UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`
`HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALLURE ENERGY, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-___
`Patent No. 8,174,381
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,174,381
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8 .................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................. 1
`
`Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ...................................... 1
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................... 1
`
`Service Information ............................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ................................................. 2
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 2
`
`IV. FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................................................. 3
`
`V.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .................................................. 3
`
`Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ............. 3
`
`Claim Construction................................................................................ 4
`
`Control selector .................................................................................... 5
`
`Proximity Detection Module ................................................................ 6
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’381 PATENT ............................................................. 7
`
`D.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’381 Patent ................................................. 7
`
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE `381 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ............................... 9
`
`VIII. ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 6, 10, AND 11 BY ROSENBLATT .. 10
`
`Claim 1 ............................................................................................... 10
`
`Claim 2 ............................................................................................... 19
`
`Claim 6 ............................................................................................... 20
`
`Claim 10 ............................................................................................. 21
`
`Claim 11 ............................................................................................. 22
`
`IX. GROUND 2: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-11 BY ROSENBLATT IN
`VIEW OF TRUNDLE ................................................................................... 23
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Trundle’s Effective § 102(e) Date .......................................................23
`
`Reasons for Combining Trundle with Rosenblatt ...............................25
`
`i
`
`
`

`
`
`
`C. Mapping of Claim Elements ...............................................................28
`C. Mapping of Claim Elements ............................................................. ..28
`
`Claim 1 ............................................................................................... 28
`Claim 1 ............................................................................................. .. 28
`
`Claim 2 ............................................................................................... 33
`Claim 2 ............................................................................................. .. 33
`
`Claim 3 ............................................................................................... 35
`Claim 3 ............................................................................................. .. 35
`
`Claim 4 ............................................................................................... 42
`Claim 4 ............................................................................................. .. 42
`
`Claim 5 ............................................................................................... 44
`Claim 5 ............................................................................................. .. 44
`
`Claim 6 ............................................................................................... 45
`Claim 6 ............................................................................................. .. 45
`
`Claim 7 ............................................................................................... 48
`Claim 7 ............................................................................................. .. 48
`
`Claim 8 ............................................................................................... 50
`Claim 8 ............................................................................................. .. 50
`
`Claim 9 ............................................................................................... 54
`Claim 9 ............................................................................................. .. 54
`
`Claim 10 ............................................................................................. 58
`Claim 10 ........................................................................................... .. 58
`
`Claim 11 ............................................................................................. 60
`Claim 11 ........................................................................................... .. 60
`
`X. GROUND 3: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 3, 4, 5, 8 AND 9 BY
`GROUND 3: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 3, 4, 5, 8 AND 9 BY
`ROSENBLATT IN VIEW OF TRUNDLE AND PETRICOIN ................... 61
`ROSENBLATT IN VIEW OF TRUNDLE AND PETRICOIN ................. ..61
`
`A.
`A.
`
`Reasons for Combining .......................................................................61
`Reasons for Combining ..................................................................... ..6l
`
`B. Mapping of Claim Elements ...............................................................62
`B. Mapping of Claim Elements ............................................................. ..62
`
`Claim 3 ............................................................................................... 62
`Claim 3 ............................................................................................. .. 62
`
`Claim 4 ............................................................................................... 63
`Claim 4 ............................................................................................. .. 63
`
`Claim 5 ............................................................................................... 63
`Claim 5 ............................................................................................. .. 63
`
`Claim 8 ............................................................................................... 64
`Claim 8 ............................................................................................. .. 64
`
`Claim 9 ............................................................................................... 65
`Claim 9 ............................................................................................. .. 65
`
`XI. GROUND 4: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 3 AND 4 BY ROSENBLATT
`XI.
`GROUND 4: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 3 AND 4 BY ROSENBLATT
`IN VIEW OF TRUNDLE IN FURTHER VIEW OF SHAMOON .............. 65
`IN VIEW OF TRUNDLE IN FURTHER VIEW OF SHAMOON ............ ..65
`
`A.
`A.
`
`Reasons for Combining .......................................................................65
`Reasons for Combining ..................................................................... ..65
`
`B. Mapping of Claim Elements ...............................................................66
`B. Mapping of Claim Elements ............................................................. ..66
`
`Claim 3 ............................................................................................... 66
`Claim 3 ............................................................................................. .. 66
`
`Claim 4 ............................................................................................... 66
`Claim 4 ............................................................................................. .. 66
`
`XII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 67
`XII.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ ..67
`
`XIII. CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ........................................................... 68
`XIII.
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ......................................................... ..68
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 24
`
`In re Giacomini,
`612 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 24
`
`Riverwood Int'l Corp. v. R. A. Jones & Co.,
`324 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 23
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 5
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................... 3, 4, 23, 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 ................................................................................................ 2
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ............................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.8 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.10(b) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1001 Declaration of Edwin Selker
`
`EXHIBIT 1002 U.S. Patent No. 8,174,381
`
`EXHIBIT 1003
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,174,381
`
`EXHIBIT 1004 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0081375
`
`EXHIBIT 1005 U.S. Patent No 8,350,697
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006 U.S. Provisional Patent App. 61/179,224
`
`EXHIBIT 1007 U.S. Patent No. 7,973,678
`
`EXHIBIT 1008 U.S. Patent No. 7,257,397
`
`EXHIBIT 1009 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0289643
`
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`“A Persuasive GPS-Controlled Thermostat System”
`
`EXHIBIT 1011 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0105760
`
`iv
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`The real party in interest for Petitioner is Honeywell International Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,174,381 is not currently at issue in any litigation
`
`proceedings. Petitioner and Patent Owner are involved in other inter partes reviews,
`
`specifically IPR2015-01248, IPR2015-01251, IPR2015-01253, IPR2016-01093,
`
`and IPR2016-01094.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Lead counsel is Bruce J. Rose (Reg. No. 37,431) and backup counsel are S.
`
`Benjamin Pleune (Reg. No. 52,421) and Christopher TL Douglas (Reg. No. 56,950),
`
`all of Alston & Bird LLP, 101 S. Tryon St., Ste. 4000, Charlotte, NC 28280, 704-
`
`444-1000. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R § 42.10(b), Powers of Attorney are being submitted
`
`with this Petition.
`
`D. Service Information
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service directed to bruce.rose@alston.com,
`
`ben.pleune@alston.com and christopher.douglas@alston.com.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`

`
`
`
`II. PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Honeywell International Inc. (“Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, of claims 1–11 of U.S.
`
`Patent 8,174,381 (“the ’381 patent”). Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood
`
`of prevailing (“RLP”) on at least one claim identified as unpatentable, and further
`
`demonstrates, beyond a preponderance of the evidence, that the claims challenged
`
`are unpatentable.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’381 patent is directed to a proximity control selector in a user interface
`
`that can enable/disable functionality related to proximity control of a ste. As fleshed
`
`out in the pre-examination search document filed with the ’381 patent, and the
`
`remainder of the prosecution history, Patent Owner relies on this selector for
`
`patentability.
`
`The cited references teach such a selector. For example, Rosenblatt discusses
`
`various ways a mobile phone
`
`can be used to control external
`
`systems,
`
`including changing
`
`thermostat set points based on a
`
`distance of a mobile device
`
`from a site. EX1004, FIG. 71B,
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`
`
`71C, ¶¶ 99, 314, 317-318. Rosenblatt demonstrates the ability to enable and disable
`
`home and away modes by disclosing that “Use Location-Based Settings” (1000) can
`
`be turned on and off with a checkbox. EX1004, FIG. 71B, 71C, ¶ 318.
`
`Given that the Rosenblatt reference, not before the Examiner at the time of
`
`prosecution, discloses proximity control with a selector in a user interface, Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests a determination that the claims of the ’381 patent are not
`
`patentable.
`
`IV. FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`Petitioner authorizes Deposit Account No. 16-0605 to be charged for the
`
`payment of any fees.
`
`V. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A.
`
`Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’381 patent is available for IPR and, Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR.
`
`B. Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of claims 1-11 of the ’381 patent. Specifically,
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of claims 1, 2, 6, 10, and 11 of the ’381 patent on the grounds
`
`that they are unpatentable under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Rosenblatt.
`
`Petitioner further requests IPR of claims 1–11 of the ’381 patent on the grounds that
`
`they are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rosenblatt in view of Trundle.
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petitioner further requests IPR of claims 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 of the ’381 patent on the
`
`grounds that they are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rosenblatt in view
`
`of Trundle and in further view of Petricoin. Petitioner further requests IPR of claims
`
`3 and 4 of the ’381 patent on the grounds that they are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over Rosenblatt in view of Trundle and in further view of Shamoon. This
`
`Petition includes a supporting evidentiary declaration of Edwin Selker (Exhibit
`
`1001).
`
`Rosenblatt
`
`(nonprovisional
`
`filed September 30, 2009), Trundle
`
`(nonprovisional filed May 18, 2010) claims the benefit of Trundle Provisional (filed
`
`May 18, 2009), Petricoin (nonprovisional filed Feb. 2, 2009), and Shamoon
`
`(nonprovisional filed Oct. 17, 2005), are each prior art at least under § 102(e), having
`
`been filed on or claiming priority to a date before the ’381 patent’s earliest recited
`
`priority date, Aug. 21, 2009. Petitioner does not concede that any claim of the ’381
`
`patent is entitled to the benefit of provisional Applications 61/235,798 (filed Aug.
`
`21, 2009) or 61/255,678 (filed Oct. 28, 2009).
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`In an IPR, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(“BRI”) in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the BRI standard,
`
`claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Control selector
`
`The specification discloses a plurality of selectors, each configured to enable
`
`and disable functionality: “a scheduling tool . . . used to display a proximity control
`
`selector configured to enable and disable proximity control of a residential site ...”
`
`EX1002, 37:37-49. Figure 7 illustrates an energy management interface that
`
`includes: “a proximity detection selector 728 configured to enable proximity
`
`detection of one or more mobile devices associated with a residential site.” EX1002,
`
`42:21-24.
`
`In each use of control selector or detection selector, the specification identifies
`
`simply an on/off state that relates to enabling/disabling proximity detection.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`
`
`EX1002, 46:64-47:1, Fig. 10. At bottom, the selector is a button or other user
`
`interface element that has two states. Figure 7, above, illustrates an example.
`
`Moreover, independent claims 1 and 11 describe the enabling or disabling of
`
`the proximity detection module to be in response to the enabled or disabled control
`
`selector. EX1002, claims 1 and 11. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSA”) at the time of the invention would construe “control selector” under
`
`the BRI standard to be “a button or other input that has two states.” EX1001, ¶ 78.
`
`Proximity Detection Module
`
`
`
`The ’381 patent states, “[f]or example, proximity detection module 234 can
`
`include rules based logic to determine if an operating condition of a resource at a
`
`site 202 should be altered.” EX1002, 9:16-19. The “proximity detection module” is
`
`configured to generate a control action report if the user has traveled beyond a certain
`
`preset distance: “proximity detection module 234 can access location data . . .
`
`provided by mobile device 210 ....” EX1002, 12:50-54. Each time the term
`
`“proximity detection module” is used, it is used in relation to the determination of a
`
`distance-based measure with regard to the site. See, e.g., EX1002, 8:10-15. The
`
`“proximity detection module” is further described as configured to detect the
`
`distance a reporting device is from a site. EX1002, 32:22-45. To accomplish its
`
`determination of a distance, “the proximity detection module” is configured to obtain
`
`location information for the reporting device. See id.
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`
`
`The Board has previously construed the term “proximity detection module”
`
`in a case with a similar specification. IPR2014-01424, Institution Decision. In that
`
`decision, the Patent Owner argued that this term should be construed as “a module
`
`(software or firmware) disposed on a thermostat that determines the presence of a
`
`user or device, or the proximity of a user or device, based on data received.” Id. at
`
`6. Given that claims 1, 7 and 11 require identification of the location of the detection
`
`module on different parts of the system, and because Patent Owner broadly describes
`
`the Proximity Detection Module as being available on the device, server, or
`
`thermostat (EX1003, at 42-43), the phrase “disposed on a thermostat” adopted in the
`
`prior proceeding has been omitted from the construction.
`
`Accordingly, the POSA would have construed “proximity detection module”
`
`to be “a module (software or firmware) that determines the presence of a user or
`
`device, or the proximity of a user or device, based on data received.” EX1001, ¶ 74.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’381 PATENT
`
`D. Prosecution History of the ’381 Patent
`
`Patent Owner identified Trundle (EX1009, the publication of EX1005) in a
`
`preexamination search document as both prior art to its disclosure and as disclosing
`
`many of its claim elements. Petitioner relies on these statements to be admissions
`
`that Trundle discloses certain claimed functionality. For example, Patent Owner
`
`concedes that Trundle discloses:
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`
`
`- detecting an availability of at least one network device at a site
`wherein the at least one network device has an operating condition
`(Paragraph 38);
`
` -
`
` detecting a distance of the mobile device relative to the site (Paragraph
`139); and
`
` -
`
` initiating a change to the operating condition of the network device in
`response to detecting a change in the distance of the mobile device
`relative to the site (Paragraph 140-143).
`
`
`EX1003, 459. In the same document, Patent Owner likewise admitted that many of
`
`the elements of claims 2-11 are also disclosed in Trundle. EX1003, 459-460. Patent
`
`Owner confirmed such features in the Trundle provisional. EX1003, 460-461.
`
`An October 20, 2011 action rejected then-pending claims 1-4, 7, and 11 as
`
`obvious over Trundle in view of Doyle. EX1003, 122-134. In response, Patent
`
`Owner disputed only that the cited references disclosed the “proximity control
`
`selector” limitation, not the prior art status of Trundle. EX1003, 87-88. Patent Owner
`
`further distinguished the invention by stating that Doyle “simply discloses an option
`
`for a user to disable GPS tracking of a wireless device” and “fails to disclose
`
`‘presenting a proximity control selector within a user interface. . .’” EX1003, 88.
`
`That is, the only difference identified by the Patent Owner was that the claims
`
`allowed for disabling proximity control in a user interface, compared to the already
`
`known functionality of disabling location services on a mobile device (e.g., by
`
`disabling a GPS) outside of a particular application interface. EX1003, 87.
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`
`
`A final office action rejected the claims. EX1003, 53-65. Subsequently, Patent
`
`Owner further attempted to distinguish independent claims 1 and 11 over the prior
`
`art by adding the term “proximity detection module.” EX1003, 42. Patent Owner
`
`confirmed that the subject invention discloses a server, a controller, and a mobile
`
`device that can all include a proximity detection module. EX1003, 42-43. Patent
`
`Owner also stated that it chose the term “proximity detection module” instead of
`
`“proximity control” at the examiner’s suggestion pursuant to a February 15, 2012
`
`Examiner Interview. EX1003, 42-43. Patent Owner did not amend its independent
`
`claims such that the proximity detection module was limited to being located at any
`
`particular location. EX1003, 11-12, 16, 22.
`
`A Notice of Allowance included an Examiner’s Amendment to further
`
`distinguish the invention over Lee and Ahn by adding a limitation to independent
`
`claims 1 and 11 further clarifying that the “proximity detection module” was directed
`
`to “controlling a proximity control of the site,” but not requiring the proximity
`
`detection module to be located at the site. EX1003, 23-24.
`
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE `381 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`The ’381 patent’s prosecution demonstrates that its claims were allowed
`
`because the prior art did not describe the language related to (1) a proximity control
`
`selector and (2) a proximity detection module that controls a proximity control of a
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`
`
`site. Rosenblatt, not before the Examiner, however, discloses this feature. Petitioner
`
`asserts certain of the challenged claims are anticipated by Rosenblatt and that each
`
`of the challenged claims is unpatentable as obvious in view of at least Trundle.
`
`Each of the arguments below is made from the standpoint of a POSA in the
`
`field of the ’381 patent. Specifically, a POSA would have a bachelor’s of science
`
`degree in computer science or electrical engineering and at least two years of
`
`experience in the field of electronic systems related to in-home automation and
`
`location awareness. EX1001, ¶ 10.
`
`VIII. ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 6, 10, AND 11 BY ROSENBLATT
`
`Claim 1
`
`1a. A method of managing a site in a mobile environment, comprising:
`
`Rosenblatt discloses a method for controlling a site using a mobile device.
`
`EX1004, Fig. 7; see also EX1001, ¶¶ 81-83. Rosenblatt identifies multiple
`
`mechanisms, such as “an RFID tag 118 or matrix barcode tag 124,” that enables a
`
`mobile device to be associated with a network device, and thus a site. EX1004, ¶
`
`0315; see also EX1001, ¶ 81. Based on the identification, the Rosenblatt mobile
`
`device can manage the network devices at a site. Id.
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1b. detecting an availability of at least one network device at a site wherein
`the at least one network device has an operating condition;
`
`Rosenblatt states that Figure 7 describes establishing communication channels
`
`“over which communication between two electronic devices 10, denoted as a
`
`controlling device 92 and a controllable device 94, may take place during a
`
`simplified device control procedure.” EX1004, ¶¶ 0134-0144; see also EX1001, ¶
`
`84. Rosenblatt further discloses that the “communication channels” can be formed
`
`between any two electronic devices and may enable a user to control a network
`
`device at a site. EX1004, ¶¶ 0134-0139; see also EX1001, ¶ 84.
`
`Rosenblatt explicitly discloses that establishing a communication channel
`
`between the controlling device and the controllable device via the internet allows the
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`
`
`devices to “remain physically remote from one another while the data transfer
`
`occurs.” EX1004, ¶ 0139; see also EX1001, ¶ 85. Rosenblatt also discloses that
`
`devices may find each other via the wireless protocol Bonjour® by Apple Inc.
`
`EX1004, ¶0139; see also EX1001, ¶ 86. As Dr. Selker states, Bonjour: “was
`
`specifically designed to discover devices and the services that those devices offer
`
`across a network.” EX1004, ¶ 0139; see also EX1001, ¶ 84-88. Further, Rosenblatt
`
`discloses that the controlling device may locate the availability of a controllable
`
`device over the internet. EX1004, ¶ 0141; see also EX1001, ¶¶ 85-87.
`
`1c. detecting a distance of a mobile device relative to the site;
`
`Rosenblatt discloses that an electronic device, which can be, inter alia, a
`
`computer or a mobile device, can control a network device at a site based on
`
`proximity. EX1004, ¶ 0092; see also EX1001, ¶ 88. Rosenblatt discloses that the
`
`electronic device includes “location sensing circuitry 22.” EX1004, ¶ 0099; see also
`
`EX1001, ¶ 88. The “location sensing circuitry 22” communicates with the control
`
`selector as Rosenblatt discloses that the electronic device may use “the location
`
`sensing circuitry 22 as a factor for carrying out certain device control techniques”
`
`and “may be used by the electronic device 10 to determine a user’s location during
`
`an event; the location during the event may cause different information to be
`
`displayed on the electronic device 10.” EX1004, ¶ 0099; see also EX1001, ¶ 88.
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Rosenblatt further discloses detecting the distance of a mobile device from the
`
`controllable device at the site in order to modify the operating condition of the
`
`controllable device. EX1004, Figure 71C; see also EX1001, ¶ 89. With respect to
`
`Figure 71C, Rosenblatt describes “a screen 1002, which may be displayed on the
`
`handheld device 40 when the first of the list items 998, labeled ‘Use Location-Based
`
`Settings,’ is selected.” EX1004, ¶ 0318; see also EX1001, ¶ 89. Rosenblatt further
`
`discloses that a “thermostat 986” can be managed “based on the location of the
`
`handheld device 40, as determined by the location-sensing circuitry 22.” EX1004, ¶
`
`0318. Rosenblatt also discloses that a user has a number of options in controlling the
`
`thermostat based on location: “A distance setting 1006 may allow a user to set a
`
`number of miles away from home that a user may be located for a corresponding
`
`temperature setting 1008. . .” EX1004, ¶ 0318; see also EX1001, ¶ 89. The POSA
`
`therefore would understand that Rosenblatt is configured to detect distances so as to
`
`enable the functionality displayed in Figure 71C. EX1004, ¶ 0318, Fig. 71C; see also
`
`EX1001, ¶¶ 88-89. As Dr. Selker states, given the clear disclosure of Figure 71C of
`
`Rosenblatt along with the accompanying textual description, it would be clear to a
`
`POSA that Rosenblatt discloses detection of distance of a mobile device from a site.
`
`Id.
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`1d. 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;
`
`The claim does not specify where the proximity detection module resides, and,
`
`therefore, the proximity detection module can be located on at least the device,
`
`server, or thermostat. EX1003, 42-43; see also EX1001, ¶¶ 67, 92. Claim 7 places
`
`the control module on the mobile device, confirming that Claim 1 must be at least
`
`so broad so as to allow the proximity detection module to be on the device, thereby
`
`eliminate the possibility that it is located at the site. Indeed, “proximity control of
`
`the site” is no more than a confirmation that the proximity detection module is
`
`associated with the site so as to enable a network device to be controlled using a
`
`mobile device’s location. EX1002, 28:14-17 (“proximity detection module 438 that
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`
`
`can be accessed by processor 402 to enable and disable proximity control at a site.”).
`
`Rosenblatt at least discloses the proximity detection module, in the form of location
`
`based circuitry, which resides on its mobile device. EX1004, ¶ 0099 (“[T]he
`
`electronic device 10 may employ the location sensing circuitry 22 as a factor for
`
`carrying out certain device control techniques …”).
`
`This location based circuitry is relied upon by the system when operating in
`
`the mode of operation entitled “Use Location-Based Setting.” EX1004, FIG. 71B, ¶
`
`0317; see also EX1001, ¶¶ 90-93. To be clear, Rosenblatt describes a “screen 996”
`
`or user interface operating on a mobile device that allows the user to control various
`
`devices at a site and “may include a corresponding check box 1000, which may
`
`enable a user to determine the basis for controlling the [device]”. EX1004, ¶ 0317;
`
`see also EX1001, ¶ 91. Figure 71B of Rosenblatt is reproduced below, whereby the
`
`control selector, labeled “check box 1000,” is illustrated. Id.
`
`15
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`When the control selector, labeled “check box 1000,” related to “Use
`
`Location-Based Setting” is enabled, the location services (proximity detection
`
`module that controls a proximity control of the site) are used to control the
`
`thermostat, using proximity, at the site. EX1004, ¶¶ 0317-0318, Fig. 71C; see also
`
`EX1001, ¶¶ 90-93; When “Use Location-Based Setting” is not enabled, location
`
`services are not used to control the operating condition of the thermostat. See id; see
`
`also claims 1e and 1f.
`
`16
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1e. 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
`1f. disabling the proximity detection module in response to the disabled
`setting of the proximity control selector.
`
`As incorporated from claim 1d, the proximity detection module is not located
`
`at the site, but instead it is merely associated with the site. EX1001, ¶ 94. As also
`
`stated, Rosenblatt discloses a checkbox configured to enable or disable proximity
`
`settings on a network device. EX1004, ¶¶ 0099, 0317; see also EX1001, ¶¶ 94-95.
`
`In particular, Rosenblatt describes a “screen 996” that allows the user to control
`
`various devices at a site and “may include a corresponding check box 1000, which
`
`may enable a user to determine the basis for controlling the [device]”.Id.. That is,
`
`17
`
`
`

`
`
`
`when the checkbox is selected, Rosenblatt is configured to determine the presence
`
`of a user or device, or the proximity of a user or device, based on data received (i.e.
`
`location data) and further able to modify the operating condition based on the
`
`detected distance. EX1004, Figure 71C; see also EX1001, ¶¶ 95-96.
`
`When the check box is