Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 37
`Entered: September 14, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`LINDSAY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VALMONT INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 37
`Entered: September 14, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`LINDSAY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VALMONT INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Lindsay Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,003,357 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’357 patent”). Valmont Industries, Inc.
`
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”) to
`
`the Petition. On September 24, 2015, we instituted an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–15, 17, and 18 (“the challenged claims”) of the ’357 patent on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Claims
`1–3, 6–14,
`17, and 18
`
`1–3, 6–14,
`17, and 18
`
`4, 5, 11, and
`15
`
`Applied References
`Statutory Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Scott et al., PCT International
`Publication No. WO 99/39567
`(published Aug. 12, 1999) (Ex. 1004,
`“Scott”); and Pyotsia et al., U.S.
`Patent No. 7,010,294 B1 (issued Mar.
`7, 2006) (Ex. 1007, “Pyotsia”)
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Scott; Pyotsia; and Irrigation
`Advances: Conserving Water, Energy
`and Labor, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Spring
`1996) (Ex. 1012, “AIMS”)
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Scott; Pyotsia; and Abts, U.S. Patent
`No. 6,337,971 B1 (issued Jan. 8,
`2002) (Ex. 1008, “Abts”)
`
`Paper 7 (“Dec. on Inst.”), 15.
`
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 15, “PO
`
`Resp.”) to the Petition, and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 20, “Pet. Reply”)
`
`to the Response. An oral hearing was held on June 16, 2016, and a
`
`transcript of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 36 (“Tr.”).
`
`We issue this Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner has shown
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–10, 12–15, 17, and 18 of
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`
`the ’357 patent are unpatentable, but Petitioner has not shown by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claim 11 is unpatentable.
`
`A.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`The parties indicate that the ’357 patent is at issue in the following
`
`district court case: Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Lindsay Corp., No. 1:15-cv-
`
`00042 (D. Del.). Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2.
`
`B.
`
`The ’357 Patent
`
`The ’357 patent relates to remotely monitoring and controlling
`
`irrigation equipment.1 Ex. 1001, Abstract. According to the ’357 patent,
`
`prior systems for remotely monitoring and controlling irrigation equipment
`
`used a personal computer (“PC”) located at a base station control. Id. at col.
`
`1, ll. 24–30. The ’357 patent explains that situations may arise when
`
`immediate action is required after viewing the operation of irrigation
`
`equipment. Id. at col. 1, ll. 30–33. With the prior systems, though, a user
`
`would have to travel back to the PC at the base station control, which may
`
`be located miles away, in order to control the irrigation equipment. Id. at
`
`col. 1, ll. 33–35.
`
`To address the aforementioned deficiency in the prior systems, the
`
`’357 patent describes a handheld remote user interface (“RUI”) with a
`
`display and optional keypad. Id. at col. 1, ll. 51–55. The handheld RUI
`
`communicates with the irrigation equipment using wireless telemetry
`
`technology. Id. at col. 1, ll. 56–58. Thus, according to the ’357 patent, the
`
`handheld RUI allows a user to control the irrigation equipment from any
`
`
`1 The parties agree that, for the purposes of this case, the ’357 patent is not
`entitled to the benefit of the filing date of U.S. Application No. 09/778,367.
`Tr. 10:18–11:5, 28:14–29:4.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`
`location without having to travel back to a PC located at a base station
`
`control. Id. at col. 1, ll. 58–61.
`
`C.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 17, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
`
`1. A remote user interface for reading the status of and
`controlling irrigation equipment, comprising:
`
`a hand-held display;
`
`a processor;
`
`wireless telemetry means for transmitting signals and
`data between the remote user interface and the irrigation
`equipment; and
`
`software operable on said processor for:
`
`(a) displaying data received from the irrigation
`equipment as a plurality of GUIs that are configured to
`present said data as status information on said display;
`
`(b) receiving a user’s commands to control the
`irrigation equipment, through said user’s manipulation of
`said GUIs; and
`
`(c) transmitting signals to the irrigation equipment
`to control the irrigation equipment in accordance with
`said user’s commands.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 47–64.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention of the ’357 patent would have had a Bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering or a related engineering discipline such as industrial
`
`engineering, and several years of relevant academic, research, or industry
`
`work experience. Ex. 1009 ¶ 29. Patent Owner argues that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’357 patent would
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`
`have had a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, or computer science with related work experience. Ex. 2006 ¶
`
`28. The parties do not identify any material differences between their
`
`respective definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 15–
`
`16. Thus, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art appropriately in this case. To the extent necessary, though, we adopt
`
`Petitioner’s definition that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention of the ’357 patent would have had a Bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering or a related engineering discipline such as industrial
`
`engineering, and several years of relevant academic, research, or industry
`
`work experience.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`The claims of an unexpired patent are interpreted using the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`
`S. Ct. 2131, 2144–45 (2016). In applying that standard, claim terms
`
`generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
`
`specification. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). An applicant may provide a different definition of the term in the
`
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a
`
`definition, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
`
`specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`
`
`1.
`
`hand-held display / handheld RUI
`
`Claims 1 and 18 recite “a hand-held display,” and claim 17 recites “a
`
`single handheld RUI.” Ex. 1001, col. 6, l. 49, col. 8, l. 17, col. 8, l. 29.
`
`Petitioner argues that the terms “hand-held display” and “handheld RUI”
`
`should be construed to mean “any device, having a display screen, that can
`
`be used while held in the hands.” Pet. 6. Petitioner specifies that, under its
`
`proposed construction, the terms “hand-held display” and “handheld RUI”
`
`include a laptop computer. Id. Patent Owner argues that the terms “hand-
`
`held display” and “handheld RUI” should be construed to mean a “personal
`
`digital assistant, cell phone, smart phone, or similar device of a compact
`
`size, including a display and designed to be operated while being held in a
`
`user’s hand.” PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner specifies that, under its proposed
`
`construction, the terms “hand-held display” and “handheld RUI” do not
`
`include a laptop computer. Id. at 3–6.
`
`In short, the parties propose similar constructions, but disagree as to
`
`whether the terms “hand-held display” and “handheld RUI” include a laptop
`
`computer. Pet. 6; PO Resp. 3–6. We agree with Patent Owner that those
`
`claim terms, when read in light of the specification of the ’357 patent, do not
`
`include a laptop computer. As discussed above, the ’357 patent explains that
`
`the problem with prior irrigation control systems is that those systems
`
`required a user to operate a PC that was not located near the irrigation
`
`equipment. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 24–35. The ’357 patent purports to solve
`
`that problem by using a handheld RUI that “allows the user to read the status
`
`of, communicate with, and control irrigation components from any location,
`
`without requiring the user to be at the irrigation component controls or at a
`
`specific location in the field.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 58–61 (emphasis added).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`
`Thus, according to the ’357 patent, the handheld RUI is a device that a user
`
`would carry around as the user inspects irrigation equipment in the field.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’357 patent would not
`
`have considered a laptop computer to be a handheld RUI. Ex. 2006 ¶ 37.
`
`The ’357 patent consistently describes the handheld RUI as a personal
`
`digital assistant (“PDA”) or another device with a similar compact size. Ex.
`
`1001, col. 3, ll. 21–26, col. 3, l. 36–38, col. 6, ll. 14–19, Fig. 1. At the time
`
`of the invention of the ’357 patent, a laptop computer would not have been
`
`similar in size to a PDA. Ex. 2006 ¶ 37. Further, the ’357 patent indicates
`
`that the handheld RUI can have “an optional keypad.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll.
`
`54–55. A laptop computer ordinarily has a full keyboard and, thus, would
`
`not need an optional keypad.
`
`Petitioner argues that the ’357 patent does not limit the “hand-held
`
`display” and “handheld RUI” to just PDAs or smaller devices. Pet. Reply 3–
`
`4. We agree that the challenged claims are not limited to just PDAs and
`
`smaller devices. Nonetheless, as discussed above, the ’357 patent indicates
`
`that the handheld RUI is similar in size to a PDA (Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 21–26,
`
`col. 3, l. 36–38, col. 6, ll. 14–19, Fig. 1), and, at the time of the invention of
`
`the ’357 patent, a laptop computer would not have been similar in size to a
`
`PDA (Ex. 2006 ¶ 37). Petitioner also argues that the personal experience of
`
`its declarant, Dr. Craig Rosenberg, indicates that a laptop computer was
`
`small enough to be operated while being held in a person’s hands. Pet.
`
`Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 46; Ex. 1018 ¶ 3). Dr. Rosenberg’s personal
`
`experience, however, does not outweigh the intrinsic evidence discussed
`
`above. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`
`(“We have viewed extrinsic evidence in general as less reliable than the
`
`patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.”).
`
`Therefore, we determine that the term “hand-held display” in claims 1
`
`and 18 and the term “handheld RUI” in claim 17 do not include a laptop
`
`computer.
`
`2.
`
`wireless telemetry means
`
`Claims 1, 17, and 18 recite a “wireless telemetry means.” Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 6, ll. 51–53, col. 8, ll. 18–20, col. 8, ll. 31–33. We agree with the parties
`
`that “wireless telemetry means” is a means-plus-function limitation under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Pet. 7–8; Prelim. Resp. 1; Dec. on Inst. 4. The recited
`
`function for the “wireless telemetry means” in claims 1 and 18 is
`
`“transmitting signals and data between the remote user interface and the
`
`irrigation equipment.” Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 51–53, col. 8, ll. 31–33. The
`
`recited function for the “wireless telemetry means” in claim 17 is “receiving
`
`and transmitting data between the remote user interface and the irrigation
`
`equipment.” Id. at col. 8, ll. 18–20.
`
`The “wireless telemetry means” is described in the following portion
`
`of the ’357 patent:
`
`To enable the RUI 14 to exchange information with the
`irrigation components and ancillary equipment, the PDA is
`preferably coupled with wireless telemetry technology, such as
`RF telemetry or cell phone telemetry. It is contemplated that
`the PDA and wireless telemetry technology could be combined
`into a single integrated RUI 14 such as the Sprint TP3000,
`Kyocera 6035, Samsung 1300, or similar device that would
`enable the user to monitor and control the subject equipment
`from virtually anywhere. It is further contemplated that the
`RUI 14 could be comprised of a PDA that is interfaced with a
`cellular or digital telephone using an interface cable.
`Additionally, it is contemplated that the RUI 14 could be
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`
`
`comprised of a PDA that is interfaced with a VHF/UHF or
`spread spectrum radio using an interface cable.
`
`Id. at col. 6, ll. 11–24 (emphasis added). The above portion of the ’357
`
`patent links the claimed “wireless telemetry means” to several corresponding
`
`structures, namely a cellular telephone, a digital telephone, a VHF/UHF
`
`radio, and a spread spectrum radio. Id. As a result, we determine that the
`
`corresponding structure for the “wireless telemetry means” is “a cellular
`
`telephone, a digital telephone, a VHF/UHF radio, or a spread spectrum
`
`radio, and equivalent structures.” We identified the same corresponding
`
`structure in the Decision on Institution (Dec. on Inst. 5), and the parties do
`
`not dispute that determination.
`
`Therefore, we construe the term “wireless telemetry means” in claims
`
`1, 17, and 18, as shown in the table below.
`
`Claim Term
`wireless telemetry
`means (claims 1
`and 18)
`
`wireless telemetry
`means (claim 17)
`
`Recited Function
`transmitting signals
`and data between the
`remote user interface
`and the irrigation
`equipment
`receiving and
`transmitting data
`between the remote
`user interface and the
`irrigation equipment
`
`Corresponding Structure
`a cellular telephone, a
`digital telephone, a
`VHF/UHF radio, or a
`spread spectrum radio, and
`equivalent structures
`a cellular telephone, a
`digital telephone, a
`VHF/UHF radio, or a
`spread spectrum radio, and
`equivalent structures
`
`3.
`
`directly
`
`Claim 17 recites “to directly control the operation of the irrigation
`
`components and ancillary equipment.” Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 24–26. In the
`
`Decision on Institution, we construed the term “directly” to mean “with no
`
`intermediary.” Dec. on Inst. 6. The parties do not dispute that construction,
`
`and we see no reason now to deviate from that construction.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`
`
`Our construction is consistent with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of the term “directly.” For example, one definition of the term
`
`“directly” is “[w]ithout medium, agent, or go-between.” Ex. 3001, 3 (THE
`
`NEW INTERNATIONAL WEBSTER’S COMPREHENSIVE DICTIONARY OF THE
`
`ENGLISH LANGUAGE: ENCYCLOPEDIC EDITION, 362 (1999)).2 Our
`
`construction also is supported by the intrinsic evidence. Figure 1 of the ’357
`
`patent shows remote user interface 14 communicating with pivot controllers
`
`12 and valve controllers 13 without an intermediary. Ex. 1001, Fig. 1.
`
`Further, during prosecution of a related application, the applicant indicated
`
`that the term “directly” means without an intermediary. Ex. 1006, 155–56.3
`
`Specifically, the applicant argued that the cited prior art did not teach
`
`“directly” transmitting telemetry from a remote user interface to an irrigation
`
`component because there were intermediaries between the remote user
`
`interface and the irrigation component. Id.
`
`Petitioner argues that “[t]he phrase ‘directly control’ as used in the
`
`’357 claims requires only that user input is utilized to control . . . ‘irrigation
`
`components and other ancillary equipment.’” Pet. 7. According to
`
`Petitioner, “it does not matter what communication pathway is utilized to
`
`send signals to the controlled element.” Id. However, as we explained in
`
`the Decision on Institution, Petitioner’s proposed construction would
`
`
`2 See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“In some cases, the ordinary meaning of
`claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily
`apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves
`little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly
`understood words. In such circumstances, general purpose dictionaries may
`be helpful.” (citation omitted)).
`
`3 We cite to the exhibit page numbers added to Exhibit 1006 by Petitioner.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`
`improperly read the term “directly” out of the claims. Dec. on Inst. 6; see
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[C]laims
`
`are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.”).
`
`Therefore, we construe the term “directly” in claim 17 to mean “with
`
`no intermediary.”
`
`C. Obviousness of Claims 1–3, 6–14, 17, and 18 Over Scott and
`Pyotsia, or Over Scott, Pyotsia, and AIMS
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–3, 6–14, 17, and 18 would have been
`
`obvious over Scott, Pyotsia, and AIMS. Pet. 3. In the Decision on
`
`Institution, we explained that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1–3, 6–14, 17, and 18 would
`
`have been obvious over Scott and Pyotsia, even without AIMS. Dec. on
`
`Inst. 8. Thus, we instituted an inter partes review on the grounds that claims
`
`1–3, 6–14, 17, and 18 would have been obvious over Scott and Pyotsia, or
`
`over Scott, Pyotsia, and AIMS. Id. at 15.
`
`A claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3)
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`We have considered the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence,
`
`and we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`
`evidence that claims 1–3, 6–10, 12–14, 17, and 18 would have been obvious
`
`over Scott and Pyotsia. We determine that Petitioner has not shown by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claim 11 would have been obvious over
`
`Scott and Pyotsia, or over Scott, Pyotsia, and AIMS.
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Scott and Pyotsia
`
`Scott relates to remotely monitoring and controlling an irrigation
`
`system. Ex. 1004, 10:26–30.4 Scott teaches a computer, such as a laptop
`
`computer, that monitors and controls various components of the irrigation
`
`system. Id. at 10:26–30, 14:21–22. Specifically, the computer in Scott
`
`displays a graphical user interface (“GUI”) that allows a user to view
`
`components of the irrigation system, monitor the operation of those
`
`components, and adjust programming parameters for those components. Id.
`
`at 43:3–6. The computer communicates with the components of the
`
`irrigation system using a radio link. Id. at 11:35–12:3.
`
`Pyotsia relates to remotely monitoring and controlling field devices,
`
`such as sensors and transducers, in an industrial process. Ex. 1007, Abstract,
`
`col. 1, ll. 6–9, col. 1, ll. 14–16. Pyotsia teaches a mobile terminal, such as a
`
`mobile phone, with a GUI that allows a user to monitor and control the field
`
`devices. Id. at Abstract, col. 5, ll. 43–50, col. 8, ll. 23–25. The mobile
`
`phone communicates with the field devices using a cellular communication
`
`system. Id. at Abstract, col. 5, ll. 43–50.
`
`
`4 We cite to the exhibit page numbers added to Scott by Petitioner.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1
`
`a.
`
`Limitations of Claim 1
`
`Claim 1 recites “a hand-held display.” Ex. 1001, col. 6, l. 49. As
`
`discussed above, we determine that the term “hand-held display” does not
`
`include a laptop computer. See supra Section II.B.1. Petitioner
`
`acknowledges that Scott only teaches a laptop computer, and, thus, relies on
`
`Pyotsia to teach a hand-held display. Pet. 30–31. Pyotsia teaches a mobile
`
`terminal that monitors and controls field devices in an industrial process.
`
`Id.; Ex. 1007, Abstract. Pyotsia teaches that the mobile terminal may be a
`
`standard mobile phone or similar device with a relatively small display. Pet.
`
`31, 34; Ex. 1007, col. 8, ll. 23–25. Patent Owner does not dispute that the
`
`combination of Scott and Pyotsia teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`
`Claim 1 recites “a processor.” Ex. 1001, col. 6, l. 50. Scott teaches a
`
`computer that includes a microprocessor. Pet. 34; Ex. 1004, 14:30–34.
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that the combination of Scott and Pyotsia
`
`teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`
`Claim 1 recites “wireless telemetry means for transmitting signals and
`
`data between the remote user interface and the irrigation equipment.” Ex.
`
`1001, col. 6, ll. 51–53. As discussed above, we determine that the
`
`corresponding structure for the “wireless telemetry means” is “a cellular
`
`telephone, a digital telephone, a VHF/UHF radio, or a spread spectrum
`
`radio, and equivalent structures.” See supra Section II.B.2. Scott teaches a
`
`computer that transmits signals and data to irrigation equipment using a
`
`radio link. Pet. 35; Ex. 1004, 11:35–12:3. Pyotsia teaches a mobile phone
`
`that transmits signals and data to field devices using a cellular
`
`communication system. Pet. 35; Ex. 1007, col. 5, ll. 43–50, col. 8, ll. 23–25.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that the combination of Scott and Pyotsia
`
`teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`
`Claim 1 recites “software operable on said processor” for “displaying
`
`data received from the irrigation equipment as a plurality of GUIs that are
`
`configured to present said data as status information on said display.” Ex.
`
`1001, col. 6, ll. 54–58. Scott teaches a computer that is programmed with
`
`software. Pet. 35; Ex. 1004, 14:17–20, 15:15–17. Scott teaches that the
`
`software receives data from the irrigation equipment. Pet. 36, 38; Ex. 1004,
`
`38:5–7. Scott also teaches that the software displays a plurality of GUIs that
`
`allow a user to monitor the status of the irrigation equipment. Pet. 36, 38;
`
`Ex. 1004, 38:1–5, 43:3–6, Fig. 28. For example, Scott teaches a GUI for a
`
`pump that shows water moving through the pump when the pump is in
`
`operation. Pet. 38; Ex. 1004, 38:1–7, Fig. 28. Patent Owner does not
`
`dispute that the combination of Scott and Pyotsia teaches the above
`
`limitation of claim 1.
`
`Claim 1 recites “software operable on said processor” for “receiving a
`
`user’s commands to control the irrigation equipment, through said user’s
`
`manipulation of said GUIs.” Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 54, 59–61. Scott teaches
`
`that the software displays a plurality of GUIs that allow a user to adjust the
`
`programming parameters for the irrigation equipment. Pet. 36, 38; Ex. 1004,
`
`36:12–14, 38:14–16, 43:3–6, Fig. 28. For example, Scott teaches that a user
`
`may manipulate the GUIs to select whether a pump is on or off. Pet. 38; Ex.
`
`1004, 38:14–16, Fig. 28. Patent Owner does not dispute that the
`
`combination of Scott and Pyotsia teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`
`Claim 1 recites “software operable on said processor” for
`
`“transmitting signals to the irrigation equipment to control the irrigation
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`
`equipment in accordance with said user’s commands.” Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll.
`
`54, 62–64. Scott teaches that the software controls the irrigation equipment
`
`by transmitting a user’s commands to the irrigation equipment in a suitable
`
`digital or analog format. Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1004, 11:35–12:3, 21:23–25,
`
`38:16–19. Patent Owner does not dispute that the combination of Scott and
`
`Pyotsia teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`
`b.
`
`Reasons for Combining Scott and Pyotsia
`
`Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that it would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of
`
`the ’357 patent to combine the identified aspects of the system in Scott with
`
`the mobile phone in Pyotsia. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 56–61). We agree
`
`with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning. Specifically, we find that Scott and
`
`Pyotsia relate to the same field of endeavor as the ’357 patent, that is,
`
`remotely monitoring and controlling field devices. Ex. 1004, Abstract; Ex.
`
`1007, Abstract; Ex. 1009 ¶ 61. We also find that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have been motivated to combine the cited teachings in Scott
`
`and Pyotsia because the mobile phone in Pyotsia would have provided
`
`greater portability and mobility than the laptop computer in Scott. Ex. 1009
`
`¶ 61. Further, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the cited teachings in
`
`Scott and Pyotsia. Id. ¶¶ 57–61.
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that Scott and Pyotsia relate to the
`
`same field of endeavor as the ’357 patent. PO Resp. 28–29. Patent Owner
`
`also does not dispute that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been motivated to combine the cited teachings in Scott and Pyotsia in order
`
`to enhance the portability and mobility of the system in Scott. Id. at 28.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`
`Patent Owner only disputes whether it would have been possible to combine
`
`the cited teachings in Scott and Pyotsia. Id. at 23–28.
`
`First, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Craig
`
`Rosenberg, does not provide any support for his conclusion that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been able to combine the identified
`
`aspects of the system in Scott with the mobile phone in Pyotsia. Id. at 23–
`
`24. Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. As an initial matter, Dr.
`
`Rosenberg’s testimony does not have to show that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have known with absolute predictability that the
`
`combination of Scott and Pyotsia would work. See In re Kubin, 561 F.3d
`
`1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Rather, Dr. Rosenberg need only explain why
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation
`
`of success in combining the cited teachings in Scott and Pyotsia. See id.
`
`Here, Dr. Rosenberg explains that Pyotsia teaches a mobile phone that
`
`is capable of providing a user interface for remotely monitoring and
`
`controlling field devices in an industrial process. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 57–60 (citing
`
`Ex. 1007, col. 3, ll. 58–67, col. 6, ll. 31–35, col. 8, ll. 1–6, col. 8, ll. 23–27).
`
`Dr. Rosenberg also explains that AIMS teaches a mobile phone that is
`
`capable of providing a user interface for remotely monitoring and
`
`controlling irrigation equipment.5 Ex. 1009 ¶ 61 (citing Ex. 1012, 46 (“I’m
`
`also adapting my laptop computer so that I can log into the system via
`
`
`5 Even if AIMS is not included in the asserted ground of unpatentability,
`Petitioner may rely on AIMS to show the knowledge that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would bring to bear in reading the prior art identified
`as producing obviousness. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`6 We cite to the exhibit page numbers added to AIMS by Petitioner.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`
`cellular phone and monitor the network from almost anywhere.”)). Thus,
`
`the teachings of the prior art support Dr. Rosenberg’s conclusion that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that a user
`
`interface for remotely monitoring and controlling irrigation equipment, like
`
`the one in Scott, would work on a mobile phone, like the mobile phone in
`
`Pyotsia. Ex. 1009 ¶ 61; see In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1986) (finding that the teachings of the prior art provide a
`
`sufficient basis for a reasonable expectation of success).
`
`
`
`Second, Patent Owner argues that the mobile phones available at the
`
`time of the invention of the ’357 patent would not have had the processing
`
`power, storage, or display capability needed to operate the “complex
`
`software” in Scott. PO Resp. 24–26 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 58–66).
`
`Specifically, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Melvin Ray Mercer, explains
`
`that Scott uses CAD software to build and render the graphical user
`
`interface. Ex. 2006 ¶ 59. According to Dr. Mercer, the CAD software in
`
`Scott was too complex to be operated on the mobile phones that existed at
`
`the time of the invention of the ’357 patent. Id.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. The evidence identified
`
`by Patent Owner does not demonstrate that the mobile phones available at
`
`the time of the invention of the ’357 patent lacked the processing power,
`
`storage, or display capability needed to operate the software in Scott. Dr.
`
`Mercer explains that a mobile phone available at the time of the invention of
`
`the ’357 patent would have had less processing power, less storage, and a
`
`smaller display than a laptop computer. Id. ¶¶ 62–65. That evidence alone,
`
`however, is not sufficient. Just because a mobile phone did not have the
`
`same capabilities as a laptop computer does not mean necessarily that the
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`
`mobile phone was unable to operate the software in Scott. Neither Patent
`
`Owner nor Dr. Mercer explains specifically what processing power, storage,
`
`and display capability was required to operate the software in Scott, or
`
`whether a mobile phone available at the time of the invention of the ’357
`
`patent could meet those requirements. See PO Resp. 24–26; Tr. 36:1–9; Ex.
`
`2006 ¶¶ 58–66.
`
`Further, as Petitioner points out, the evidence shows that the mobile
`
`phones available at the time of the invention of the ’357 patent were capable
`
`of operating at least those software features in Scott that are relied on in the
`
`Petition. Pet. Reply 18–21. As discussed above, Petitioner relies on the
`
`software features in Scott that display GUIs and receive a user’s commands
`
`through manipulation of the GUIs. Pet. 36–37. The evidence shows that the
`
`mobile phones available at the time of the invention of the ’357 patent were
`
`capable of doing both. Specifically, mobile phones, such as the Benefon
`
`ESC!, could display GUIs that were very similar to the GUIs in Scott. Ex.
`
`1004, Fig. 16; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 20, 22; Ex. 2015, 14–15. Also, mobile phones,
`
`such as the Nokia 9000 Communicator, Benefon ESC!, and Sony Ericsson
`
`P800, could receive a user’s commands through the manipulation of GUIs,
`
`like the laptop computer in Scott. Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 20, 22, 25; Ex. 2015, 8–9,
`
`14–15, 27–28.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument also is not persuasive because the CAD
`
`software in Scott does not have to be physically combined with the mobile
`
`phone in Pyotsia. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012). As discussed above, the CAD software in Scott is used to build and
`
`render GUIs. Ex. 1004, 6:6–14; Ex. 2006 ¶ 59. Scott teaches, though, that
`
`“[t]he CAD drawing file may be produced anywhere on any computer and
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`Patent 7,003,357 B1
`
`loaded onto computer 10 via removable media drive 58 (Fig. 2) or loaded
`
`via a network connection.” Ex. 1004, 19:30–32 (emphasis added). Thus, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art reading Scott and Pyotsia would have
`
`recognized that the GUIs in Scott could be produced u
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
