Paper 6
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
` Date Entered: February 3, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALLURE ENERGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
` Date Entered: February 3, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALLURE ENERGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner, Honeywell International, Inc., filed a Petition requesting an
`
`inter partes review of claims 1–11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,174,381 B2
`
`(Ex. 1002, “the ’381 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Paper 2
`
`(“Petition” or “Pet.”). Patent Owner, Allure Energy, Inc., did not file a
`
`Preliminary Response. Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may
`
`not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . .
`
`shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`
`
`
`For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–11 of the ’381 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`According to Petitioner and Patent Owner, the ’381 patent is not at
`
`issue in any district court cases or proceedings before the Office. Pet. 1;
`
`Paper 5, 1.
`
`B. The ’381 Patent
`
`The ’381 patent relates to home systems, and more particularly to an
`
`energy management system and method. Ex. 1002, 1:42–44, Figs. 2, 7, 10.
`
`Figure 2 is reproduced below:
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates an energy management system. Id. at 6:57–58.
`
`System 200 is configured for use at site 202. Id. at 6:57–59. Proximity
`
`detection module 234 can detect a distance between mobile device 210 and
`
`site 202. Id. at 12:47–49. Proximity detection module 234 can further
`
`detect a current thermostat setting, and can determine how much to adjust
`
`the thermostat’s temperature based on how close the user is to the site.
`
`Id. at 12:54–67. The system can be configured to employ multiple user
`
`schedules that may be linked to multiple mobile devices. Id. at 13:35–14:6.
`
`For example, a second user schedule can be used or not used based on a
`
`distance a second mobile device may be from site 202. Id. at 13:58–62. The
`
`system can include a user interface that can be accessed using a mobile
`
`device, desktop computer, or other computing device. See, e.g., id. at
`
`41:28–35. The user interface can display current inside temperature, current
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`thermostat set-point, and can include a proximity detection selector
`
`
`
`configured to enable proximity detection of one or more mobile devices
`
`associated with a residential site. See, e.g., id. at 41:36–42:24.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1 and 11, both method claims, are the only independent claims
`
`of the ’381 patent. Claims 2–10 depend, either directly or indirectly, from
`
`claim 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter in this proceeding and is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`1. A method of managing a site in a mobile environment,
`comprising:
`
`detecting an availability of at least one network device at
`a site wherein the at least one network device has an
`operating condition;
`
`detecting a distance of a mobile device relative to the site;
`
`providing a proximity control selector within a user
`interface of the mobile device to manage a proximity
`detection module for controlling a proximity control
`of the site wherein the proximity control selector
`having an enabled setting of the proximity detection
`module and a disabled setting of the proximity
`detection module;
`
`enabling the proximity detection module of the site in
`response to the enabled setting of the proximity
`control selector to modify the operating condition of
`the network device based on the detected distance of
`the mobile device relative to the site; and
`
`disabling the proximity detection module in response to
`the disabled setting of the proximity control selector.
`
`Id. at 62:51–63:2.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`
`D. Evidence Relied Upon
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references.
`
`Rosenblatt US 2010/0081375 A1 Apr. 1, 20101
`
`Trundle
`
`US 8,350,697 B2
`
`Petricoin US 7,973,678 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Jan. 8, 20132
`
`July 5, 20113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1007
`
` Shamoon US 7,257,397 B2
`
` Aug. 14, 2007
`
` Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends that Rosenblatt, Trundle, Shamoon, and Petricoin
`
`are each prior art to the ’381 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Pet. 4. Patent Owner does not, at this stage, challenge the prior art status of
`
`any reference.
`
`Petitioner also relies upon the Declaration of Edwin Selker, dated
`
`July 21, 2016. Ex. 1001.
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–11 of the ’381 patent are unpatentable
`
`based on the following grounds:
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Rosenblatt
`
`Rosenblatt and Trundle
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1, 2, 6, 10, and 11
`
`1–11
`
`Rosenblatt, Trundle, and Petricoin
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`3–5, 8, and 9
`
`Rosenblatt, Trundle, and Shamoon § 103(a)
`
`3 and 4
`
`
`1 Rosenblatt was filed September 30, 2008. Ex. 1004, at [22].
`2 Trundle claims priority to a provisional application filed May 18, 2009.
`Ex. 1005, at [60].
`3 Petricoin was filed February 2, 2009. Ex. 1007, at [22].
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`A. Asserted Anticipation by Rosenblatt
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 6, 10, and 11 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Rosenblatt. Pet. 3. To support
`
`its contention, Petitioner provides a detailed showing mapping limitations of
`
`claims 1, 2, 6, 10, and 11 to structures described in Rosenblatt. Id. at 10–23.
`
`Petitioner also cites the Declaration of Edwin Selker for support. See
`
`Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 80–109.
`
`Rosenblatt (Ex. 1004)
`
`Rosenblatt, titled “System and Method for Simplified Control of
`
`Electronic Devices” (Ex. 1004, at [54]), describes systems, methods, and
`
`devices for simplified control over electronic devices (id. at Abstract).
`
`Among other things, Rosenblatt discloses using a handheld device, such as a
`
`mobile phone, for controlling various home utility devices, including a
`
`networkable thermostat. Id. ¶ 314.
`
`Figure 70 of Rosenblatt is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`Figure 70 illustrates the use of handheld device 40 to control various home
`
`
`
`utility devices. Id. Figure 70 shows thermostat 986, which includes display
`
`screen 988 displaying the ambient temperature, a temperature at which the
`
`thermostat may initiate a cooling operation, and a temperature at which the
`
`thermostat may initiate a heating operation. Id. Thermostat 986 may
`
`represent an embodiment of electronic device 10, which is discussed
`
`elsewhere in Rosenblatt. Id.
`
`Electronic device 10 may be configured as a controllable device or a
`
`controlling device, and may represent a handheld device, a computer, a
`
`media player, a remote controller, or a game controller. Id. ¶ 92. Electronic
`
`device 10 may include location sensing circuitry 22. Id. ¶ 99. Location
`
`sensing circuitry 22 may represent global positioning system circuitry, but
`
`also may represent one or more algorithms and databases stored in
`
`non-volatile memory 14 and executed on CPU 12 of electronic device 10.
`
`Id. Electronic device 10 may include one or more network interfaces to
`
`communicate over a variety of types of networks, including Wi-Fi, ZigBee,
`
`and Bluetooth. Id. ¶¶ 102–105, 134–138.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`
`Figures 71B and 71C of Rosenblatt are reproduced below (the
`
`placement of the two figures is modified slightly to allow for easier
`
`presentation).
`
`
`
`
`
`Figures 71B and 71C represent screens that may be displayed on handheld
`
`device 40 following control initiation operation 984 (i.e., selecting an icon
`
`on the display screen of handheld device to activate a temperature control
`
`application). Id. ¶¶ 314–316.
`
`Specifically, Figure 71B, above and to the left, shows screen 996 that
`
`may be displayed when button 994 (not shown), labeled “Control
`
`Thermostat,” is selected. Id. ¶ 317. Screen 996 displays a list of control
`
`schemes for controlling thermostat 986. Id. Each of list items 998 includes
`
`a corresponding check box 1000, which enables a user to determine the basis
`
`for controlling thermostat 986. Id. One of the control options illustrated is
`
`based on the user’s location. Id. Figure 71C, above and to the right, shows
`
`screen 1002, which is displayed when the first of list items 998, labeled “Use
`
`Location-Based Settings,” is selected. Id. ¶ 318. Screen 1002 includes list
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`
`items 1004, which represent settings for controlling thermostat 986 based on
`
`the location of handheld device 40, as determined by location-sensing
`
`circuitry 22. Id. Distance setting 1006 allows a user to set a number of
`
`miles away from home that a user may be located for a corresponding
`
`temperature setting 1008. Id. Otherwise, thermostat 986 selects temperature
`
`settings 1010. Id.
`
`Rosenblatt also discloses that there are a number of potential
`
`communication channels over which the handheld device can communicate
`
`with the network device, including, e.g., wide area network, local area
`
`network, personal area network, router, and web service. Id. ¶¶ 134–44.
`
`Each communication channel may be used for any data transfer that may
`
`take place between the two devices, such as a transfer of control information
`
`indicating how the controllable device may be controlled, a transfer of a
`
`control software plug-in for controlling the controllable device, or various
`
`intercommunications that may take place in a control stream for controlling
`
`the controllable device using the controlling device. Id. ¶ 134. Rosenblatt
`
`describes the handheld device and network devices communicating through
`
`the Internet, and using Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses of each other
`
`obtained through a “web service.” Id. ¶¶ 137, 140, 141. The web service
`
`may represent a dynamic domain name system (“DNS”) service. Id. ¶ 141.
`
` Analysis
`
`With respect to independent claim 1, the present record supports
`
`Petitioner’s contention that Rosenblatt discloses: (1) “[a] method of
`
`managing a site in a mobile environment,” Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1004
`
`¶ 315, Figs. 7, 70, 71A–71D; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 81–83); (2) “detecting the
`
`availability of at least one network device at a site wherein the at least one
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`network device has an operating condition,” id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1004
`
`
`
`¶¶ 134–144, Fig. 7; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 84–87); (3) “detecting a distance of a
`
`mobile device relative to the site,” id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1004
`
`¶¶ 92, 99, 318, Fig. 71C; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 88, 89); (4) “providing a proximity
`
`control selector within a user interface of the mobile device to manage a
`
`proximity detection module for controlling a proximity control of the site
`
`wherein the proximity control selector having an enabled setting of the
`
`proximity detection module and a disabled setting of the proximity detection
`
`module,” id. at 14–17 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 99, 317, 318, Figs. 71B–C;
`
`Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 90–93); and (5) “enabling the proximity detection module of the
`
`site in response to the enabled setting of the proximity control selector to
`
`modify the operating condition of the network device based on the detected
`
`distance of the mobile device relative to the site” and “disabling the
`
`proximity detection module in response to the disabled setting of the
`
`proximity control selector,” id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 92, 99, 302, 317,
`
`318, Fig. 71B–C; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 94–98). Petitioner also accounts for the
`
`limitations of independent claim 11 and dependent claims 2, 6, and 10. Id.
`
`at 19–23.
`
`Accordingly, we are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner
`
`has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
`
`challenged claims 1, 2, 6, 10, and 11 are anticipated by Rosenblatt.
`
`See Pet. 10–23.
`
`B. Asserted Obviousness over Rosenblatt and Trundle
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Rosenblatt and Trundle. Pet. 3–4. To support its
`
`contention, Petitioner provides a detailed showing mapping the limitations
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`of claims 1–11 to structures and processes described by Rosenblatt and
`
`
`
`Trundle. Id. at 28–60. Petitioner also cites the Declaration of Edwin Selker
`
`for support. See Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 110–212.
`
`Trundle (Ex. 1005)
`
`Trundle, titled “Remote Device Control and Energy Monitoring by
`
`Analyzing Data and Applying Rules” (Ex. 1005, at [54]), describes
`
`techniques for providing a remote device (e.g., thermostat, lighting,
`
`appliance, etc.) control or energy monitoring (id. at Abstract). Trundle
`
`further discloses that
`
`the method may include determining a distance of a user from a
`property based on the monitored geographic location data,
`comparing the distance of the user from the property to a
`threshold distance from the property, and determining whether
`the user is within the threshold distance from the property based
`on the comparison.
`
`Id. at 3:5–10. An example of Trundle’s system is illustrated in Figure 2,
`
`reproduced below.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates an example of electronic system 200 configured to
`
`provide remote thermostat control/energy monitoring using mobile devices.
`
`Id. at 8:20–23. This embodiment includes one or more mobile devices that
`
`each include a “native monitoring application.” Id. at 12:51–52. The
`
`“native monitoring application” refers to “a software/firmware program
`
`running on the corresponding mobile device that enables the user interface
`
`and [control] features” of Trundle. Id. at 12:52–56. “[N]ative monitoring
`
`application 242, 252 tracks the mobile device’s physical location using GPS
`
`or other location protocols built into [the] device and uses location tracking
`
`to control thermostat[s], lighting, and other energy consuming appliances.”
`
`Id. at 13:20–24.
`
`Trundle describes “performing an operation related to controlling one
`
`or more energy consuming devices based on inferred future occupancy.” Id.
`
`at 26:12–14. The monitoring system “controls the light device 1212, the
`
`oven 1214, and the thermostat 1216 in accordance [with] a geographical
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`
`location of a user 1220 driving toward the property 1210 in an automobile.”
`
`Id. a 26:12–20.
`
`Analysis
`
`Claim 1
`
`With respect to independent claim 1, the present record supports
`
`Petitioner’s contention that the combination of Rosenblatt and Trundle
`
`discloses: (1) “[a] method of managing a site in a mobile environment,”
`
`Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 315, Figs. 7, 70, 71A–71D; Ex. 1005, Figs. 6, 11;
`
`Ex. 1006, 1; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 81–83, 119); (2) “detecting an availability of at
`
`least one network device at a site wherein the at least one network device
`
`has an operating condition,” id. at (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 134–44, Fig. 7;
`
`Ex. 1005, 9:57–10:3, 6:40–56; Ex. 1006, 1, 3; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 84–87, 121, 122);
`
`(3) “detecting a distance of a mobile device relative to the site,” id. at 29–30
`
`(citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 92, 99, 318, Fig. 71C; Ex. 1005, 6:57–7:7, 24:54–27:18;
`
`Ex. 1006, 8; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 88, 89, 124, 125); (4) “providing a proximity
`
`control selector within a user interface of the mobile device to manage a
`
`proximity detection module for controlling a proximity control of the site
`
`wherein the proximity control selector having an enabled setting of the
`
`proximity detection module and a disabled setting of the proximity detection
`
`module,” id. at 30–32 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 99, 317, 318, Figs. 71B–C;
`
`Ex. 1005, 6:53–56, 13:20–35, 15:52–56, 25:5–12, 27:5–18, Figs. 11, 12;
`
`Ex. 1006, 8, 10, Figs. 1, 4; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 90–93, 115, 128–30); and (5)
`
`“enabling the proximity detection module of the site in response to the
`
`enabled setting of the proximity control selector to modify the operating
`
`condition of the network device based on the detected distance of the mobile
`
`device relative to the site” and “disabling the proximity detection module in
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`response to the disabled setting of the proximity control selector,” id. at 32–
`
`
`
`33 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 92, 99, 302, 317, 318, Fig. 71B–C; Ex. 1005, 13:20–
`
`35, 26:25–44, Figs. 11, 12; Ex. 1006, 2–3, 8; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 94–98, 131–33).
`
`Petitioner also has made an adequate showing with respect to the
`
`other challenged claims. For example, Petitioner has made the following
`
`showings with respect to claims 3–5, 8, and 9.
`
`Claim 3
`
`With respect to claim 3, which depends from claim 1, Petitioner has
`
`shown sufficiently that the combination of Rosenblatt and Trundle accounts
`
`for “providing a network location configured to store distance information of
`
`a plurality of mobile devices including a first mobile device and a second
`
`mobile device.” Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 92, 99, 314–319, 334, 335
`
`(use of mobile device distance information to alter a network device such as
`
`a thermostat), Fig. 7 (showing communication channels between mobile
`
`device and network device, including server (web service 104)); Ex. 1005,
`
`10:39–54 (using server to monitor multiple mobile devices), 15:52–56
`
`(functions of the control system may be performed by any component of the
`
`system, including the server), 24:54–25:4 (location-based control services
`
`performed at server); Ex. 1006, 4, Figs. 1, 4; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 138–143;
`
`Ex. 1003, 459–461 (prosecution history discussing disclosure of Trundle)).
`
`Petitioner further has shown that Trundle discloses: (1) “detecting a distance
`
`information of the [first/second] mobile device relative to the site,” id. at 37
`
`(citing Ex. 1005, 3:7–12, 15:30–40, 24:54–25:4, 26:12–27:16, Fig. 11;
`
`Ex. 1006, 8, 11–12; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 144–146; Ex. 1003, 460–61 (prosecution
`
`history where applicant acknowledges that Trundle discloses these
`
`limitations)); (2) “communicating the distance information of the first
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`mobile device and the distance information of the second mobile device to
`
`
`
`the network location to be compared,” id. at 38–39 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:25–
`
`29, 10:54–61, 28:17–38, 29:42–30:30; Ex. 1006, 11–12, Figs. 1, 4;
`
`Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 148–152); and (3) “initiating the change to the operating
`
`condition of the network device if a change in the first distance of the first
`
`mobile device is different than a change in the second distance of the second
`
`mobile device,” id. at 39–40 (citing Ex. 1005, 25:5–27:4, 28:17–38, 29:42–
`
`30:30, Fig. 12; Ex. 1006, 8–9, 11–12; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 152–158).
`
`Claim 4
`
`As for claim 4, which depends from claim 3, Petitioner has shown
`
`sufficiently that the combination of Rosenblatt and Trundle teaches or
`
`suggests the additional limitations of “detecting a setting change of the
`
`proximity control selector of the first mobile device” and “communicating
`
`the setting change to the network location.” Pet. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1004
`
`¶ 317, Fig. 71B (check box in Rosenblatt user interface); Ex. 1005, 8:25–29
`
`(monitoring application server in communication with mobile devices),
`
`10:51–52 (“The monitoring application server 260 also may receive
`
`information regarding events from the one or more mobile devices 240,
`
`250.”), 22:4–31; Ex. 1006, Figs. 1, 4; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 159, 160).
`
`Claim 5
`
`With respect to claim 5, which depends from claim 1, Petitioner has
`
`shown adequately that Trundle teaches “initiating a reporting interval from
`
`the mobile device to a network location,” through its teaching of periodic
`
`reporting based on the distance of the mobile device from the site. Pet. 44
`
`(citing Ex. 1005, 13:20–29, 25:5–27:4, Fig. 12; Ex. 1006, 8–9); Ex. 1001
`
`¶¶ 161, 162. Petitioner also has shown adequately that Trundle teaches
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`“initiating communication of a control of the operating mode using the
`
`
`
`reporting interval and the distance” through its teachings that a distance
`
`report can be sent at each geofence, the reporting interval is the distance
`
`between two geofences, and the operating conditions of a network device are
`
`altered. Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1005, 25:44–48, Fig. 4; Ex. 1006, 8; Ex. 1001
`
`¶ 165).
`
`Claim 8
`
`With respect to claim 8, which depends from claim 1, Petitioner has
`
`shown that the combination of Rosenblatt and Trundle discloses:
`
`(1) “detecting the availability of a first network location and a second
`
`network location, wherein the second network location is different than the
`
`first network location,” Pet. 50–51 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 140, 141 (describing
`
`the ability of the electronic devices to locate each other), Fig. 7; Ex. 1005,
`
`Fig. 2 (showing monitoring control unit system 210 and monitoring
`
`application server 260); Ex. 1006, Fig. 1; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 178–180); and
`
`(2) “initiating access of the first network location to detect the operating
`
`condition of the network device,” id. at 51–52 (citing Ex. 1005, 9:57–11:33
`
`(describing monitoring system control unit 210 communications with
`
`modules 220, 222, and 230 to perform thermostat control and energy
`
`monitoring); Ex. 1006, 3; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 181, 182). Petitioner also has shown
`
`sufficiently that Trundle discloses: (1) “initiating access to a second network
`
`location to store the distance of the mobile device relative to the site,” id. at
`
`52–53 (Ex. 1005, 10:39–54 (receiving information from the mobile devices),
`
`15:52–56, 24:54–25:4 (describing determination of location including
`
`“geographic location of one or more users relative to a geographic location
`
`of the a monitored property (e.g., within a particular number of miles”),
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`Fig. 11 (location information used to control network devices); Ex. 1006, 4,
`
`
`
`8, Figs. 1, 4; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 183–185); and (2) “initiating a communication of a
`
`control action to a first network location to alter the operating condition of
`
`the network device,” id. at 53–54 (citing Ex. 1005, 9:66–10:3, 11:18–28,
`
`24:54–25:4, Fig. 11; Ex. 1006, 8; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 186, 187).
`
`Claim 9
`
`As for claim 9, which depends from claim 8, Petitioner has shown that
`
`Trundle teaches or suggests: (1) “initiating access of the second network
`
`location to detect a distance of the first mobile device relative to a distance
`
`of a second mobile device associated with the site,” Pet. 54–55 (citing
`
`Ex. 1005, 3:7–12, 15:30–40, 24:54–25:4, 26:12–27:16, 28:17–38, 29:42–
`
`30:30, Fig. 11; Ex. 1006, 8, 11–12; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 189–193); (2) “initiating
`
`access to the first network location to alter the operating condition of the
`
`network device if the first mobile device is closer to the site than the second
`
`mobile device,” id. at 55–56 (citing Ex. 1005, 25:5–27:4, 28:17–38, 29:42–
`
`30:30, Fig. 12; Ex. 1006, 8, 11–12; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 194–197); and (3) “initiating
`
`an update of the operating condition at the first network location,” id. at 58
`
`(citing Ex. 1005, 8:60–9:7; 9:66–10:3, 13:3–19; Ex. 1006, 2–3, Fig. 1;
`
`Ex. 1001 ¶ 202). Petitioner further contends that the combination of
`
`Rosenblatt and Trundle teaches or suggests “storing an updated operating
`
`condition within the first mobile device.” Id. at 56–57 (citing Ex. 1004,
`
`Fig. 75C; Ex. 1005, 9:57–11:33, 21:17–28, 22:4–17; Ex. 1006, 4–5;
`
`Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 199–201).
`
`Claims 2, 6, 7, 10, and 11
`
`We also determine that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that
`
`the combination of Rosenblatt and Trundle accounts for the limitations of
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`claims 2, 6, 7, and 10, which depend from claim 1, and independent
`
`
`
`claim 11. See Pet. 33–35, 45–50, 58–60.
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`Petitioner also presents an adequate reason why a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have been prompted to combine Rosenblatt and
`
`Trundle. Pet. 25–28. In particular, Petitioner and Dr. Selker explain that
`
`both references are in the same field of endeavor (i.e., remotely controlling
`
`network devices using mobile devices), and that a person of ordinary skill
`
`“when looking at the disclosure of Rosenblatt would be motivated to look to
`
`other systems that provide additional detail regarding the operation and
`
`function of a network device at a site, including proximity based control for
`
`the purposes of controlling multiple devices at the site, and further for the
`
`purposes of using multiple mobile devices to control a particular site.”
`
`Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 111–117). In particular, Petitioner explains
`
`that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine
`
`Rosenblatt’s user interface with the other “user interface functionality of
`
`Trundle for additional control of network devices at the site along with the
`
`functionality of Trundle that allows for proximity detection operations to
`
`occur at any location within the network.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 114–
`
`117). Dr. Selker testifies that users desire more coordinated control, such as
`
`taught in Trundle. Id. at 26–27 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 115, 116).
`
`As for incorporating Trundle’s use of a server, Petitioner notes that
`
`Rosenblatt already suggests that there are multiple pathways to connect
`
`mobile devices and network devices, and argues that a person of ordinary
`
`skill would have understood that servers are one of those pathways and that
`
`using servers would have been beneficial because they allow for device
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`interoperability and support across devices and platforms. Id. at 27 (citing
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 ¶ 114). Finally, Petitioner notes that the combination of Rosenblatt
`
`and Trundle represents nothing more than the combination of well-known
`
`elements, in a predictable manner, to achieve a predictable result. Id. at 28
`
`(citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
`
`Summary
`
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of obviousness over
`
`Rosenblatt and Trundle against claims 1–11, and we are persuaded, on the
`
`present record, that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing in its challenge to claims 1–11 on this ground.
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness over Rosenblatt, Trundle, and Petricoin
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 3–5, 8, and 9 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rosenblatt, Trundle, and Petricoin.
`
`Pet. 4. To support its contention, Petitioner provides a detailed showing
`
`mapping the limitations of claims 3–5, 8, and 9 to structures described by
`
`Rosenblatt, Trundle, and Petricoin. Id. at 61–65. Petitioner also cites the
`
`Declaration of Edwin Selker for support. See Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 213–230.
`
`Petricoin (Ex. 1007)
`
`Petricoin, titled “Control of Building Systems Based on the Location
`
`and Movement of a Vehicle Tracking Device” (Ex. 1007, at [54]), describes
`
`an automated control system where operations are automatically executed
`
`based on the location and/or movement of one or more tracking devices
`
`(id. at 1:29–31). In particular, Petricoin relies on a tracking device that
`
`communicates with the system, located at a site, to determine if an event,
`
`such as setting a thermostat, should be executed. Id. at Abstract, 2:50–53.
`
`Petricoin discloses a number of possible triggers for an event, such as
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`passing through or arriving at a location, moving above or below a preset
`
`
`
`speed, moving in a certain direction, the time of day, and location of the
`
`tracking device. Id. at 4:22–31.
`
`Petricoin further discloses a user interface that includes an interactive
`
`map with one or more geographical boundary tools for creating one or more
`
`event triggers on the map. Id. Petricoin illustrates this interface in Figure 2,
`
`which is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates operator interface 200 for programming event triggers.
`
`Id. at 5:1–2. In the embodiment shown, operator interface 200 includes
`
`window 205 providing an interactive map (e.g., Google Maps), trigger tool
`
`bar 210 including a plurality of trigger creation tools (i.e., geographical
`
`boundary tools), tracking device selection pull down box 215, speed entry
`
`box 220, time entry box 225, and a plurality of event pull down boxes 230.
`
`Id. at 5:8–14. The trigger creation tools include a directionally-dependent
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`tools such as rectangle entering tool 235, rectangle leaving tool 240, circle
`
`
`
`entering tool 245, circle leaving tool 250, and barrier-with-direction tool
`
`255; and directionally-independent tools such as a barrier tool 260. Id. at
`
`5:14–19.
`
`
`
`Petricoin also describes that “data on the event triggers includes
`
`actions of the tracking device 105 (e.g., location, direction, speed, and/or
`
`time), the tracking devices 105 associated with the event trigger (e.g., a first
`
`car may open a first garage door while a second car may open a second
`
`garage door), and the events to execute.” Id. at 6:47–51. Petricoin also
`
`discloses that a third event can be associated with the condition where both
`
`triggers have occurred. Id. at 6:52–7:3. Petricoin further describes “polling
`
`schemes,” which “include when and how often to poll a tracking device
`
`105.” Id. at 6:38–39. Petricoin discloses that, “[f]or example, a tracking
`
`device 105 that is not moving may be polled once every ten minutes while a
`
`tracking device 105 that is moving at 60 mph may be polled every thirty
`
`seconds.” Id. at 6:39–42.
`
`
`
`
`
`Analysis
`
`As for claim 3, Petitioner relies on the analysis discussed above with
`
`respect to the ground based on the combination of Rosenblatt and Trundle,
`
`see supra, at 13–14, but additionally asserts that Petricoin further teaches the
`
`limitation “initiating the change to the operating condition of the network
`
`device if a change in the first distance of the first mobile device is different
`
`than a change in the second distance of the second mobile device,” as recited
`
`in claim 3. See Pet. 62. In particular, Petitioner relies on Petricoin’s
`
`teachings that one subset of actions can take place when one device is
`
`leaving the home and another subset of actions can take place when both
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01475
`Patent 8,174,381 B2
`
`
`devices leave the home. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 6:47–7:3; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 220,
`
`
`
`221). We determine that Petitioner has shown adequately that the
`
`combination of Rosenblatt, Trundle, and Petricoin teaches or suggests the
`
`limitations of claim 3.
`
`
`
`With respect to claim 4, Petitioner relies on the analysis of Rosenblatt
`
`and Trundle discussed above to teach the remaining limitations of claim 4.
`
`See supra, at 15. We determine that Petitioner has shown adequately that
`
`the combination of Rosenblatt, Trundle, and Petricoin teaches or suggests
`
`the limitations of claim 4.
`
`
`
`For claim 5, in addition to the analysis discussed above with respect to
`
`the combination of Rosenblatt and Trundle, Petitioner further relies on
`
`Petricoin’s disclosure of “polling schemes” that poll the mobile device in
`
`order to determine the location of the mobile device relative to the site to
`
`account for the limitation of “initiating a reporting interval from the mobile
`
`device to a network location in response to the distance.” Pet. 63–64 (citing
`
`Ex. 1007, 3:39–48, 6:38–46; Ex. 1001 ¶ 223–25). Petitioner additionally
`
`relies on Petricoin as teaching “initiating communication of a control of the
`
`operating mode using the reporting interval and the distance.” Id. at 64.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner identifies Petricoin’s teaching that based on the
`
`polling time, the controller polling the tracking device and receiving data
`
`back from the tracking device. Id. (citing Ex. 100
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
