51
3. Challenged Claims for Ground 3 .............................................52
C. Ground 4 - Obviousness Based on Suckmaster Article
(including incorporated and published Suckmaster Code),
Jones-490, and Park-707 ....................................................................65
1. The scope and content of the prior art .....................................65
2. Rationale for Combining Suckmaster Article (including
incorporated and published Suckmaster Code), Jones-
490, and Park-707 ....................................................................65
3. Challenged Claim for Ground 4...............................................66
VII. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................67
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...............................................................................68

iii
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

TABLE OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit Description
1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,600,553 (553 patent)

1002 File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,600,533

1003 Expert Declaration of Dr. C. Douglass Locke, Ph.D.

Dales Homemade Robots - Suckmaster II Vacuum Robot


1004
(Suckmaster Article)

1005 Suckmaster2.c (Suckmaster Source Code)

1006 Declaration of Dale Heatherington

Archived Version of Suckmaster Article, achived on June 20,


2002, retrieved from
1007
https://web.archive.org/web/20020620103553/http://www.wa4dsy
.net/robot/suckmaster2/index.html

1008 **Intentionally Left Blank**

1009 U.S. Patent No. 6,809,490 to Jones et al. (Jones-490)

1010 U.S. PG Pub. No. 2005/0192707 to Park et al. (Park-707)

1011 Joint Claim Construction Statement, In re Certain Robotic


Vacuum Cleaning Devices And Components Thereof Such As
Spare Parts, Investigation No. 337-TA-1057

iv
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

Shenzhen Zhiyi Technology Co., Ltd. (Petitioner) hereby seeks inter

partes review of Claims 12, 4, 8, 1112, 2122, and 25 (the Challenged

Claims) of U.S. Patent No. 8,600,553 (Ex. 1001 (the 553 patent)). The

Challenged Claims of the 553 patent do not claim anything new; they claim

previously-known hardware and navigation control strategies as applied to an

autonomous robot, such as a vacuum cleaner. The Challenged Claims in the patent

should therefore be canceled for the reasons described in this Petition.

I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(1) FOR INTER


PARTES REVIEW

A. Real Party in Interest Under 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(1)


The real parties-in-interest in this Petition are: Shenzhen Zhiyi Technology

Co. Ltd. d/b/a iLife.

B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(2)


There is a pending proceeding before the U.S. International Trade

Commission that involves the Challenged Claims of the 553 patent: In re Certain

Robotic Vacuum Cleaning Devices And Components Thereof Such As Spare Parts,

Investigation No. 337-TA-1057 (the ITC Investigation).

There is also a federal district court litigation filed by iRobot Corporation

against Petitioner that also involves the Challenged Claims of the 553 patent:

iRobot Corp. v. Shenzhen Zhiyi Technology Co. Ltd. d/b/a iLife, Case No. 1:17-cv-

10652 (D. Mass.) (the District Court Case).

1
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

C. Lead and Backup Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3) and


Service Information under 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(4)
Petitioner designates the following lead and backup counsel:

Lead Patrick J. McCarthy


Counsel: Registration No. 62,762
mccarthyp@gtlaw.com

Greenberg Traurig LLP


2101 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20037

Phone: (202) 533-2386


Fax: (202) 331-3101
Backup Cameron M. Nelson
Counsel: Registration No. 55,486
nelsonc@gtlaw.com

Greenberg Traurig LLP


77 W. Wacker Dr.
Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: 312-456-8400
Fax: 312-456-8435

Service on Petitioner may be made by mail or hand delivery to: Greenberg

Traurig, LLP, 2101 L Street N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20037.

Petitioner also consents to electronic service by emailing counsel of record at

mccarthyp@gtlaw.com, nelsonc@gtlaw.com, and

ShenzhenZhiyiITCAll@gtlaw.com.

2
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

II. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.15


Petitioner authorizes the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to charge Deposit

Account No. 50-2638 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. 42.15(a) for this Petition and

further authorizes any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.

III. CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.24(D)


Petitioner certifies that the word count in this Petition is 11,689 words, as

counted by the word-processing program (Microsoft Word 2010) used to generate

this Petition, where such word count excludes the table of contents, table of

authorities, mandatory notices, certificate of service, appendix of exhibits, and this

certificate of word count. This Petition is in compliance with the 14,000 word

limit set in 37 C.F.R. 42.24(a)(1)(i).

IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.104

A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. 42.104(a)


Petitioner certifies that the 553 patent is available for inter partes review,

and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review

on the grounds identified in the Petition.

B. Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b) and Relief


Requested
Petitioner respectfully requests that the following Challenged Claims of the

553 patent (Ex. 1001) be cancelled based on the following grounds of

unpatentability:

3
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

Ground of
553 Patent Claim(s) Basis for Rejection
Unpatentability

Anticipation based on Suckmaster


Ground 1 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, 25
Publication and incorporated
published Source Code

Obviousness Based on Suckmaster


Ground 2 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, 25
Publication and incorporated
published Source Code

Obviousness based on Suckmaster


Ground 3 2, 4, 12, 21, 22
Publication, incorporated published
Source Code, and Jones-490

Obviousness based on Suckmaster


Ground 4 22 Publication, incorporated published
Source Code, Jones-490, and Park-
707

4
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

V. OVERVIEW

A. Overview of the 553 Patent

The 553 patent relates to movement of an autonomous robot. (Ex. 1001 at

Abstract, 1:17.) The 553 patent describes control mechanisms for an autonomous

robot vacuums navigation speed and direction in the presence of obstacles. (Id. at

34-38.) The 553 patent discloses certain hardware elements contributing to the

autonomous movement of the robot, including a drive system 104 receiving

commands from a controller 108 to drive wheels 112 and 114. (Id. at FIGS. 2, 3;

6:28-61.)

The hardware disclosed in the 553 patent further includes sensors, including

infrared proximity sensors 134 that may sense a potential obstacle in front of the

robot and kinetic bump sensors 132 that may be responsive to a collision. (Id.

at Abstract; FIGS. 8B, 10; 8:35-45.)

In operation, the 553 patent explains that the robot autonomously traverses

an area at a full clean speed, but [u]pon sensing a proximity of [an] object

forward of the robot, the robot reduces the cleaning speed to a reduced cleaning

speed while continuing towards the object. (Id. at Abstract (emphasis added).)

The 553 patent states that this slowing down makes collisions less noisy, and less

likely to mar surfaces. (Id. at 9:1-4.) Once a collision is sensed by the kinetic

bump sensor, the robot autonomously turns. (Id. at 7:6-11.) As shown in the

5
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

highlighted 553 flow chart below, the robot will continue at a reduced speed for a

preset time or distance and then ramp back up to full cleaning speed if no collision

is detected by the kinetic bump sensor. (Id. at FIG. 9B.)

6
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

The 553 patent bases its direction and speed control scheme on the motion

control behavior of two patents: U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,809,490 and 6,781,338. (Id. at

8:49-53.) U.S. Pat. No. 6,809,490 has the same assignee as the 553 patent and is

cited in this Petition.

B. Background of the 553 Patent

1. Priority Date
The 553 patent issued from an application filed on June 5, 2007, and is a

continuation of the application that matured into U.S. Patent No. 7,441,298. (Ex.

1001, Cover Page.) The 553 patent further claims priority to provisional

application no. 60/741,442, which was filed on December 2, 2005. (Id.) Thus, the

earliest possible priority date for the Challenged Claims is December 2, 2005. For

purposes of this Petition only, Petitioner assumes that the Challenged Claims are

entitled to the benefit of the provisional filing date.

2. Prosecution of the 553 Patent

The 553 patent issued from U.S. application ser. no. 11/758,289 (the 289

application), filed on June 5, 2007. (Ex. 1002 at 172.) At filing, the 289

application included 23 claims, including independent claims 1 and 10.

Independent claim 1, as-filed, is reproduced below:

1. An autonomous coverage robot comprising:

a drive system configured to maneuver the robot according to a


heading setting and a speed setting;

7
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

a bump sensor responsive to a collision of the robot with an


obstacle in a forward direction; and

a proximity sensor responsive to a potential obstacle forward of the


robot;

wherein the drive system is configured to reduce the speed setting


in response to a signal from the proximity sensor indicating
detection of a potential obstacle, while continuing to advance
the robot according to the heading setting; and

wherein the drive system is configured to alter the heading setting


in response to a signal received from the bump sensor
indicating contact with an obstacle.

(Id. at 37.)

Claim 10 was a method claim that followed claim 1 closely. (Id. at 38.)

On March 11, 2010, the USPTO issued a first Office Action that rejected

claims 1-7 and 10-20 as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,809,490 to Jones et al.

(Jones-490), rejected claims 8-9 and 23 as obvious based on Jones-490 in view

of WO 01/06904, and rejected claims 21-22 as obvious over Jones-490 in view of

U.S. PG Pub. No. 2005/0192707 to Park et al. (Park-707). (Id. at 146154.)

In response, the Applicant did not amend any claims, but did add new claim

24, reproduced below:

24. (New) The robot of claim 1 wherein the drive system is


configured to increase the speed setting if the drive system does not

8
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

receive a signal from the bump sensor within an elapsed time after the
speed setting is reduced.

(Id. at 193.)

With respect to claim 1, the Applicant argued that Jones[-490] does not

describe slowing down the robot in response to a proximity sensor responsive to a

potential obstacle forward of the robot. (Id. at 194.) As a result, according to the

Applicant, Jones[-490] did not describe ... a drive system configured to reduce

the speed setting in response to a signal from the proximity sensor..., as recited in

claim 1, or upon sensing a proximity of [an] object forward of the robot, the

robot reducing the cleaning speed to a reduced speed while continuing towards the

object until the robot detects contact with the object, as recited in claim 10. (Ex.

1002 at 19495.)

In a second Office Action, dated November 10, 2010, the Examiner

indicated that claim 24 included patentable subject matter (Id. at 250, 7), but

rejected all original claims. Specifically, the Examiner rejected claims 1-7 and 10-

17 as obvious over Jones-490 in view of US 2005/0165508 to Kanda et al.

(Kanda), rejected claims 18-20 as obvious over Jones-490 in view of Kanda and

U.S. Pat. No. 5,502,638 to Takenaka, rejected claims 8-9 and 23 as obvious over

Jones-490 in view of Kanda and WO 01/06904, and rejected claims 21 and 22 as

obvious over Jones-490 in view of Kanda and Park-707. (Id. at 243252.)

9
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

In response, the Applicant: (1) added new claim 25, which included all

recitations of allowable claim 24, including its base claim; and (2) amended claims

1 and 10 to include the crux of allowable claim 24 (i.e., to increase the speed

setting if the drive system does not receive a signal from the bump sensor). For

example, claim 1 was amended as follows:

1. An autonomous coverage robot comprising:

a drive system configured to maneuver the robot according to a


heading setting and a speed setting;

a bump sensor responsive to a collision of the robot with an


obstacle in a forward direction; and

a proximity sensor responsive to a potential obstacle forward of the


robot;

wherein the drive system is configured to reduce the speed setting


in response to a signal from the proximity sensor indicating
detection of a potential obstacle, while continuing to advance
the robot according to the heading setting; [[and]]

wherein the drive system is configured to increase the speed setting


if the drive system does not receive a subsequent signal
indicating the presence of an obstacle while continuing to
advance according to the heading setting and the reduced speed
setting; and

10
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

wherein the drive system is configured to alter the heading setting


in response to a signal received from the bump sensor
indicating contact with an obstacle.

(Id. at 279 (underlining in original).)

In other words, to overcome the prior art, the claims were amended to

require that when in the reduced speed operation, the robot increases the speed

setting if the drive system does not receive a signal from the bump sensor. After

the amendment, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance. (Id. at 297-98.)

Claim 10 was renumbered as issued claim 11. (Id. at 303.) The Notice of

Allowance did not contain a statement of reasons for allowance.

C. The Challenged Claims


Claims 1, 11, and 25 are the only independent claims of the 553 patent,

each of them is challenged in this Petition. Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 11-12, 21-22, and 25

constitute the Challenged Claims.

D. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA)


A POSITA in the field of the 553 patent at the time of the earliest possible

priority date would have had at least an undergraduate degree in computer science

or electrical engineering, or equivalent experience and, in addition, two years of

experience in the design and implementation of embedded computer devices

managing sensors and controlling motors. (Ex. 1003, Expert Declaration of Dr. C.

Douglass Locke, Ph.D. (hereinafter Ex. 1003-Locke) at 11-17.)

11
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

E. Claim Construction
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b), the claims in inter partes review are

given the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. For

purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner requests that all terms of the Challenged

Claims be given their plain meaning, except nor-linear (a term in claim 21),

which Petitioner requests be interpreted as non-linear based on a typographical

error. The parties to the ITC investigation have agreed that nor-linear means

non-linear. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1011 is the parties joint claim

construction chart from the ITC investigation. Petitioner is not aware of any

dispute in the ITC investigation or other litigation that meaningfully affects the

analysis in this petition which is provided under the broadest reasonable

interpretation of the claims.

F. Overview of the Prior Art

1. Overview of Suckmaster Article (Ex. 1004-Article)

Dales Homemade Robots Suckmaster II Vacuum Robot (Ex. 1004;

hereinafter Suckmaster Article in text, Ex. 1004-Article in citations) is an

article authored by Dale Heatherington that was available at

http://www.wa4dsy.net/robot/suckmaster2/index.html, a web page that was

available to the public without any password, fee, or other restriction, as early as

February 2002. (Ex. 1006, Declaration of Dale Heatherington (hereinafter Ex.

1006-Heatherington in citations) at pp. 1-3.) This web page was archived by

12
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

www.archive.org no later than June 20, 2002, demonstrating both that the

Suckmaster Article predates the 553 priority date by more than a year and that the

website was indexed by search engines. (Id. at pp. 1-3; Ex. 1007, Archived

Version of Suckmaster Article, archived on June 20, 2002.) The Suckmaster

Article is prior art to the 553 patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).

The Suckmaster Article discloses a vacuum robot designed to compete in

the annual AHRC Robot Rally Vacuum contest, pictured below:

(Ex. 1004-Article at 1.) The robot includes sonar and a sonar CPU, two front

bump switches, two ground speed sensors, and an IR transmitter and two IR

receivers for beacon tracking. (Id. at 2.) The sonar is used to detect the presence

of objects, and the bump switches are used to detect collisions. (Id. at 4.)

13
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

The Suckmaster Article further discloses a main CPU and speed control

software. (Id. at 2.) Under control of the CPU and speed control software, the

robot is disclosed as slowing down when proximity sensors detect nearby objects

in the robots path. (Id. at 4.) Crucially, unlike what the Examiner found with

respect to the prior art of record during prosecution, the Suckmaster Article also

discloses speeding up when such objects are no longer detected. (Id. at 4.) Also

disclosed is turning the robot when its bump sensor(s) signal a collision. (Id. at 4.)

The Suckmaster Article was not cited during the prosecution of the 553

patent and is not listed in the References Cited section of the 553 patent.

The web page of the Suckmaster Article incorporated the source code for the

described Suckmaster robot and further detailed the processor functionality of the

Suckmaster. A user reading the online posting was directed to an embedded link

that uploaded the source code to the user. (Ex. 1006-Heatherington at pp. 1-3.)

This source code is described next.

2. Overview of Suckmaster Source Code (Ex. 1005-Code)


suckmaster2.c (Ex. 1005; hereinafter Suckmaster Code in text, Ex.

1005-Code in citations) is source code for the robot described in the Suckmaster

Article and that was linked from the Suckmaster Article web page as early as

February 2002. (Ex. 1006-Heatherington at pp. 1-3.) The Suckmaster Code was

archived by www.archive.org as early as February 16, 2002 and was available to

14
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

the public without any password, fee, or other restriction. (Id.) The Suckmaster

Code is prior art to the 553 patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).

The Suckmaster Code discloses several operational modes, including a

perimeter mode and a random mode. (Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1851-1906

(vacuum_perimeter and vacuum_random called in main program loop), lines 1513-

1526 (vacuum_perimeter function), lines 1545-1660 (vacuum_random function).)

In the perimeter mode, the robot hugs the left wall:

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1513-1526; Ex. 1003-Locke at 34.)

In the random mode, the robot detects the proximity of objects and,

depending on the proximity of those objects, proceeds straight ahead at one of

three speeds, FWD5, FWD3, or FWD2:

15
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1545-1569; Ex. 1003-Locke at 35.)

Random mode is random because the robot randomly turns left or right

every twenty seconds in that mode:

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1572-1588; Ex. 1003-Locke at 35.)

16
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

The Suckmaster Code further includes an avoid_object routine, which

instructs the robot how to behave when the bump switch indicates contact with an

obstacle. Four behaviors are disclosed, discussed in turn below. Each of those

behaviors initiates one or more maneuvers. In the Suckmaster Code, each

maneuver is initiated by a call to the start_maneuver routine, which sets

variables that are used in the maneuver routine that executes the maneuvers. The

start_maneuver routine sets a maneuver timer m_timer (for timing the length of a

maneuver), a yaw limit yaw_limit (an upper limit on how much the robot can turn

in a maneuver), a forward clearance limit ahead_limit (for knowing the distance to

the next sensed object), and other variables:

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1314-1339; Ex. 1003-Locke at 37.)

17
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

The respective speeds of the two wheels of the robot are commanded

separately in the Suckmaster Code. Several different sets of speed commands

(where a set includes a right wheel speed and a left wheel speed) may exist

simultaneously within the execution of the Suckmaster Code. One speed-related

routine is the arbitrate routine, which decides which of these speeds to apply at any

given time. (Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1670-1704; Ex. 1003-Locke at 38-39.)

There are three bump sensor response behaviors. First, if the robot hits the

obstacle on its left side, an A_WALL_LEFT maneuver is initiated, during which

the right wheel is reversed to change directions. (Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1220-

1224; Ex. 1003-Locke at 40.)

Second, if the robot hits the obstacle on its right side, an A_WALL_RIGHT

behavior is initiated such that the left wheel reverses. (Ex. 1005-Code at lines

1226-1229; Ex. 1003-Locke at 40.)

Third, if the robot is in perimeter mode and the bump sensor detects contact

with an obstacle, an A_BACKAWAY maneuver is initiated. (Ex. 1005-Code at

lines 1453-1460; Ex. 1003-Locke at 40.)

In the A_BACKAWAY maneuver, while in perimeter mode, the robot backs

up for a short time, and then an A_SPIN_RIGHT maneuver is initiated if the

robots right side sonar does not indicate contact with an obstacle on the right side,

18
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

or an A_SPIN_LEFT maneuver if it does. (Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1128-1142; Ex.

1003-Locke at 40.)

In the A_SPIN_RIGHT maneuver, the robot drives its left wheel forward

and its right wheel in reverse until the right side of the robot contacts an obstacle or

until the timer expires. (Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1176-1193; Ex. 1003-Locke at

40.) Although the A_SPIN_RIGHT maneuver will also stop if a yaw limit is

reached, the A_BACKAWAY maneuver that initiates the A_SPIN_RIGHT

maneuver is itself initiated with a yaw limit of zero, and thus the portion of

A_SPIN_RIGHT highlighted below will not execute when initiated responsive to a

bump switch in perimeter mode:

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1176-1193 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003-Locke at 40.)

The A_SPIN_LEFT maneuver mirrors A_SPIN_RIGHT. (Ex. 1005-Code at

lines 1201-1216; Ex. 1003-Locke at 40.)

19
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

In addition to the above scenarios, A_BACKAWAY is also the default

behavior of the robot. In a default call, the A_BACKAWAY maneuver is initiated

for 900 milliseconds, with a yaw_limit of 5 (which the code notes is 30 degrees)

and an ahead_limit of 12 (which the code notes is 12 inches):

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1457-1460; Ex. 1003-Locke at 41.)

3. Overview of Jones-490 (Ex. 1009-Jones)

U.S. Patent No. 6,809,490 to Jones et. al (Ex. 1009; hereinafter Jones-490

in text and Ex. 1009-Jones in citations) issued on October 26, 2004 from an

application filed on June 12, 2002. Jones-490 claims priority to a provisional

application filed on June 12, 2001. Jones-490 is therefore prior art to the 553

patent under at least 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b), and (e). The applicant did not dispute

that Jones-490 is prior art during prosecution.

Jones-490, entitled Method and System for Multi-Mode Coverage for an

Autonomous Robot, discloses hardware and control strategies for an autonomous

robot to navigate in the presence of obstacles. (Ex. 1009-Jones at Cover, Abstract.)

20
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

A preferred embodiment of Jones-490 is a robotic sweeper. (Ex. 1009-Jones

at 5:39-41.)

Jones-490 discloses several operational modes (also referred to as

coverage behaviors) for an autonomous robot, including spot coverage,

wall/obstacle following, and room coverage. (Ex. 1009-Jones at 9:6-13:25.)

Each of these operational modes incorporates one or more behaviors, including

Spiral, Bounce, Straight Line, and Align. (Ex. 1009-Jones at FIGS. 6A-

6C (spiral) 10 (bounce); 9:19-10:21 (spiral), 10:4-8 (straight line), 12:30-52

(align), 12:62-13:22 (bounce).) Each operational mode also includes various

escape behaviors, including turn, edge, wheel drop, and slow. (Ex.

1009-Jones at 13:26-15:24.)

Jones-490 discloses various sensors, including bump sensors, cliff sensors,

and a wall-following sensor. (Ex. 1004-Jones at 5:41-58.) Jones-490 specifically

identifies the cliff sensors and the wall-following sensor as proximity sensors.

(Ex. 1009-Jones at 5:52-55.) Jones-490 further discloses that output of the sensors

triggers transitions within behaviors (e.g., changes in direction or speed) and

transitions between behaviors within an operational mode. (Ex. 1009-Jones at,

e.g., 10:58-11:19 (role of wall-following proximity sensor in wall-following

mode), 12:30-32 (In certain embodiments, when the WALL-FOLLOWING

21
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

behavior is active and there is a bump, the ALIGN behavior becomes active.),

15:48-52 (role of cliff detector proximity sensor in slow escape behavior).)

The 553 patent specifically references Jones-490 as disclosing [c]ontrol of

the direction and speed of the robot ... by motion control behaviors selected by an

arbiter according to the principles of behavior based robotics for coverage and

confinement. (Ex. 1001 at 8:49-56.)

4. Overview of Park-707 (Ex. 1010-Park)


U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0192707 to Park et al. (Ex. 1010;

hereinafter Park-707 in text and Ex. 1010-Park in citations) published on

September 1, 2005 from an application filed on January 6, 2005. Park-707 claims

priority to a Korean patent application filed on February 27, 2004. Park-707 is

therefore prior art to the 553 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (e).

Park-707, entitled Dust detection method and apparatus for cleaning robot,

discloses various features of a cleaning robot, including a specific cleaning speed

and a specific reduced speed of such a robot.

Park-707 was cited by the Examiner during the prosecution of the 553

patent for teaching, e.g., a cleaning speed of 300 mm/sec. (Ex. 1002 at 250.) The

Applicant did not contest the Examiners assertion.

22
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION

A. Ground 1: Anticipation Based on Suckmaster Article (including


incorporated and published Suckmaster Code)
Ground 2: Obviousness Based on Suckmaster Article and
Suckmaster Code

1. The scope and content of the prior art


The Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code are a single prior art

reference that anticipates the 553 patent (Ground 1). The Suckmaster Code and

Suckmaster Article are a single reference for anticipation purposes for two reasons.

First, the Suckmaster Article and Suckmaster Code are akin to two chapters from

the same book; they were posted on the same website, concern the same subject

matter, and a user would naturally flip from one to the other to understand the

full subject matter of the Suckmaster robot.

Second, the Suckmaster Code is incorporated by reference into the

Suckmaster Article:

If you want to see the schematics and source code click here to
download a zip file.

(Suckmaster Article at 1.) In the quote above, click here was hyperlinked
to the Suckmaster Code. (Id.; Ex. 1006-Heatherington at pp. 1-3.)

A POSITA would understand the Suckmaster Article to incorporate the

Suckmaster Code by reference, as a code-level implementation of the behavior

described in the Suckmaster Article. When one reference is incorporated by

reference into another, the two references are treated as a single reference for

23
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

anticipation purposes. See Husky Injection Molding v. Athena Automation Ltd.,

838 F. 3d 1236, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (The incorporation standard relies only on

the reasonably skilled artisan and his or her ability to deduce from language,

however imprecise, what a host document aims to incorporate.); see also

Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

If, however, the Board determines that the Suckmaster Article and the

Suckmaster Code are not a single reference for anticipation purposes, Petitioner

also presents the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code as an obviousness

combination (Ground 2).

Because Ground 1 and Ground 2 consist of the same substantive citations

from the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code, Petitioner presents both

grounds in this Section VI(A). Sub-section VI(A)(2) only applies to Ground 2.

2. Rationale for Combining Suckmaster Article and


Suckmaster Code
To the extent the Suckmaster Article and Suckmaster Code are found by the

Board to not be a single reference, it would have been obvious to combine them. It

is clear from the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code that the Suckmaster

Code was written specifically to run on the robot that is the subject of the

Suckmaster Article. The Suckmaster Article specifically references the

Suckmaster Code as the source code for the robot described in the Suckmaster

Article. (Ex. 1004-Article at 1.) Furthermore, the Suckmaster Code specifically

24
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

notes that it is the control program for the Suckmaster II vacuum robot, i.e., the

robot described in the Suckmaster Article. (Ex. 1004-Article at 1; Ex. 1005-Code

at lines 1-9.) Accordingly, a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of

success in combining the Suckmaster Code to control the robot described in the

Suckmaster Article, and would be motivated to make that combination. (Ex. 1003-

Locke at 46-47.)

3. Challenged Claims for Grounds 1 and 2


Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, and 25 are anticipated by Suckmaster (Ground 1). To

the extent that the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code are not considered

a single reference, claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, and 25 would have been obvious to a

POSITA based on the combination of the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster

Code (Ground 2).

CLAIM 1-PREAMBLE] An autonomous coverage robot comprising:


The Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code both disclose the

preamble of claim 1, whether or not it is considered limiting.

The Suckmaster Article discloses the Suckmaster II Vacuum Robot:

Suckmaster II Vacuum Robot ... This robot was designed to compete


in the annual AHRC Robot Rally Vacuum contest. The contest goal is
to pick up as much rice as possible in 4 minutes or less from an 8 foot
square simulated room.

(Ex. 1004-Article at 1.)

25
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

The Suckmaster Code discloses the Suckmaster II vacuum robot control

program:

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1-9 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003-Locke at 30-31.)

Thus, both the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose this

limitation.

[1a] a drive system configured to maneuver the robot according to a heading


setting and a speed setting;
Both the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose this

limitation.

The Suckmaster Article discloses a Main CPU, a Sonar CPU, two gear

motors, a motor driver chip, and speed control in the form of [s]oftware generated

Pulse Rate Modulaton with BackEMF feedback. (Ex. 1004-Article at 2.) Each of

these components is a part of the drive system of the claim. The Suckmaster

Article further discloses control strategies employed by the drive system, which

include heading settings and speed settings:

To avoid crashing into objects at high speed, six channel sonar is used
to detect the presence of objects and slow down when near. High

26
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

speed operation is resumed when the front sonars see no objects


closer than 20 inches.

When the robot touches something (bump switch detection) it will turn
in the direction with the greatest free space as indicated by the side
looking sonar. It will continue to turn until the forward sonar sees a
clear path. Sometimes a random additional rotation is added to help
randomize the cleaning pattern.

(Ex. 1004-Article at 4 (emphasis added).)

The Suckmaster Code further describes various control modes for executing

the above described operation, each of which includes a speed setting and a

heading setting. Specifically, the Suckmaster Code describes control modes

including vacuum_perimeter, vacuum_random, avoid_object, maneuver, and

others. (Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1851-1906.)

In vacuum_random, three different speed settings (FWD5, FWD3, or

FWD2) may be used, each of which includes setting both wheels to the same speed

(via the vacuumRandomOutput_L and vacuumRandomOutput_R variables),

thereby setting a heading setting of straight at the selected speed:

27
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1552-1569 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003-Locke at 72.)

A preferred embodiment of the 553 patent utilizes a heading setting by

independently driving each of the robots two wheels such that a command may

be issued by controller 108 to engage both wheel assemblies in a forward direction,

resulting in forward motion of robot 100. In another instance, a command may be

issued for a left turn that causes left wheel assembly 112 to be engaged in the

forward direction while right wheel assembly 114 is driven in the rear direction,

resulting in robot 100 making a clockwise turn when viewed from above. (Ex.

1001 at 6:54-61.) The Suckmaster Code discloses exactly this.

For example, as explained immediately above, in vacuum_random, the

wheels can be set to the same speed to drive the robot with a straight headingjust

as in the preferred embodiment of the 553 patent. Likewise, as explained in

Section V(F)(2) above, the Suckmaster Code discloses random left and right turns

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1552-1582), as well as bumper-initiated A_SPIN_RIGHT

28
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1453-1460) and A_SPIN_LEFT (Ex. 1005-Code at lines

1453-1460) maneuvers that cause the robot do a clockwise or counter-clockwise

turn (i.e., heading change) respectivelyagain consistent with the heading setting

in the preferred embodiment of the 553 patent. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 35-40.)

The Suckmaster Code even includes a yaw value that is used to consistently track

the heading of the autonomous robot with reference to its initial drive angle. (Ex.

1005-Code at lines 666-750.)

Thus, both the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose this

limitation.

[1b] a bump sensor responsive to a collision of the robot with an obstacle in a


forward direction; and
The Suckmaster Article discloses this limitation. Specifically, the

Suckmaster Article discloses two front bump switches. (Ex. 1004-Article at 1.)

The bump switches are used to detect the robot touching something in its path, i.e.,

a collision of the robot with an obstacle:

When the robot touches something (bump switch detection) it will turn
in the direction with the greatest free space as indicated by the side
looking sonar. . . . If the sonar fails to detect a small object such as the
leg of the folding chair the bump switch will command the robot to
backup and turn away.

(Ex. 1004-Article at 4 (emphasis added).)

Thus, the Suckmaster Article discloses this limitation.

29
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

[1c] a proximity sensor responsive to a potential obstacle forward of the


robot;
The Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code both disclose this

limitation. Specifically, the Suckmaster Article discloses multi-channel sonar

responsive to potential obstacles:

To avoid crashing into objects at high speed, six channel sonar is used
to detect the presence of objects and slow down when near. High
speed operation is resumed when the front sonars see no objects closer
than 20 inches.

(Ex. 1004-Article at 4 (emphasis added).)

In this regard, the Suckmaster Code describes a path_clear function that

tracks the sonar proximity sensor values to determine the distance to objects in the

robots direction of travel. (Ex. 1005-Code at lines 900-912; Ex. 1003-Locke at

77.)

Thus, the Suckmaster Article and Suckmaster Code disclose this limitation.

[1d] wherein the drive system is configured to reduce the speed setting in
response to a signal from the proximity sensor indicating detection of a
potential obstacle, while continuing to advance the robot according to the
heading setting;
The Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code both disclose this

limitation.

The Suckmaster Article discloses slowing down the robot when the sonar

detects a nearby object. Notably, the 553 patent describes slowing down such

30
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

that when a collision does occur, the collision is less noisy, and less likely to mar

surfaces. (Ex. 1001 at 9:2-4). The Suckmaster slows down upon sensing

approached objects for the same reasonto avoid crashing into objects at high

speed:

To avoid crashing into objects at high speed, six channel sonar is used
to detect the presence of objects and slow down when near. High
speed operation is resumed when the front sonars see no objects closer
than 20 inches.

(Ex. 1004-Article at 4 (emphasis added).)

The Suckmaster Code confirms that the speed should be reduced without

altering the heading setting. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 80.) Specifically, in the

vacuum_random routine, the robot slows down if an object is within twenty inches

(by setting vacuumRandomOutput_L and vacuum_RandomOutput_R to FWD3),

and will slow down more if an object is within twelve inches (by setting

vacuumRandomOutput_L and vacuum_RandomOutput_R to FWD2):

31
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1545-1591 (emphasis added); see Ex. 1003-Locke at 80.)

Thus, by transitioning from FWD5 speed to FWD3 or FWD2 speed, or from

FWD3 speed to FWD2 speed, the robot reduce[s] the speed setting in response to

a signal from the proximity sensor indicating detection of a potential obstacle, as

claimed. Furthermore, because the two wheels of the robot are set at the same

speed as each other, the robot will continue on its straight heading, and thus the

Suckmaster Code discloses reducing the speed setting while continuing to

advance the robot according to the heading setting, as claimed. (Ex. 1003-Locke

at 80.)

As noted above, the Suckmaster Code discloses this claim limitation within

the random mode. Separately and additionally, the Suckmaster Code discloses

reducing speed while continuing towards an obstacle during an initial period after

cleaning begins, by initiating an A_AHEAD_SLOW routine when an obstacle is

detected within thirteen inches or an A_AHEAD_VERYSLOW routine when an

obstacle is detected within seven inches.:

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1367-1377 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003-Locke at 81.)

32
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

The A_AHEAD_SLOW routine sets the robot speed to FWD3, and the

A_AHEAD_VERYSLOW routine sets the robot speed to FWD2:

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1233-1243 (emphasis added).) Thus, during an initial

period, if the robot is traveling at its normal cleaning speed (FWD5) and an

approached object is sensed within thirteen inches, A_AHEAD_SLOW will reduce

the speed setting to (FWD3) and any sensed object within seven inches will further

reduce the speed to (FWD2) via A_AHEAD_VERYSLOW. (Ex. 1003-Locke at

81.) In both routines, the heading setting remains unchanged. (Ex. 1003-Locke at

81.)

Thus, both the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose this

limitation.

[1e] wherein the drive system is configured to increase the speed setting if the
drive system does not receive a subsequent signal indicating the presence of an
obstacle while continuing to advance according to the heading setting and the
reduced speed setting; and

The Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code both disclose this

limitation. First, the Suckmaster Article states that the robot will slow down when

33
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

an object is near (as described above) and resume high speed operation (without a

heading change) if no object is sensed within twenty inches:

To avoid crashing into objects at high speed, six channel sonar is used
to detect the presence of objects and slow down when near. High
speed operation is resumed when the front sonars see no objects
closer than 20 inches.

(Ex. 1004-Article at 4 (emphasis added).)

As noted above with respect to claim limitation [1d], the Suckmaster Code

discloses that the robot slows down if an object is within twenty inches, and will

slow down more if an object is within twelve inches. If, on a subsequent iteration

of the vacuum_random routine, the robot does not sense an obstacle within twenty

inches (for example, if the sensed object is picked up or moves), the Suckmaster

Code teaches setting the reduced speed (either FWD3 or FWD2 depending on the

proximity of the sensed object) back to the normal cleaning speed, FWD5 (i.e.,

full speed ahead):

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1552-1559; Ex. 1003-Locke at 84.) This transition from

FWD2 or FWD3 speed to FWD5 speed is increas[ing] the speed setting if the

34
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

drive system does not receive a subsequent signal indicating the presence of an

obstacle while continuing to advance according to the heading setting and the

reduced speed setting, as claimed. Similarly, a transition from FWD2 speed to

FWD3 speed (because an obstacle was previously within twelve inches, but is now

between twelve and twenty inches) satisfies this claim limitation.

Furthermore, as noted above, the Suckmaster Code discloses initiating an

A_AHEAD_VERYSLOW routine when an obstacle is detected within seven

inches, or an A_AHEAD_SLOW routine when an obstacle is detected within

thirteen inches, during an initial period of cleaning. Both of these routines are

initiated for 100 milliseconds:

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1367-1377 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003-Locke at 85.)

After the expiration of the 100 milliseconds, if an obstacle is not detected, the

robot will return its previous cleaning speed. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 85.) This

return to a previous cleaning speed (i.e., from A_AHEAD_SLOW or

A_AHEAD_VERYSLOW to FWD5 in random mode, or from

A_AHEAD_VERYSLOW to FWD3 in random mode) meets this claim limitation.

35
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

Thus, both the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose this

limitation.

[1f] wherein the drive system is configured to alter the heading setting in
response to a signal received from the bump sensor indicating contact with an
obstacle.
Both the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose this

limitation.

First, the Suckmaster Article discloses that the robot turns responsive to

bump switch detection of an obstacle:

When the robot touches something (bump switch detection) it will turn
in the direction with the greatest free space as indicated by the side
looking sonar. It will continue to turn until the forward sonar sees a
clear path.

(Ex. 1004-Article at 4 (emphasis added).)

The Suckmaster Code also discloses altering the heading setting in response

to a signal received from the bump sensor. Specifically, the Suckmaster Code

includes an avoid_object routine, which instructs the robot, e.g., how to respond

when the bump switch indicates contact with an obstacle. Indeed, as explained

above in Section V(F)(2), there are three different maneuvers which are performed,

depending on the type of bump sensor contact that is sensed: A_WALL_RIGHT,

A_WALL_LEFT, and A_BACKAWAY (including the A_SPIN_RIGHT, and

A_SPIN_LEFT maneuvers). (Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1128-1230, 1453-1460; Ex.

36
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

1003-Locke at 40-41.) All three initiate a heading change in response to the

bump sensor contacting an object. Any of these evasive maneuvers can be

initiated when the bump sensor collides with an object in the reduced speed travel

of the vacuum_random, A_AHEAD_SLOW or A_AHEAD_VERYSLOW

routines, as their operations are described with respect to claim element [1e]. (Ex.

1003-Locke at 88.)

Accordingly, the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose, in

combination, each and every element of claim 1, and claim 1 is therefore

anticipated by Suckmaster. To the extent that the Suckmaster Article and

Suckmaster Code are considered separate references, a person of skill in the art

would have found the complete subject matter of claim 1 obvious based on the

combination of the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code. (Ex. 1003-

Locke at 46-47.)

[CLAIM 2] The robot of claim 1 wherein the drive system is configured to


alter the heading setting in response to the signals received from the bump
sensor and the proximity sensor to follow a perimeter of the obstacle.
The Suckmaster Code discloses that the limitation of claim 2 occurs in

random mode. Specifically, the Suckmaster Code discloses when the robot

touches an obstacle with its bump sensor (e.g., while in random mode), an

A_WALL_LEFT or A_WALL_RIGHT maneuver is initiated, depending on

37
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

whether the obstacle was hit on the right or left side of the robot as determined by

data from the sonar proximity sensor:

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1436-1451 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003-Locke at 40.)

In the A_WALL_LEFT and A_WALL_RIGHT maneuvers, the robot

reverses the wheel away from the wall (i.e., the right wheel in A_WALL_LEFT,

and the left wheel in A_WALL_RIGHT) until the path is clear ahead of the robot,

thereby aligning the robots path with the wall:

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1220-1231; Ex. 1003-Locke at 40.) As a result,

the Suckmaster Code discloses that, during navigation within the vacuum_random

38
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

routine, a bump collision with a wall on one robot side results in an

A_WALL_LEFT or A_WALL_RIGHT routine whereby the robot aligns its path

with the wall before proceeding along the walls perimeter. (Ex. 1003-Locke at

92.)

Accordingly, the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose, in

combination, each and every element of claim 2, and Suckmaster anticipates claim

2.

Thus, to the extent that the Suckmaster Article and Suckmaster Code are

considered separate references, or the Suckmaster Code and Suckmaster Article are

considered not to disclose transitioning from random cleaning to perimeter

cleaning, a person of skill in the art would have found the complete subject matter

of Claim 2 obvious based on the combination of the Suckmaster Article and the

Suckmaster Code. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 46-47.) A POSITA would have found

the complete subject matter of Claim 2 obvious based on the combination of the

Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 46-47, 89-

92.)

[CLAIM 8] The robot of claim 1 wherein the drive system is configured to


maneuver the robot at a torque setting, wherein the drive system is configured
to alter the torque setting in response to a signal received from the bump
sensor indicating contact with an obstacle.
The Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code both inherently disclose

the limitations of claim 8. Specifically, both the Suckmaster Article and the

39
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

Suckmaster Code inherently disclose that the drive system is configured to

maneuver the robot at a torque setting. By setting a forward speed, (high speed

or reduced speed in the Suckmaster Article; FWD5, FWD3, or FWD2 in the

Suckmaster Code), both the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose

maneuvering the robot at a torque setting, because torque of an electric motor is

directional. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 94.) In addition, both the Suckmaster Article

and the Suckmaster Code disclose altering that torque setting when the robot

reverses and turns in response to contact with the wall, as discussed above with

respect to claim element [1f] and claim 2. By reversing the robot, the torque

setting on both wheels of the robot is altered (from forward torque to

backward torque); by turning the robot, the torque on one or both of the wheels

of the robot is similarly altered. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 94.) Because this torque

adjustment is in response to contact with the wall (or an object), as discussed above

with respect to claim element [1f] and claim 2, it is in response to a signal received

from the bump sensorthe bump sensor is what is described as alerting the robot

that it has made contact with an object.

Accordingly, the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose, in

combination, each and every element of claim 8, and claim 8 is therefore

anticipated by Suckmaster. To the extent that the Suckmaster Article and

Suckmaster Code are considered separate references, a person of skill in the art

40
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

would have found the complete subject matter of claim 8 obvious based on the

combination of the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code. (Ex. 1003-

Locke at 46-47, 93-94.)

[CLAIM 11-PREAMBLE] A method of navigating an autonomous coverage


robot with respect to an object on a floor, the method comprising the robot:
Both the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose the preamble

of claim 11, whether or not it is limiting.

The Suckmaster Article discloses control strategies employed by an

autonomous robot to navigate around a simulated room. See analysis of claim

element [1a], above.

The Suckmaster Code discloses various control modes for navigating an

autonomous robot with respect to an object. Specifically, the Suckmaster Code

includes a main routine that calls control routines including vacuum_perimeter,

vacuum_random, avoid_object, maneuver, and others. (Ex. 1005-Code at lines

1851-1906.) See analysis of claim element [1a], above.

Thus, both the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose this

limitation.

[11a] autonomously traversing the floor in a cleaning mode at a cleaning


speed;

Both the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose this

limitation.

41
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

The Suckmaster Article discloses control strategies employed by the robot,

which include a high speed setting, which is the cleaning speed of the claim:

To avoid crashing into objects at high speed, six channel sonar is used
to detect the presence of objects and slow down when near. High
speed operation is resumed when the front sonars see no objects closer
than 20 inches.

(Ex. 1004-Article at 4.) See analysis of claim element [1a], above.

The Suckmaster Code discloses various control modes, each of which

includes one or more speed settings. Specifically, the Suckmaster Code includes

control modes including vacuum_perimeter, vacuum_random, avoid_object,

maneuver, and others. In vacuum_random, three different speeds (FWD5, FWD3,

or FWD2) may be used; both FWD5 and FWD3 are the cleaning speed of the

claim. See analysis of claim element [1a], above.

Thus, both the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose this

limitation.

[11b] upon sensing a proximity of the object forward of the robot, reducing
the cleaning speed to a reduced speed while continuing towards the object;
Both the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose this

limitation.

The Suckmaster Article discloses slowing down the robot when the sonar

detects a nearby object. See analysis of claim element [1d], above.

42
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

The Suckmaster Code discloses reducing speed when an obstacle is detected

by the sonar while continuing towards the object. Specifically, in the

vacuum_random routine, or in an initial startup period, the robot slows down from

FWD5 to FWD3 or FWD2, or from FWD3 to FWD2, when an obstacle is detected.

See analysis of claim element [1d], above.

Thus, both the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose this

limitation.

[11c] in response to not sensing the presence of the object while advancing at
the reduced speed, increasing the speed setting; and
Both the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose this

limitation. See analysis of claim element [1e], above.

[11d] in response to sensing contact with the object, turning with respect to
the object and cleaning next to the object.
Both the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose this

limitation.

The Suckmaster Article discloses that the robot turns responsive to bump

switch detection of an object:

When the robot touches something (bump switch detection) it will turn
in the direction with the greatest free space as indicated by the side
looking sonar. It will continue to turn until the forward sonar sees a
clear path.

(Ex. 1004-Article at 4 (emphasis added).)

43
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

The Suckmaster Code also discloses turning with respect to an object and

cleaning next to the object in response to sensing contact with an object. First, the

Suckmaster Code discloses turning with respect to an object in response to sensing

contact with that object with a bump sensor. See analysis of claim element [1f],

above. Second, the Suckmaster Code discloses cleaning next to an object after

sensing contact with the object. See analysis of claim 2, above.

Accordingly, the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose, in

combination, each and every element of claim 11, and claim 11 is therefore

anticipated by Suckmaster. To the extent that the Suckmaster Article and

Suckmaster Code are considered separate references, a person of skill in the art

would have found the complete subject matter of claim 11 obvious based on the

combination of the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code. (Ex. 1003-

Locke at 95-104.)

[CLAIM 12] The method of claim 11 wherein the robot follows a perimeter of
the object while cleaning next to the object.
Both the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose the

limitations of claim 12. See analysis of claim 2, above.

Accordingly, the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose, in

combination, each and every element of claim 12, and claim 12 is therefore

anticipated by Suckmaster. To the extent that the Suckmaster Article and

Suckmaster Code are considered separate references, a person of skill in the art

44
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

would have found the complete subject matter of claim 12 obvious based on the

combination of the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code. (Ex. 1003-

Locke at 105-106.)

[CLAIM 25 Comparison with CLAIM 1]


Many of the limitations of claim 25 have equivalent limitations in claim 1,

and thus are satisfied by the disclosures of the Suckmaster Article and the

Suckmaster Code that are discussed with respect to claim 1 infra. A comparison of

claim 25 to its claim 1 equivalent is illustrated in the table below.

Claim 25 Claim 1 Equivalent

25. An autonomous coverage robot 1. An autonomous coverage robot

comprising: comprising:

[25a] a drive system configured to [1a] a drive system configured to

maneuver the robot according to a maneuver the robot according to a

heading setting and a speed setting; heading setting and a speed setting;

[25b] a bump sensor responsive to a [1b] a bump sensor responsive to a

collision of the robot with an obstacle in collision of the robot with an obstacle in

a forward direction; and a forward direction; and

[25c] a proximity sensor responsive to a [1c] a proximity sensor responsive to a

potential obstacle forward of the robot; potential obstacle forward of the robot;

[25d] wherein the drive system is [1d] wherein the drive system is

45
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

configured to reduce the speed setting in configured to reduce the speed setting in

response to a signal from the proximity response to a signal from the proximity

sensor indicating detection of a potential sensor indicating detection of a potential

obstacle, while continuing to advance obstacle, while continuing to advance

the robot according to the heading the robot according to the heading

setting; setting;

[25e] wherein the drive system is [1e] wherein the drive system is

configured to increase the speed setting configured to increase the speed setting

if the drive system does not receive [a if the drive system does not receive [a

signal from the bump sensor within an subsequent signal indicating the

elapsed time after the speed setting is presence of an obstacle while

reduced]; and continuing to advance according to the

heading setting and the reduced speed

setting]; and

[25f] wherein the drive system is [1f] wherein the drive system is

configured to alter the heading setting in configured to alter the heading setting in

response to a signal received from the response to a signal received from the

bump sensor indicating contact with an bump sensor indicating contact with an

obstacle. obstacle.

46
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

As shown in the table above, the only difference between claim 25 and claim

1 is the bold and italicized text in element [25e] above.

[25e] wherein the drive system is configured to increase the speed setting if the
drive system does not receive a signal from the bump sensor within an elapsed
time after the speed setting is reduced
The Suckmaster Code discloses this limitation. As noted above with respect

to claim elements [1d] and [11c], the Suckmaster Code discloses initiating an

A_AHEAD_VERYSLOW maneuver when an obstacle is detected within seven

inches, or an A_AHEAD_SLOW maneuver when an obstacle is detected within

thirteen inches. Both of these maneuvers are initiated for 100 milliseconds

because, in the start_maneuver routine, the second input variable (with a value of

10 in the A_AHEAD_SLOW and A_AHEAD_VERYSLOW calls, highlighted

below) sets the length of time for executing the maneuver, where the length of time

is ten milliseconds x the value given. (Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1314-1329

(m_timer = t; // 10ms per tick maneuver limit timer (1.255 = 10ms to 2.55 sec.

).) As a result, the A_AHEAD_SLOW and A_AHEAD_VERYSLOW

maneuvers are initiated for 100 milliseconds. Furthermore, the

A_AHEAD_SLOW and A_AHEAD_VERYSLOW calls include a maneuver

priority of P_SONAR, as shown below:

47
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1366-1377 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003-Locke at 32,

35.)

While the robot is executing an A_AHEAD_VERYSLOW maneuver or an

A_AHEAD_SLOW maneuver, the robot may contact an obstacle, triggering the

bump switch. As noted above, this triggers an A_WALL_RIGHT,

A_WALL_LEFT, A_SPIN_RIGHT, A_SPIN_LEFT, and/or A_BACKAWAY

maneuver. Each of these maneuvers is initiated with a maneuver priority of

P_BUMP:

48
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1436-1460 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003-Locke at 119.)

P_BUMP is a higher priority sensor than P_SONAR. (Ex. 1005-Code at

lines 194-195; Ex. 1003-Locke at 119.) As a result, when the bump sensor

indicates a bump, the responsive maneuver will override the A_AHEAD_SLOW

or A_AHEAD_VERYSLOW behavior. (Ex. 1003-Code at lines 1322-1323

(cancel_maneuver routine); Ex. 1003-Locke at 119.)

Accordingly, the Suckmaster Code discloses that a signal from the bump

switch within the 100 millisecond execution time of the A_AHEAD_VERYSLOW

or A_AHEAD_SLOW routine prevents the robot from returning to its normal

cleaning speed, because the maneuver responsive to the bump switch detection

instead executes for its instructed period of time.

If, on the other hand, the bump switch (or other maneuver-causing input) is

not activated within the 100 millisecond execution time of the

A_AHEAD_VERYSLOW or A_AHEAD_SLOW routine, then the maneuver

cleaning speed will be set to a null value at the end of the maneuver routine, as

indicated by the highlighted portion below:

49
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

(Ex. 1005-Code at 1292-1298 (emphasis added).) As a result, the arbitrate routine

will set the robot wheel speed to the speed commanded by the mode of the robot

(e.g., random mode), i.e., the normal cleaning speed (FWD5). Thus, the

Suckmaster Code discloses that the drive system of the robot is configured to

increase the speed setting if the drive system does not receive a signal from the

bump sensor within an elapsed time after the speed setting is reduced.

Accordingly, the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code disclose, in

combination, each and every element of claim 25, and claim 25 is therefore

anticipated by Suckmaster. To the extent that the Suckmaster Article and

Suckmaster Code are considered separate references, a person of skill in the art

would have found the complete subject matter of claim 25 obvious based on the

combination of the Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code. (Ex. 1003-

Locke at 107-121.)

B. Ground 3: Obviousness Based on Suckmaster Article (including


incorporated and published Suckmaster Code) and Jones-490

1. The scope and content of the prior art


For Ground 3, the prior art consists of the Suckmaster Article (Ex. 1004), the

Suckmaster Code (Ex. 1005), and Jones-490 (Ex. 1009). Each reference is prior

art, as explained above in V.E. The content of each reference is discussed below.

50
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

2. Rationale for Combining Suckmaster Article (including


incorporated and published Suckmaster Code) and Jones-
490
Both Suckmaster (including the Suckmaster Code) and Jones-490 disclose

cleaning robots designed to autonomously navigate a space to clean the floor of

that space. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 48-49.) The robots of Suckmaster and Jones-

490 both include two drive wheels and a variety of sensors (including forward-

looking proximity sensors and bump sensors) for navigation. (Ex. 1003-Locke at

48-57.) Furthermore, both Suckmaster and Jones-490 disclose a variety of

cleaning modes intended to collectively maximize the cleaning efficiency of the

robot. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 48-57.) Because of this high degree of similarity, a

person of skill in the art would find it obvious to try the hardware and/or

autonomous navigation strategies of Jones-490 with Suckmaster in an attempt to

improve cleaning performanceas stated by Jones-490, to provide maximum

coverage at an effective coverage rate. (Ex. 1009-Jones at 5:29-30; see Ex. 1003-

Locke at 48-57.) Furthermore, due to the similarities of the Suckmaster and

Jones-490 robots, a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in

implementing the hardware and/or autonomous navigation strategies of Jones-490

in Suckmaster. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 48-57.)

As explained, the Suckmaster disclosures include an autonomous coverage

robot with bump sensors and sonar proximity sensors, as well as an infrared (IR)

51
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

transmitter for tracking a beacon. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 48.) Jones-490 discloses

similar mechanical, electrical and control mechanisms for an autonomous coverage

robot. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 49.) Those elements include, like the Suckmaster,

bump and IR proximity sensors. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 50.) Structurally then, the

two disclosed robots are similar. The control mechanism of Jones-490, which is a

simple software design able to be implemented on either robots processor,

includes various coverage algorithms and behaviors, including wall following.

(Ex. 1003-Locke at 49-51.)

A POSITA could have easily and with predicable results implemented the

control strategies of Jones-490 into the Suckmaster disclosure. (Ex. 1003-Locke at

51-52.) Jones-490 teaches that its control strategies maximize efficiencies in

cleaning, so a POSITA would have even been motivated to make such a change.

(Ex. 1003-Locke at 49.) Likewise, especially in view of the fact that Suckmaster

already discloses using IR transmitters, a POSITA could have easily and with

predictable results implemented Jones-490s IR proximity sensors for

Suckmasters sonar sensors. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 53-54.)

3. Challenged Claims for Ground 3


A person of skill in the art would have found claims 2, 4, 21, and 22 obvious

based on Suckmaster in view of Jones-490. The combination of Suckmaster and

Jones-490 discloses each and every element of claims 4, 21, and 22, as discussed

52
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

below, and a POSITA would have found the complete subject matter of claims 4,

21, and 22 obvious based on the combined disclosures of Suckmaster and Jones-

490.

[CLAIM 2] The robot of claim 1 wherein the drive system is configured to


alter the heading setting in response to the signals received from the bump
sensor and the proximity sensor to follow a perimeter of the obstacle.
As noted above in Section VI(A)(3)(claim 2), the Suckmaster Article and the

Suckmaster Code disclose A_WALL_LEFT and A_WALL_RIGHT maneuvers

that alter the heading setting in response to signals received from the bump sensor

and the proximity sensor to follow a perimeter of the obstacle while in random

mode.

The Suckmaster Article and the Suckmaster Code also disclose a perimeter

mode. The Suckmaster Article discloses that the robot, with its side against the

wall, will follow a perimeter of the room:

The Suckmaster II is started with its left side against the wall of the
simulated room. It moves forward until it touches the far wall and
executes at 90 degree right turn and moves until it touches the next
wall and executes another 90 degree right turn. It then runs until it
touches the speaker box and executes a 90 degree right turn.

(Ex. 1004-Article at 4.)

53
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

The Suckmaster Code discloses a perimeter mode in which the robot hugs

the left wall by setting the right wheel speed to a faster speed (FWD5) than the left

wheel (FWD4): to follow the wall, i.e., the perimeter of the obstacle, as claimed:

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1513-1521; Ex. 1003-Locke at 39, 91.)

The Suckmaster Code also discloses that, when the robot touches an obstacle

with its bump sensor while in perimeter mode, an A_BACKAWAY maneuver is

initiated:

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1453-1455; Ex. 1003-Locke at 91.) Within the

A_BACKAWAY maneuver, an A_SPIN_LEFT or A_SPIN_RIGHT maneuver is

eventually initiated to align the robot with the wall; which maneuver is initiated

depends on a reading from the sonar:

54
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

(Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1144-1150; Ex. 1003-Locke at 34, 40.) As a result, in

perimeter mode, the Suckmaster code discloses altering the heading setting in

response to the signals received from the bump sensor and the proximity sensor to

follow a perimeter of the obstacle, as claimed.

Jones-490 also discloses a perimeter-follow mode. Specifically, Jones-490

describes a wall following mode using wall following sensors:

In a preferred embodiment, in the wall-following mode, the robot uses


the wall-following sensor 16 to position itself a set distance from the
wall. The robot then proceeds to travel along the perimeter of the wall.
As shown in FIGS. 8A & 8B, in a preferred embodiment, the robot 10
is not able to distinguish between a wall 100 and another solid
obstacle 101.

(Ex. 1009-Jones at 10:43-49.)

Jones-490 further describes using wall sensors to follow a wall until a bump

is detected by a bump sensor, at which point the robot changes its heading using an

align behavior to navigate around bump obstacle before resuming wall-following

behavior:

In certain embodiments, when the WALL-FOLLOWING behavior is


active and there is a bump, the ALIGN behavior becomes active. The
ALIGN behavior turns the robot counter-clockwise to align the robot
with the wall. ... When the ALIGN behavior has completed turning, it
cedes control to the WALL-FOLLOWING behavior.

55
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

(Id. at 12:30-52.)

FIGS. 8A, 8B, 8C, and 8D further show that the robot of Jones-490 is

configured to follow a wall and navigate the perimeter of a room, or, in the same

manner, to navigate the perimeter of an obstacle within a room:

As shown above, Jones-490 describes a robot that uses proximity and bump

sensors to alter the heading of a robot in order to follow the perimeter of an

obstacle, such as a wall. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 42-43, 124-125.)

In addition, Jones-490 explicitly discloses transitioning to wall-following

mode from another operational mode when encountering a wall:

In a preferred embodiment, the device immediately enters wall


following mode after the triggering event.

In a preferred embodiment, the device then switches between wall


following mode (movement lines 51) and random bounce modes

56
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

(movement lines 48) based on bump sensor events or the completion


of the wall following algorithm.

(Ex. 1009-Jones at 16:43-50.)

Although the Suckmaster Code does not explicitly disclose that the

Suckmaster robot transitions into the perimeter mode from the random mode,

Jones-490 does teach transitioning to wall following mode from another operation

mode upon encountering a wall, as noted above. A POSITA would recognize that

the Suckmaster Code is specifically designed for a situation in which, as described

by the Suckmaster Article, the robot is placed against the wall to begin cleaning,

and thus may begin in perimeter mode. A POSITA would recognize that the

navigation strategies disclosed in the Suckmaster Code could be invoked in any

order as needed for a given situation, including but not limited to transitioning

from random mode to perimeter mode in response to the bump sensor detecting an

obstacle, as taught by Jones-490. In addition, because both Suckmaster and Jones-

490 disclose the use of wall-following behavior for the same reason (i.e., cleaning

along a wall), a POSITA would have found it obvious to apply the specific wall

following behavior parameters taught in Jones-490 to Suckmaster. (Ex. 1003-

Locke at 48-57.)

Therefore, a POSITA would have found claim 2 obvious based on the

combination of Suckmaster and Jones-490. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 123-125.)

57
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

[CLAIM 4] The robot of claim 1 wherein the proximity sensor comprises at


least one infrared emitter and receive pair.
Suckmaster discloses the robot of claim 1. Jones-490 discloses the

additional limitations of claim 4. Specifically, Jones-490 describes a preferred

embodiment in which the proximity sensors are infrared sensors comprising an

infrared emitter and receiver pair:

A preferred embodiment also contains a wall-following or wall-


detecting sensor 16 mounted on the dominant side of the robot 10. In a
preferred embodiment, the wall following sensor is an IR sensor
composed of an emitter and detector pair collimated so that a finite
volume of intersection occurs at the expected position of the wall.
This focus point is approximately three inches ahead of the drive
wheel in the direction of robot forward motion. The radial range of
wall detection is about 0.75 inches.

(Ex. 1004-Jones at 7:11-19.)

Jones-490 therefore describes a proximity sensor comprising an infrared emitter

and receiver.

As described above, Suckmaster uses sonar sensors to navigate around a

room and to sense objects in its path and to its sides. Jones-490, as explained

above, uses similar proximity sensors but instead of using sonar, Jones-490 teaches

using IR proximity sensors, just as in the claim. A POSITA would have

understood that the sensors described by Jones-490 were a simple design choice

58
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

and it would have been easy to substitute infrared sensors (Jones-490) for sonar

sensors (Suckmaster). (Ex. 1003-Locke at 128.)

Thus, Jones-490 discloses the specific recitations of claim 4, and Suckmaster

in view of Jones-490 renders claim 4 obvious to a POSITA. (Ex. 1003-Locke at

127-128.)

[CLAIM 12] The method of claim 11 wherein the robot follows a perimeter of
the object while cleaning next to the object.
The Suckmaster Article, Suckmaster Code, and Jones-490 disclose the

limitations of claim 12. See analysis of claim 2, above. Accordingly, a person of

skill in the art would have found the complete subject matter of claim 12 obvious

based on the combination of Suckmaster and Jones-490. (Ex. 1003-Locke at

129-130.)

[CLAIM 13] The method of claim 11 wherein the robot maintains a


substantially constant following distance from the object while cleaning next
to the object in response to the contact with the object.
Although Petitioner does not challenge claim 13 in this Petition, claim 13 is

discussed because Petitioner does challenge claims 21 and 22, which depend from

claim 13.

As explained above with respect to claim 2, the Suckmaster Article and

Suckmaster Code disclose an A_WALL_LEFT or A_WALL_RIGHT routine in

which the robot transitions from a collision with a wall to aligning itself and

following the wall. (Ex. 1005-Code at lines 1220-1230.) This alone discloses

59
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

claim 13. However, if the Board finds that tracking the wall at no distance does

not satisfy this claim, Suckmaster combined with Jones-490 certainly does.

Specifically, Jones-490 discloses that the robot positions itself a set distance

from a wall or other obstacle and then follows the perimeter:

In a preferred embodiment, in the wall-following mode, the robot


uses the wall-following sensor 16 to position itself a set distance from
the wall. The robot then proceeds to travel along the perimeter of the
wall. As shown in FIGS. 8A & 8B, in a preferred embodiment, the
robot 10 is not able to distinguish between a wall 100 and another
solid obstacle 101. (Ex. 1004-Jones at 10:43-49 (emphasis added).)

Jones-490 illustrates this process in FIGS. 8A-8D, in which the robot

follows a path 46/47 that is substantially a constant distance from the wall 100 or

obstacle 101:

60
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

As shown above, one of Jones-490s control strategies is to follow a wall at

a controlled distance using its side-looking IR proximity sensors. Thus, Jones-490

discloses the limitations of claim 13 and it in combination with Suckmaster render

claim 13 obvious.

61
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

[CLAIM 21] The method of claim 13 wherein the robot decreases the cleaning
speed to a reduced speed at a nor-linear rate.
The Suckmaster Code discloses the limitation of claim 21. Specifically, the

Suckmaster Code discloses, in random mode, that the cleaning speed of the robot is

reduced from full speed (i.e., FWD5) to a reduced speed (FWD3) when an obstacle

is detected in front of the robot, and is further reduced to a further reduced speed

(FWD2) when an obstacle is detected closer to the robot. Thus, the Suckmaster

Code teaches that the speed is reduced from FWD5 to FWD2, with an intermediate

speed of FWD3. If, during this reduction, the speed of the robot is maintained at

FWD3 for any period of time, then the change from FWD5 to FWD2 is non-linear,

regardless of whether the change from FWD5 to FWD3 is linear or non-linear, and

regardless of whether the change from FWD3 to FWD2 is linear or non-linear.

(Ex. 1003-Locke at 135.) At reasonable values of FWD5, FWD3, and FWD2,

the robots speed would indeed be FWD3 for some period of time while the robot

advances towards an obstacle (i.e., where detection of the same obstacle triggers

both the transition from FWD5 to FWD3, and from FWD3 to FWD2. (Ex. 1003-

Locke at 135.) Accordingly, the Suckmaster Code discloses that the robot

decreases the cleaning speed at a non-linear rate when the Suckmaster robot

reduces its speed from FWD5 to FWD2, with an intermediate speed of FWD3.

In addition, a POSITA would have found it obvious to implement a non-

linear speed decrease with a reasonable expectation of success. A POSITA would

62
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

appreciate that non-linear speed reduction is a typical speed reduction

implementation in a wheeled vehicle powered by an electric motor, and would be

motivated to implement non-linear speed reduction as a standard means of

controlling the speed of the Suckmaster robot, which is a wheeled robot powered

by an electric motor. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 135-136.)

[CLAIM 22] The method of claim 13 wherein the cleaning speed of the robot
is about 300 mm/sec.
The Suckmaster Code discloses that the robot cleans at a max speed of

FWD5. (Ex. 1005-Code at lines 126-129; Ex. 1003-Locke at 72.) The

Suckmaster Code does not explicitly disclose what actual speed FWD5

corresponds to and, in any event, the actual speed of FWD5 would vary based on

the wheel size and motor type of the robot executing the Suckmaster Code. A

POSITA would have appreciated that the actual speed of FWD5 was a routine

design choice and a setting that resulted in 300 mm/sec would have been obvious.

(Ex. 1003-Locke at 138.)

In any event, Jones-490 explicitly discloses a cleaning speed of 300 mm/sec.

Specifically, Jones-490 discloses that 77% of its normal speed is 0.235 m/s, which

is 235 mm/s. (Ex. 1004-Jones at 15:50.) Thus, the normal speed (or 100/77 of 235

mm/s) disclosed by Jones-490 is 305.2 mm/s. A POSITA would consider this to

be about 300 mm/s, as required by the claim, as it differs by less than 2%. (Ex.

1003-Locke at 139-140.)

63
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

Thus, Jones-490 discloses the limitation of claim 22, and Suckmaster in

view of Jones-490 renders claim 22 obvious. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 141.)

The Examiner of the application that gave rise to the 553 patent stated

during prosecution that Jones-490 does not disclose that the cleaning speed of the

robot is about 300 mm/sec. (Ex. 1002 at 250.) The Examiner may not have

appreciated the mathematical inherency confirming that Jones-490 discloses a

cleaning speed of 305.2 mm/s. Indeed, this less than 2% difference speed was

never referenced during prosecution. As explained, a person of skill in the art

would consider 305.2 mm/s to be about 300 m/s.

Even if the Board disagrees that 305.2 mm/s is about 300 m/s, this would

have been an obvious design choice. A person of skill in the art would have

known that any number of cleaning speeds between the 77% reduced speed and

normal speed of 305.2 mm/s would have been readily available and equally

effective. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 140.) Accordingly, even if the Board finds that

Jones-490 does not explicitly disclose this limitation, it would have been obvious

in view of the knowledge of one of skill in the art reading Jones-490.

Nonetheless, if the Board is inclined to defer to the Examiners judgment on

this issue, this Petition includes an alternate ground of unpatentability of claim 22.

See Ground 4 below.

64
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

C. Ground 4 - Obviousness Based on Suckmaster Article (including


incorporated and published Suckmaster Code), Jones-490, and
Park-707

1. The scope and content of the prior art


For Ground 4, the prior art consists of the Suckmaster Article (Ex. 1004), the

Suckmaster Code (Ex. 1005), Jones-490 (Ex. 1009), and Park-707 (Ex. 1010).

Each reference is prior art, as explained above in Section V(E). The content of

each reference is discussed below.

2. Rationale for Combining Suckmaster Article (including


incorporated and published Suckmaster Code), Jones-490,
and Park-707

The rationale for combining Suckmaster with Jones-490 is set forth in

Section VI(B)(2) above.

A person of skill in the art would also be motivated to combine Suckmaster

and Jones-490 with Park-707 because Suckmaster, Jones-490, and Park-707 all

disclose hardware and navigation strategies for autonomous robotic vacuum

cleaners. Accordingly, a person of skill in the art would have a reasonable

expectation of success when combining the teachings of Park-707 with Suckmaster

and Jones-490. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 58-63.) A POSITA would therefore have

found it obvious to try the navigation strategies taught by Park-707, including at

least the cleaning speed taught by Park-707, with Suckmaster and Jones-490 to

improve the cleaning ability of the robot. (Ex. 1003-Locke at 58-63.)

65
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

3. Challenged Claim for Ground 4


A person of skill in the art would have found claim 22 obvious based on

Suckmaster in view of Jones-490 and Park-707. The combination of Suckmaster,

Jones-490, and Park-707 discloses each and every element of claim 22, as

discussed below, and a POSITA would have found the complete subject matter of

claim 22 obvious based on the combined disclosures of Suckmaster, Jones-490,

and Park-707.

[CLAIM 22] The method of claim 13 wherein the cleaning speed of the robot
is about 300 mm/sec.
Suckmaster in view of Jones-490 discloses the method of claim 13. (See

Section VI(B)(2), above.)

Jones-490 discloses that the cleaning speed of the robot is 305.2 mm/s. (See

Section VI(B)(2), Claim 22, above.)

Park-707 discloses that the cleaning speed of a cleaning robot is exactly 300

mm/second. (Ex. 1010-Park at [0037].) A person of skill in the art would have

found it obvious to apply the cleaning speed disclosed in Park-707 to the

combination of Suckmaster and Jones-490 as a routine design choice. (Ex. 1003-

Locke at 58-63, 144-145.)

Thus, a person of skill in the art would have found claim 22 obvious based

on Suckmaster in combination with Jones-490 and Park-707. (Ex. 1003-Locke at

143-145.)

66
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

VII. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the inter

partes review of the 553 patent be instituted as the Petition establishes a

reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the Challenged Claims.

Petitioner further respectfully requests that claims 1-2, 4, 8, 11-12, 21-22, and 25

be cancelled as unpatentable.

Respectfully submitted,
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

Date: September 21, 2017 By: /s/ Patrick J. McCarthy


Patrick J. McCarthy
Registration No. 62,762
mccarthyp@gtlaw.com
Greenberg Traurig LLP
2101 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20037
Phone: (202) 533-2386
Fax: (202) 331-3101
Counsel for Petitioner

67
Patent No. 8,600,553 Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the Petition together

with all exhibits identified in the above Table of Exhibits and Petitioners Power of

Attorney, have been served on the Patent Owner via Priority Mail Express or by

means at least as fast and reliable as Priority Mail Express on the below date, at the

following addresses:

Ruffin B. Cordell
Ralph A. Phillips
Stephen A. Marshall
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
901 15th Street, N.W., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005

Respectfully submitted,
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

Date: September 21, 2017 By: /s/ Patrick J. McCarthy


Patrick J. McCarthy
Registration No. 62,762
mccarthyp@gtlaw.com
2101 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20037
Phone: (202) 533-2386
Fax: (202) 331-3101
Counsel for Petitioner

68