Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 18
`Entered: June 24, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ECOWATER SYSTEMS LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CULLIGAN INTERNATIONAL COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00155
`Patent 8,180,489 B2
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
`JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00155
`Patent 8,180,489 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`EcoWater Systems LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to
`
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1–6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,180,489 B2
`
`(“the ’489 Patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. On August 7, 2013, the
`
`Board instituted inter partes review of all claims on two grounds of unpatentability
`
`(Paper 6, “Decision”).
`
`Following institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper
`
`12, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner Response (Paper
`
`15, “Pet. Reply”). Along with its Response, Patent Owner filed a Motion to
`
`Amend (Paper 13, “Mot. Amend”), proposing substitute claims 16 and 17 if claims
`
`1 and 2 of the ’489 Patent are found unpatentable, and substitute claim 18 to
`
`correct a typographical error in claim 6 of the ’489 Patent. Petitioner filed an
`
`Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion (Paper 14, “Pet. Opp.”), and Patent Owner
`
`filed a Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition (Paper 16, “PO Reply Opp.”). Neither
`
`party requested Oral Hearing (Paper 17).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written decision is
`
`entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–6 of the ’489 Patent are unpatentable,
`
`and we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend.
`
`A. The ’489 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’489 Patent relates to a “communication system for a water softener
`
`system that includes a controller configured for communicating with the water
`
`softener assembly and a remote display configured for sending and receiving at
`
`least one signal to and from the controller to a remote location.” Ex. 1001, Abs.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00155
`Patent 8,180,489 B2
`
`Figure 1 of the ’489 Patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts communication system 10 and water softener assembly 12, which
`
`includes treatment tank 14 and brine tank 16 connected by piping 18. Id. at col. 2,
`
`ll. 46–49. Brine tank 16 is filled with brine solution 34 and includes sensor
`
`assembly 40 for measuring certain parameters, such as the amount of salt in the
`
`tank. Id. at col. 2, ll. 55–61. Valve assembly 20 controls the flow of water in the
`
`system. Id. at col. 2, ll. 49–54. Valve assembly 20 and sensor assembly 40
`
`transmit data regarding the tanks to controller 42 via cables 47 or wireless
`
`connections. Id. at col. 3, ll. 10–20, 26–31. Controller 42 includes modem card
`
`50, secondary circuit board 48, and primary circuit board 44, which includes radio
`
`transmitter 45. Id. at col. 3, ll. 21–26; col. 4, ll. 27–32. Controller 42 is configured
`
`for communicating with remote display 52. Id. at col. 3, l. 37–col. 4, l. 17.
`
`Remote display 52 enables a user to receive data at a location remote from
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00155
`Patent 8,180,489 B2
`
`controller 42, and is configured for sending commands to controller 42. Id. at col.
`
`3, ll. 32–34; col. 4, ll. 33–49. Remote display 52 includes minor circuit board 58,
`
`second modem card 62, and main circuit board 54, which includes radio
`
`transmitter 55. Id. at col. 3, ll. 34–37; col. 4, ll. 18–25. Data from water softener
`
`assembly 12 can be sent from remote display 52 to service provider network 60 by
`
`modem card 62, which translates data received from controller 42 into an email
`
`message, and sends it to service provider network 60 to display the message in a
`
`readable format. Id. at col. 4, ll. 18–25. Controller 42 also “optionally directly
`
`communicates with” service provider network 60 by sending a signal from primary
`
`circuit board 44 to modem 50, which connects to service provider network 60, logs
`
`in, and displays the message as an email. Id. at col. 4, ll. 27–32. Controller 42 and
`
`remote display 52 also are configured for automatically communicating with
`
`service provider network 60 to ensure, for example, that the system software is
`
`updated properly and has the correct time. Id. at col. 4, l. 50–col. 5, l. 3; col. 5, ll.
`
`12–16.
`
`
`
`Independent claims 1 and 3, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claims
`
`at issue (emphases added):
`
`1. A communication system for a water softener system,
`comprising:
`a water softener assembly;
`a controller at a first location, said controller configured for
`communicating with said water softener assembly;
`a remote display at a second location, said remote display
`configured for communicating with said controller and enabling
`a user to receive data from said controller, wherein said first
`location is different from said second location; and
`a service provider at a third location configured for communicating
`with said controller or said remote display via an interne [sic]
`connection,
`said controller or said remote display automatically transmitting a
`condition of said water softener assembly to the service
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00155
`Patent 8,180,489 B2
`
`provider and said controller configured to download updated
`software from said service provider.
`
`3. A method of communicating information about a water softener
`system, comprising:
`providing a water softener assembly;
`providing a controller at a first location configured for
`communicating with the water softener assembly;
`providing a remote display at a second location configured for
`communicating with said controller, said remote display
`enabling a user to receive data from said controller, wherein
`said first location is different from said second location;
`providing a service provider at a third location in communication
`with said controller or said remote display, said service
`provider enabling communication over an internet network
`between said controller or said remote display, and said service
`provider;
`automatically sending error messages on an operating condition of
`the water softener assembly via said internet network to said
`remote display;
`controlling the water softener assembly using said internet network
`for transmitting control commands from the remote display to
`the water softener assembly;
`determining whether a current software version utilized by said
`controller is an updated software version; and
`automatically downloading the updated software version to said
`controller from said service provider when the current software
`version is not the updated software version.
`
`
`
`B. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`1. Japan Patent Publication No. 2003-136057A, published May
`13, 2003 (“Iizuka”) (Ex. 1006);1
`
`2. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0010516 A1,
`published Aug. 2, 2001 (“Roh”) (Ex. 1003); and
`
`
`
`1 We refer to “Iizuka” as the English translation (Ex. 1006) of the original
`reference (Ex. 1002). Petitioner provided an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of
`the translation. See Ex. 1006; 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00155
`Patent 8,180,489 B2
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 6,023,769, issued Feb. 8, 2000 (“Gonzalez”)
`(Ex. 1004).
`
`C. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`The Board instituted inter partes review based on the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability:
`
`claims 1–3, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Iizuka and Roh; and
`
`claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Iizuka, Roh, and Gonzalez.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the America Invents Act
`
`(AIA), Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 6(a), 125 Stat. 284, 299–305 (2011), the Board
`
`interprets claims using the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`
`also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). Claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
`
`interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`
`367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Office must apply the broadest
`
`reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any definitions
`
`presented in the specification. Id. (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2002)). There is “a ‘heavy presumption’ that a claim term carries its ordinary and
`
`customary meaning.” CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002). The “ordinary and customary meaning” is that which the term
`
`would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question. In re Translogic
`
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Although an inventor is indeed
`
`free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this must be
`
`done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30
`
`F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00155
`Patent 8,180,489 B2
`
`To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set
`forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and
`ordinary meaning. It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a
`single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all
`embodiments, the patentee must “clearly express an intent” to redefine
`the term.
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(citations omitted).
`
`1. “Said First Location Is Different From Said Second Location”
`
`Claim 1 recites “a controller at a first location,” “a remote display at a
`
`second location,” and “wherein said first location is different from said second
`
`location.” Claim 3 recites the same limitations in the context of the recited
`
`method. Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner proposes an explicit claim
`
`construction for the phrase “said first location is different from said second
`
`location.”
`
`Nonetheless, Patent Owner implicitly construes “said first location is
`
`different from said second location” such that it excludes a first element (i.e.,
`
`controller) that “is located at or near” a second element (i.e., remote display). PO
`
`Resp. 10–11 (“The control center 33 . . . is located at or near the water softening
`
`equipment 10 and management device 31 . . . . Thus, the water softening
`
`equipment 10, the management device 31 and the control center 33 of Iizuka are at
`
`the same location.”). In other words, Patent Owner construes “said first location is
`
`different from said second location” to require the elements to be located at an
`
`unspecified distance away from one another, and to exclude elements located in
`
`close proximity.
`
`Turning to the ’489 Patent Specification, we do not identify a reasonably
`
`clear, deliberate, and precise definition for “said first location is different from said
`
`second location.” Instead, the ’489 Patent discloses, for example, the following:
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00155
`Patent 8,180,489 B2
`
`(1) “a remote display configured for sending and receiving at least one signal to
`
`and from the controller to a remote location”; and (2) “[t]he . . . system [] enables
`
`both wireless and wired communication between [] softener 12 and [] remote
`
`display 52 provided in a separate location in the user’s house.” Ex. 1001, Abs.;
`
`col. 2, ll. 20–22; col. 5, ll. 4–7. We decline to read the ’489 Patent disclosure of a
`
`“remote location” and “separate location in the user’s house” into the claims. See
`
`In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`Therefore, we resort to the ordinary and customary meaning of the terms
`
`“different” and “location,” in order to construe the phrase “said first location is
`
`different from said second location.” The ordinary and customary meaning of
`
`“different” is: “unlike in form, quality, amount, or nature; dissimilar.” AMERICAN
`
`HERITAGE® DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (5th ed. 2011) (Ex. 3002).
`
`The ordinary and customary meaning of “location” is: “a place where something is
`
`or could be located; a site.” AMERICAN HERITAGE® DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH
`
`LANGUAGE (5th ed. 2011) (Ex. 3003). Accordingly, the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning for “said first location is different from said second location” is “the first
`
`site dissimilar from the second site.” The ordinary and customary meaning is
`
`consistent with the Specification. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 1 (depicting the first site of
`
`controller 42 dissimilar from the second site of remote display 52). The ordinary
`
`and customary meaning of “the first site dissimilar from the second site” does not
`
`limit the proximity of the first site relative to the second site, or prohibit the first
`
`and second sites from being “near” one another, as Patent Owner contends.
`
`2. “Automatically”
`
`Claim 1 recites “said controller or said remote display automatically
`
`transmitting a condition of said water softener assembly to the service provider.”
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00155
`Patent 8,180,489 B2
`
`Patent Owner and Petitioner do not propose an explicit claim construction for
`
`“automatically,” as recited in claim 1. Patent Owner implicitly construes the term
`
`“automatically” in this context as excluding intermediate or extra steps. PO Resp.
`
`12 (“Iizuka . . . stat[es] that the maintenance company 36 receives a notice like a
`
`letter with the information needed . . . . Sending such a request, notice or letter is
`
`an intermediate or extra step that is not automatically performed by the control
`
`center.”); see PO Resp. 13–15.
`
`Turning to the ’489 Patent Specification, we do not identify a reasonably
`
`clear, deliberate, and precise definition for “automatically” in the context of
`
`automatically transmitting data. For example, the ’489 Patent provides the
`
`following disclosure related to transmitting data from the controller or remote
`
`display to the service provider:
`
`[t]he present communication system 10 also enables the data to be
`sent from the water softener assembly 12 to a service provider
`network 60. Specifically, the minor circuit board 58 [of remote
`display 52] includes a second modem card 62, which translates the
`data received from the controller 42 into an email message, sends it to
`the service provider via telephone and logs into the service provider
`network 60 to display the message in readable format. Accordingly, if
`the softener 12 is malfunctioning, the service provider is alerted to the
`error and schedules an appointment for servicing the softener. The
`controller 42 also optionally directly communicates with the service
`provider network 60 by sending a signal from the primary circuit
`board 44 to the modem 50, which connects to the service provider
`network 60, logs in and displays the message as an email.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 18–32. Notably, in the context of transmitting data from
`
`remote display 52 to service provider network 60, the ’489 Patent discloses the
`
`following intermediate steps: translating data into an email message, sending the
`
`email message, and logging into service provider network 60 to display the
`
`message. Similarly, in the context of transmitting data from controller 42 to
`
`service provider network 60, the ’489 Patent discloses the intermediate step of
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00155
`Patent 8,180,489 B2
`
`logging in to service provider network 60 and displaying the message.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner’s implicit construction of “automatically” as excluding
`
`intermediate or extra steps, contradicts the ’489 Patent Specification, which
`
`discloses intermediate steps in transmitting data from remote display 52 or
`
`controller 42 to service provider network 60.
`
`Rather than adopting Patent Owner’s incorrect and contradictory implicit
`
`construction for “automatically,” we adopt the ordinary and customary meaning of
`
`“automatically.” The dictionary definition for “automatic” is “acting or operating
`
`in a manner essentially independent of external influence or control.” AMERICAN
`
`HERITAGE® DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (5th ed. 2011) (Ex. 3004).
`
`Accordingly, the ordinary and customary meaning for the adverb “automatically,”
`
`is “independent of external influence or control.” The ordinary and customary
`
`meaning for “automatically” is consistent with the ’489 Patent Specification. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 23–34; col. 4, ll. 18–32.
`
`Independent claim 3 also utilizes the term “automatically” in the recitation
`
`“automatically downloading the updated software version to said controller from
`
`said service provider.” Patent Owner and Petitioner do not propose an explicit
`
`claim construction for “automatically,” as recited in claim 3. Patent Owner
`
`implicitly construes the term “automatically” in this context, such that it excludes
`
`downloading by a user. PO Resp. 17 (“[I]n Roh, the manual and/or the operating
`
`program of the refrigerator are downloaded by the user and not automatically by
`
`the microcomputer 30.”).
`
`Turning to the ’489 Patent Specification, we do not identify a reasonably
`
`clear, deliberate, and precise definition for “automatically” in the context of
`
`downloading updated software. For example, the ’489 Patent provides the
`
`following disclosure related to downloading updated software:
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00155
`Patent 8,180,489 B2
`
`The present communication system is also configured for
`automatically communicating with the service provider to ensure that
`the system is properly updated. Specifically, the controller 42 can
`communicate with the service provider by modem communication
`initiated by either the controller or the remote display 52, as described
`above, and log itself into the service provider’s network 60. While on
`the network 60, it can be determined whether . . . the current
`controller includes the most updated software version for the softener
`assembly 12. . . . [I]f the controller 42 does not have updated software,
`it can be downloaded from the network 60 via a TCP/IP protocol 64
`provided in the minor circuit board 58 and sent to the controller 42 as
`described above.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 4, l. 50–col. 5, l. 3.
`
`
`
`We adopt again the ordinary and customary meaning for “automatically,”
`
`relying upon the same dictionary definition for “automatic.” As previously
`
`discussed, the ordinary and customary meaning of “automatically” is “independent
`
`of external influence or control.” The ordinary and customary meaning of
`
`“automatically” in the context of downloading updated software is consistent with
`
`the ’489 Patent Specification. See e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 4, l. 50–col. 5, l. 5.
`
`In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted various other claim terms of
`
`3. Other Terms
`
`the ’489 Patent as follows:
`
`Term
`
`Interpretation
`
`“interne connection” (claim 1)
`
`a connection over the Internet
`
`“internet network” (claims 3 and 5) and
`“interne network” (claim 6)
`
`a network that is part of the Internet
`
`Decision 7–9. Neither party disputes these interpretations, and we incorporate our
`
`previous analysis for purposes of this Decision.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00155
`Patent 8,180,489 B2
`
`B. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`Patent Owner argues that the Petition was improper under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 325(d) because Roh (Ex. 1003) is cumulative to references already cited and
`
`considered by the Examiner during examination of the application issuing as the
`
`’489 Patent (i.e., the same or substantially the same prior art). PO Resp. 5–6, 8. In
`
`particular, Patent Owner argues that Roh (Ex. 1003) is cumulative to Navarro
`
`(U.S. Pat. No. 6,657,546 B2, Ex. 1017), which was cited and considered by the
`
`Examiner during prosecution of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/238,786 (“the ’786
`
`Application”), which issued as the ’489 Patent. PO Resp. 5–6, 8.
`
`Section 325(d) states the following: “[i]n determining whether to institute or
`
`order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may
`
`take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or
`
`substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the
`
`Office.”
`
` We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that the Petition was
`
`improper under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Section 325(d) provides the Office with
`
`discretion to reject a petition because the same or substantially the same prior art
`
`previously was presented to the Office; there is no requirement that a petition must
`
`be rejected for this reason.
`
`In addition to the Director’s discretion to reject, or not reject, a petition for
`
`inter partes review, we also are persuaded (Pet. Reply 2–4) that the teachings of
`
`Roh are not substantially the same as, or cumulative to, Navarro. Specifically, we
`
`agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s chart (PO Resp. 6–7), which compares
`
`the teachings of Roh and Navarro, identifies where Roh discloses “downloading
`
`updated software,” but fails to identify any disclosure in Navarro directed to
`
`“downloading updated software.” Pet. Reply 3–4.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00155
`Patent 8,180,489 B2
`
`For all of these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Petition should be
`
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`C. Obviousness of Claims 1–6
`
`With respect to the assertions of unpatentability of claims 1–6, we have
`
`reviewed the Petition, Patent Owner Response, and Petitioner’s Reply, as well as
`
`the evidence discussed in each of those papers. We are persuaded by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 5, and 6 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Iizuka and Roh, and claim 4 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over Iizuka, Roh, and Gonzalez. See Pet. 18–52.
`
`1. Iizuka (Ex. 1006)
`
`Iizuka discloses a water softening device and “management center for
`
`supporting working of the water softener by monitoring the operating state of the
`
`water softener through a given communication cable.” Ex. 1006, 3, paragraph
`
`entitled “Solution.” Figure 1 of Iizuka is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00155
`Patent 8,180,489 B2
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1, the system comprises two water softening elements (resin
`
`towers) 11, 12 for alternating use, regeneration tank 13 for storing salt water, water
`
`level sensor 13c (not shown in Figure 1) in regeneration tank 13, hardness detector
`
`17 for detecting the hardness of the processed water, and various valves 15, 16.
`
`Id. ¶¶ 11–15. Device monitoring system 31, which is “attached to the installation
`
`site of the water softener equipment 10,” monitors the operating condition of the
`
`various parts of the system and provides data regarding those conditions (e.g.,
`
`operational status, water level, salt level) to management center 33 over network
`
`32. Id. ¶¶ 16, 17, 20, 21, 28, 29. Specifically, device monitoring system 31 is
`
`“provided with an information-communication terminal (not shown), such as a
`
`portable telephone terminal, to access the control center 33 via the above-
`
`mentioned network 32 through packet telecommunication, etc.” Id. ¶ 17. When it
`
`is determined that additional salt is needed, management center 33 notifies salt
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00155
`Patent 8,180,489 B2
`
`supplier 35 through network 32. Id. ¶¶ 21, 24, 25; Fig. 4, steps S12–S14. When it
`
`is determined that maintenance is needed, management center 33 notifies
`
`maintenance company 36. Id. ¶¶ 28, 31, 32; Fig. 4, step S32.
`
`2. Roh (Ex. 1003)
`
`Roh discloses an “Internet refrigerator” having “a modem for performing a
`
`data communication with remote communication devices through the Internet.”
`
`Ex. 1003, Abs. Figure 1 of Roh is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 above, the Internet refrigerator in Roh includes main
`
`microcomputer 30 and Internet connection device 40 for communicating with
`
`various devices over the Internet, such as cellular phone 130, personal computer
`
`170, and service center 150. Id. ¶¶ 37, 41. Various types of information are
`
`exchanged between the Internet refrigerator and external devices, such as “the
`
`operation state of the refrigerator” and “information for externally controlling the
`
`operation of the refrigerator.” Id. ¶¶ 39–40. Roh further discloses that because
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00155
`Patent 8,180,489 B2
`
`“the refrigerator can be connected to the Internet, it can obtain the updated manual
`
`information or operating program downloaded from the Internet by the user or
`
`through a periodic Internet connection by a predetermined program. Accordingly,
`
`the software of the refrigerator can be upgraded.” Id. ¶ 69.
`
`3. Claims 1 and 2
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that Iizuka and Roh teach the majority of
`
`limitations of claim 1. Patent Owner argues that Iizuka and Roh fail to teach or
`
`suggest the following limitations of claim 1: (a) “a controller at a first location . . .
`
`a remote display at a second location . . . wherein said first location is different
`
`from said second location”; and (b) “said controller or said remote display
`
`automatically transmitting a condition of said water softener assembly to the
`
`service provider.” PO Resp. 8–15.
`
`a. “Said First Location Is Different From Said Second Location”
`
`Claim 1 recites “a controller at a first location,” “a remote display at a
`
`second location,” and “wherein said first location is different from said second
`
`location.” In regard to the aforementioned limitations, Petitioner makes the
`
`following assertions: (1) “a controller at a first location” is taught by Iizuka’s
`
`device monitoring system 31 attached to the installation site of the water softener
`
`equipment 10; and (2) “a remote display at a second location,” and “wherein said
`
`first location is different from said second location,” are taught by “[m]anagement
`
`center 33[, which is] apparently at another or second location and communicates
`
`with [] device monitoring system 31.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 16; Fig. 1); see
`
`Pet. Reply 5–7. Petitioner further asserts Iizuka discloses device monitoring
`
`system 31 provides information related to the condition of water softener
`
`equipment 10 through network 32 to management center 33. Id.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00155
`Patent 8,180,489 B2
`
`Patent Owner contends that Iizuka’s “control center 33 (i.e., [management
`
`center]) is located at or near the water softening equipment 10 and management
`
`device 31 [i.e., device monitoring system 31] for closely supervising the operating
`
`status of the water softeners.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 27, 28; Fig. 1). On
`
`this basis, Patent Owner contends that Iizuka’s water softening equipment 10,
`
`device monitoring system 31, and management center 33 are at the same location,
`
`not that the latter two devices are at different locations, as required by claim 1. PO
`
`Resp. 10–11.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments are premised on a misplaced construction of “said
`
`first location is different from said second location” that excludes a first location
`
`near a second location. As previously discussed in Section II.A.1, the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning for “said first location is different from said second location”
`
`is “the first site dissimilar from the second site.” The ordinary and customary
`
`meaning does not limit the relative proximity of the first site to the second site.
`
`Consistent with Petitioner’s contentions (see Pet. 20; Pet. Reply 7) and Iizuka’s
`
`disclosure (Ex. 1006 ¶ 16; Fig. 1), Iizuka describes device monitoring system 31 at
`
`a first site, management center 33 at a second site, and where the first site is
`
`dissimilar from the second site, because Iizuka discloses: (1) the use of network 32
`
`for communication between device monitoring system 31 and management center
`
`33; and (2) Figure 1, reproduced above, depicting network 32 at a site between first
`
`device monitoring system 31 site and second management center 33 site. Further,
`
`Iizuka discloses that “management device 31 is provided with an information-
`
`communication terminal (not shown), such as a portable telephone terminal, to
`
`access the control center 33 via the above-mentioned network 32 through packet
`
`telecommunication, etc.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 17 (emphasis added). Thus, we are not
`
`persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. We are persuaded by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence that Iizuka teaches a controller at a first location, a remote display at a
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00155
`Patent 8,180,489 B2
`
`second location, and where said first location (i.e., site) is different (i.e., dissimilar)
`
`from said second location (i.e., site).
`
`b. Controller or Remote Display Automatically Transmitting
`Condition to Service Provider
`
`Claim 1 further recites “said controller or said remote display automatically
`
`transmitting a condition of said water softener assembly to the service provider.”
`
`Petitioner asserts that Iizuka’s management center 33 automatically transmits a
`
`condition of water softening equipment 10 to maintenance company 36 and salt
`
`distribution company 35. Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1006, Figs 1, 3, 4; ¶¶ 19, 21, 28); see
`
`Pet. Reply 8–9.
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Iizuka describes management center 33 as
`
`performing the following functions: (1) notifying or sending a request to salt
`
`distribution company 35 to supply salt when the salt levels are low; and
`
`(2) contacting maintenance company 36, which receives a notice, like a letter, with
`
`information needed to exchange an ion electrode. PO Resp. 11–12 (citing Ex.
`
`1006 ¶¶ 21, 28, 31, 32). Patent Owner asserts that sending such a request, notice,
`
`or letter is an intermediate or extra step that is not “automatically” performed by
`
`control center 33. PO Resp. 12.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments are premised on an incorrect construction of
`
`“automatically” that excludes intermediate or extra steps. As previously discussed
`
`in Section II.A.2, the ordinary and customary meaning for “automatically” is
`
`“independent of external influence or control.” Consistent with Petitioner’s
`
`contentions (see Pet. 21; Pet. Reply 8–9), Iizuka describes management center 33
`
`transmitting, essentially independent of external influence or control, a condition
`
`of water softening equipment 10 to maintenance company 36 and salt distribution
`
`company 35, because Iizuka discloses that management center 33 notifies salt
`
`supplier 35 when salt is needed (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 21, 24, 25; Fig. 4, steps S12–S14).
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00155
`Patent 8,180,489 B2
`
`For example, Iizuka discloses that management center 33 “send[s] notification
`
`about salt delivery to the side of water softening equipment 10 when delivery of
`
`salt is indicated.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 21 (emphasis added). Iizuka also discloses that
`
`management center 33 notifies maintenance company 36 when maintenance is
`
`needed. Id. ¶¶ 28, 31, 32; Fig. 4, step S32. Specifically, “when deterioration in the
`
`detection characteristics of said ion electrode is detected[, management center 33]
`
`generates an order for electrode replacement to a maintenance company 36.” Id. ¶
`
`31 (emphasis added). Patent Owner acknowledges that Iizuka’s management
`
`center 33 notifies or sends a request to salt distribution company 35 to supply salt,
`
`and contacts maintenance company 36, providing information for exchanging the
`
`ion electrode. PO Resp. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 21, 28, 31, 32). However,
`
`Patent Owner does not assert that any external influence or control is exercised
`
`over Iizuka’s management center 33, when management center 33 contacts salt
`
`supplier 35 and maintenance company 36. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments. We are persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`that Iizuka teaches the controller or the remote display automatically transmits a
`
`condition of the water softener assembly to the service provider.
`
`Because we are persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that Iizuka
`
`teaches “said controller or said remote display automatically transmitting a
`
`condition of said water softener assembly to the service provider,” we need not
`
`address Patent Owner’s arguments (PO Resp. 13–15) that Roh does not disclose
`
`these limitations.
`
`c. Additional Limitations