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 IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 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
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner, Honeywell International, Inc., filed a Petition requesting an
`
`inter partes review of claims 1–9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,498,749 B2
`
`(Ex. 1002, “the ’749 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Paper 2
`
`(“Petition” or “Pet.”). Patent Owner, Allure Energy, Inc., filed a Preliminary
`
`Response. Paper 5 (“Prelim. Resp.”). 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 1–9 of the ’749 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`According to Petitioner and Patent Owner, the ’749 patent is not
`
`currently at issue in any district court cases or other proceedings before the
`
`Office. Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1.
`
`B. The ’749 Patent
`
`The ’749 patent relates to home systems, and more particularly to an
`
`energy management system and method. Ex. 1002, 1:48–50, Figs. 2, 7, 10.
`
`Figure 2 is reproduced below:
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates an energy management system. Id. at 7:5–7. System 200
`
`is configured for use at site 202. Id. at 7:5–12. Proximity detection module
`
`234 can detect a distance between mobile device 210 and site 202. Id. at
`
`12:66–13:2. 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 13:12–22. The
`
`system can be configured to employ multiple user schedules that may be
`
`linked to multiple mobile devices. Id. at 13:13–51. 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 14:3–5. 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 48:53–67. The user interface can
`
`indicate current inside temperature, current thermostat set-point, and display
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`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
`
`50:50–60.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1, a method claim, is the only independent claim of the
`
`’749 patent. Claims 2–9 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:
`
`providing a web-based control selector within a hosted
`web application accessible using a computer and a
`mobile device, wherein the hosted web application is
`stored using a server;
`
`providing a mobile-based control selector within a user
`interface of the mobile device, the web-based control
`selector and the mobile-based control selector in
`communication with a detection module in order to
`manage at least one network device at a site;
`
`allowing each of the web-based and mobile-based control
`selectors to be toggled between an enabled setting and
`a disabled setting;
`
`enabling the detection module in response to the enabled
`setting of at least one of the web-based control selector
`and the mobile-based control selector;
`
`determining a location of the mobile device using the
`enabled detection module;
`
`altering an operating condition of the at least one network
`device using the enabled detection module, wherein
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`
`the altering of the operating condition is initiated
`based on the location of the mobile device;
`
`
`
`disabling the detection module in response to the disabled
`setting of the control selector.
`
`Id. at 66:54–67:10.
`
`D. Evidence Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references.
`
`Rosenblatt US 2010/0081375 A1 Apr. 1, 20101
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004
`
` Schlage
`
` WO 2009/088901 A1
`
` July 16, 20092 Ex. 1005
`
`Trundle
`
`US 8,350,697 B2
`
`
`
`Jan. 8, 20133
`
`Ehlers
`
`US 2004/0117330 A1
`
`June 17, 20044
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends that Rosenblatt, Schlage, Trundle, and Ehlers are
`
`each prior art to the ’749 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
`
`August 12, 2016. Ex. 1001.
`
`
`
`
`1 Rosenblatt was filed September 30, 2008. Ex. 1004, at [22].
`2 Schlage claims an international filing date (in the United States) of
`December 31, 2008.
`3 Trundle claims priority to a provisional application filed May 18, 2009.
`Ex. 1006, at [60].
`4 Ehlers was filed July 28, 2003. Ex. 1008, at [22].
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–9 of the ’749 patent are unpatentable
`
`based on the following grounds:
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Rosenblatt and Schlage
`
`Trundle, Ehlers, and Rosenblatt
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1–9
`
`1–9
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Asserted Obviousness over Rosenblatt and Schlage
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Rosenblatt and Schlage. Pet. 3. To support its
`
`contention, Petitioner provides a detailed showing mapping limitations of
`
`claims 1–9 to structures described in Rosenblatt and Schlage. Id. at 13–43.
`
`Petitioner also cites the Declaration of Edwin Selker for support. See
`
`Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 57–112.
`
`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.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 70 of Rosenblatt is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`communicate over a variety of types of networks, including Wi-Fi, ZigBee,
`
`
`
`and Bluetooth. Id. ¶¶ 102–105, 134–138.
`
`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
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`Schlage (Ex. 1005)
`
`Schlage, titled “Method and System for Remotely Controlling Access
`
`to an Access Point” (Ex. 1005, at [54]), is directed to remote control of
`
`“devices in homes” that can be controlled remotely through a mobile device
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`or via a computer network (id. ¶ 2). Figure 7 of Schlage is reproduced
`
`
`
`below.
`
`
`
`Figure 7 of Schlage is a diagram illustrating the communication between the
`
`radio frequency (RF) devices, the Internet, a web application, and a mobile
`
`application. Id. ¶ 14. Schlage discloses a router that communicates with “a
`
`consumer mobile application or a consumer web application” over the
`
`Internet. Id. ¶ 99. The mobile application and web application “provide
`
`similar controls and include a graphical interface.” Id. An example of the
`
`web application interface is illustrated in Figure 29 of Schlage, which is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 29 of Schlage illustrates a Climate Function page of the web
`
`application. Id. ¶ 36. The mobile application interface is illustrated in
`
`Figures 20–22 of Schlage, which are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 20–22 of Schlage illustrate the interface that is available on a mobile
`
`device and that the user would access in order to control a thermostat. Id.
`
`
`
`¶ 106.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`Analysis
`
`Claim 1
`
`
`
`
`
`1a: “A method of managing a site in a mobile environment, comprising:”
`
`
`
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Rosenblatt discloses a method
`
`for controlling a site using a mobile device. Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1004
`
`¶¶ 92, 134–144, Fig. 7; Ex. 1001 ¶ 73).
`
`1b: “providing a web-based control selector within a hosted web
`application accessible using a computer and a mobile device, wherein the
`hosted web application is stored using a server”
`
`
`
`Petitioner submits that the combination of Rosenblatt and Schlage
`
`accounts for this limitation. Pet. 23–26. Petitioner contends that Rosenblatt
`
`discloses a mobile-based control selector that enables or disables a detection
`
`module for controlling network devices at a site. Pet. 23–24 (citing
`
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 98, 99, 317, 318, Fig. 71B; Ex. 1001 ¶ 74). Petitioner further
`
`submits that Rosenblatt discloses remote access of the controlled device,
`
`which Petitioner contends requires the use of web-based services, including
`
`a server. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 140; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 76, 77). Petitioner
`
`also cites Schlage for its disclosure of a system for controlling a thermostat
`
`that includes a web-based application and a mobile application for
`
`controlling network devices remotely accessible via a web service and a
`
`mobile application. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 99, Figs. 7; Ex. 1001 ¶ 78).
`
`Schlage further discloses that the web application and mobile application
`
`can have similar user interfaces and offer similar functionality. Id. (citing
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 76, Figs. 19, 29; Ex. 1001 ¶ 76).
`
`
`
`Petitioner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been motivated to allow a user to control a device via both a mobile-based
`
`application and a web-based application to provide additional convenience
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`and flexibility to the user in operating network devices, similar to
`
`
`
`thermostats or lighting, remotely. Id. at 19–21, 25–26; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 71, 72.
`
`Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that
`
`it was common that control applications, e.g., those described in Rosenblatt
`
`and Schlage, could be provided either natively or on a mobile device through
`
`a website as described in Rosenblatt and Schlage. Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1001
`
`¶ 80). Petitioner contends that the combination of Rosenblatt and Schlage in
`
`this manner simply rearranges old elements with each performing the same
`
`function it had been known to perform, and yields no more than one would
`
`expect from such an arrangement. Id. at 21 (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
`
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). Petitioner further contends that such a
`
`combination would yield no more than predictable results. Id. (citing
`
`Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 71–72).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s contentions fail for several
`
`reasons. Prelim. Resp. 15–26. First, Patent Owner contends that Rosenblatt
`
`fails to teach or suggest a hosted web application that provides the web-
`
`based controller of claim 1. Id. at 19. Second, Patent Owner argues it would
`
`not have been obvious to modify Rosenblatt to include a web-based user
`
`interface because it would render Rosenblatt unsuitable for its intended
`
`purpose of having one’s mobile phone serve as a universal remote. Id. at
`
`17–18. Third, Patent Owner contends that “the hosted web application must
`
`be provided using a full featured web server,” which Rosenblatt’s web
`
`service is not. Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1002, 25:56–62, 28:19–22). Instead,
`
`Patent Owner contends that Rosenblatt’s web service “falls short because it
`
`is only capable of providing Internet protocol (IP) addresses to controllable
`
`and controlling devices and resolving domain names, and is not a full
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`featured web server capable of providing web-based control selectors.” Id.
`
`
`
`at 19.
`
`Fourth, Patent Owner argues that Schlage cannot teach a web-based
`
`control selector because it does not teach or suggest control based on the
`
`location of a mobile device. Id. at 20–23. Fifth, Patent Owner argues that
`
`“because any selectors in Schlage are not used for enabling or disabling
`
`proximity control, they fail to communicate with a detection module.”
`
`Id. at 23. Patent Owner asserts that “[s]elections made with selectors in
`
`Schlage are communicated to the controller, however, since there is no
`
`disclosure in Schlage that the controller is able to provide proximity control,
`
`Schlage cannot remedy the deficiencies of Rosenblatt [as to this claim
`
`limitation].” Id. at 23–24. Sixth, Patent Owner argues that “[a]n assertion of
`
`obviousness also necessarily requires a contention that it would be obvious
`
`for the web-based control of Schlage to communicate with the detection
`
`module . . . of Rosenblatt which is disposed on the mobile device.” Id. at 24.
`
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has failed to do so, and thus, “any
`
`combination of Schlage with Rosenblatt would fall short of disclosing at
`
`least a web-based control selector.” Id.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner argues that Rosenblatt teaches away from a
`
`combination with Schlage because Rosenblatt seeks to consolidate control of
`
`network devices into a single device, while “Schlage expands remote control
`
`of devices through both a web and mobile interface so that control of devices
`
`can be implemented by systems and devices besides a mobile device.” Id. at
`
`24–25. Patent Owner contends that the proposed modification would result
`
`in multiple remote controls, which “is exactly the type of scenario that
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`Rosenblatt set out to remedy with its single device control scheme.” Id.
`
`
`
`at 25.
`
`On this record, we find Petitioner’s evidence and arguments sufficient
`
`to show that the combination of Rosenblatt and Schlage would account for
`
`this element and a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to
`
`combine the references. As for Patent Owner’s arguments, we do not find
`
`them persuasive. First, regardless of whether Rosenblatt, by itself, suggests
`
`a web application interface (Prelim. Resp. 19), Petitioner relies on Schlage
`
`to suggest modifying Rosenblatt to include such an interface (see Pet. 23–
`
`26). Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments on what Rosenblatt describes does not
`
`address the combination’s teachings.
`
`Second, we are not persuaded that adding a second interface would
`
`render Rosenblatt unsuitable for its intended purpose as Patent Owner
`
`contends. Prelim. Resp. 17–18. Here, the combination would retain all of
`
`Rosenblatt’s functionality and simply add a second web-accessible user
`
`interface nearly identical to the interface disclosed in Rosenblatt. Pet. 23–
`
`26. Thus, the combination would retain Rosenblatt’s universal control
`
`benefits—many different devices still would be controlled by a single
`
`system with a single consistent interface, but the combination forgoes the
`
`simplicity of a single access point for the convenience of having multiple
`
`access means the control interface. Petitioner has presented evidence
`
`(Ex. 1001 ¶ 72) that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated by
`
`Schlage’s teachings of the convenience of having multiple interfaces to a
`
`single control system, even at the expense of the simplicity of Rosenblatt’s
`
`single interface. See In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1243–44 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (holding that combined process was not rendered inoperative where
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`person of ordinary skill “would have been motivated to pursue the desirable
`
`
`
`properties taught by [one prior art reference], even at the expense of
`
`foregoing the benefit taught by [the second prior art reference]”).
`
`Third, as for Patent Owner’s argument that the web-application “must
`
`be provided using a full featured web server.” Prelim. Resp. 19. We
`
`disagree. A “server” is not recited in the claims, let alone a “full featured
`
`web server.” As for the cited portions of the Specification, they do not,
`
`contrary to Patent Owner’s contention, “make clear that the hosted web
`
`application must be provided using a full featured web server.” Id. (citing
`
`Ex. 1002, 25:56–62, 28:19–22). Instead, the Specification gives examples of
`
`possible servers that can be used and makes clear that they are not exclusive.
`
`Ex. 1002, 25:56–62 (stating the server “can deploy several processes of
`
`application that can be used, including, but not limited to”), 28:19–22
`
`(noting the controller “can include a web server capable of communicating
`
`web services that can be accessed”). Moreover, although Rosenblatt uses
`
`the “web service” for, among other things, providing IP addresses and
`
`resolving domain names, there is nothing that says these are all the things it
`
`can do, and Patent Owner provides no evidence to support its contention that
`
`the “web service” cannot serve as a full featured web server. Petitioner, on
`
`the other, has provided the testimony of Dr. Selker, who states that the “web
`
`service” of Rosenblatt could serve in this capacity. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 70, 76, 77.
`
`Fourth, Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s contentions fail
`
`because Schlage does not teach control of network devices based on the
`
`location of a mobile device (Prelim. Resp. 20–23) is not persuasive because
`
`Petitioner does not rely on Schlage for teaching control of network devices
`
`based on the location of a mobile device (see Pet. 23–26). Rosenblatt is
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`relied on to teach control of network devices based on the location of a
`
`
`
`mobile device. Id. at 23–25. Schlage is relied on for teachings regarding
`
`web applications and user interfaces for network device control systems. Id.
`
`at 25–26.
`
`Fifth, Patent Owner’s argument that the selectors of Schlage do not
`
`communicate with a detection module (Prelim. Resp. 23–24) suffers from
`
`similar problem as the fourth argument. Again, Petitioner does not rely on
`
`Schlage alone to account for the web-based control selector, but instead
`
`relies on the combination with Rosenblatt. See Pet. 23–26. Rosenblatt is
`
`relied on for teaching the detection module. See id. at 23–25. Thus, Patent
`
`Owner again is arguing the references separately when Petitioner is relying
`
`on the combination.
`
`Sixth, we disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner has
`
`failed to contend that it would have been obvious to have the web-based
`
`control of Schlage communicate with the detection module of Rosenblatt,
`
`which is located on the mobile device. Prelim. Resp. 24. Petitioner
`
`contends that it would have been obvious to combine the references and that
`
`it would have been within the level of skill in the art to implement the
`
`combined system. See Pet. 21 (contending that the combination would yield
`
`predictable results”), 24–25 (person of ordinary skill aware that functionality
`
`on mobile-based interface could be made available as a web application),
`
`25–26 (noting knowledge of person of ordinary skill regarding mobile and
`
`web applications). Petitioner supports this reasoning with the testimony of
`
`Dr. Selker. Ex. 1001 ¶ 72 (“A person of ordinary skill would understand the
`
`combination of Rosenblatt and Schlage simply arranges known elements
`
`with each of those elements providing the same function it had been known
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`to perform and simply yields what would be expected from such an
`
`
`
`arrangement.”). Thus, we do not agree that there is a wholesale lack of
`
`reasoning in the Petition on this point. Moreover, Patent Owner provides
`
`only attorney argument, but no evidence, to support its contention that such
`
`communication between the web application and Rosenblatt’s detection
`
`module would be beyond the ordinary level of skill in the art. At this stage,
`
`we credit the testimony of Dr. Selker’s testimony on this point, but Patent
`
`Owner is free to develop the record further during the trial.
`
`Finally, we do not agree that Rosenblatt teaches away from a
`
`combination with Schlage. Although Rosenblatt discusses the disadvantages
`
`of different electronic devices each being “controlled locally or using an
`
`associated remote control,” where “[i]nitiating and establishing control of
`
`each device may involve a series of complicated, unintuitive procedures
`
`using separate remote controls” (Ex. 1004 ¶ 5), we do not agree with Patent
`
`Owner that this discussion teaches away from adding a web application user
`
`interface to Rosenblatt’s system.
`
`Here, the proposed combination would retain the universal control
`
`system of Rosenblatt, and simply add a second means of accessing the user
`
`interface, a web application. As Dr. Selker testifies, a person of ordinary
`
`skill would have understood that “an application with the same look-and-feel
`
`could be made available through a hosted web application.” Ex. 1001 ¶ 77.
`
`Thus, unlike the prior art situation described in Rosenblatt’s “Background”
`
`discussion where separate incompatible remote controls were required to
`
`operate each of the many devices, the proposed combination would not have
`
`these shortcomings. Instead, the combination still would allow a variety of
`
`electronic devices to be accessed through a single system with the single
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`intuitive interface described in Rosenblatt. Id. ¶¶ 78–80. As we explained
`
`
`
`above, although this combination would forgo the simplicity of one access
`
`point, it would retain Rosenblatt’s advantages of a single universal control
`
`system and intuitive user interface. Moreover, the combination would gain
`
`the benefit taught in Schlage of the convenience of multiple access methods
`
`to the system. Thus, at this stage, we do not find Patent Owner’s contention
`
`that Rosenblatt teaches away from the combination persuasive.
`
`1c: “providing a mobile-based control selector within a user interface of the
`mobile device, the web-based control selector and the mobile-based control
`selector in communication with a detection module in order to manage at
`least one network device at a site”
`
`
`
`Petitioner has shown adequately that the combination of Rosenblatt
`
`and Schlage accounts for this limitation. Rosenblatt discloses a mobile-
`
`based control selector that enables or disables a detection module for
`
`controlling network devices at a site. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 92, 97
`
`317, Figs. 71B, 71C; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 81, 82). As discussed above with respect
`
`to limitation 1b, the combination of Rosenblatt and Schlage accounts for a
`
`web-based control selector in communication with a detection module in
`
`order to manage at least one network device at a site. See Pet. 27–28.
`
`Further, as discussed above with respect to limitation 1b, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine Rosenblatt and
`
`Schlage in the manner proposed.
`
`1d: “allowing each of the web-based and mobile-based control selectors to
`be toggled between an enabled setting and a disabled setting”
`
`Petitioner has shown adequately that the combination of Rosenblatt
`
`and Schlage accounts for this limitation. As discussed above with respect to
`
`limitation 1b, Rosenblatt teaches the use of a check box that can be checked
`
`and unchecked (i.e., toggled) in a mobile application to enable and disable a
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`proximity detection module. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 92, 317, Fig. 71B;
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 84, 85). Moreover, Schlage teaches the use of a web-based
`
`application for remotely controlling network devices, including the use of
`
`check boxes. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 99, Fig. 7). As we discussed above
`
`with respect to limitation 1b, a person of ordinary skill would have had
`
`reason to combine the references and include in the web-based application of
`
`Schlage the check box of Rosenblatt to control a detection module. Pet. 28–
`
`29 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 84–86). Thus, we determine Petitioner has
`
`adequately accounted for this element.
`
`1e: “enabling the detection module in response to the enabled setting of at
`least one of the web-based control selector and the mobile-based control
`selector”
`
`
`
`We determine that Petitioner has shown adequately that the
`
`combination of Rosenblatt and Schlage teaches or suggests this limitation.
`
`Rosenblatt describes a selectable checkbox on the mobile device that a user
`
`can access to enable proximity settings on a mobile device. Pet. 29–30
`
`(citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 92, 317, Fig. 71B; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 87–89). As discussed
`
`above with respect to limitation 1b, we have determined Petitioner has
`
`shown adequately that the combination of Rosenblatt and Schlage teaches or
`
`suggests a “web-based control selector” for controlling a detection module
`
`and that a person of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of the
`
`references. Petitioner further has shown adequately that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand that when the mobile-based control selector
`
`of Rosenblatt is implemented in the web-based application of Schlage that
`
`the control would have similar functionality capable of enabling the
`
`detection module. Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 317, Fig. 71B; Ex. 1005
`
`¶¶ 76, 99, Fig. 7; Ex. 1001 ¶ 89).
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`
`1f: “determining a location of the mobile device using the enabled detection
`module”
`
`
`
`Petitioner has shown adequately that Rosenblatt teaches or suggests
`
`this limitation. In particular, Rosenblatt discloses determining the location
`
`of a mobile device associated with a site using its location sensing circuity
`
`and providing information related to position, orientation, or movement of
`
`the mobile device from that circuitry to applications running on the mobile
`
`device, such as the software that controls the thermostat. Pet. 31 (citing
`
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 99, 117, 317, 318, Fig. 71B; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 90, 91).
`
`1g: “altering an operating condition of the at least one network device using
`the enabled detection module, wherein the altering of the operating
`condition is initiated based on the location of the mobile device”
`
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Rosenblatt discloses altering the
`
`operating condition of a network device based on the location of the mobile
`
`device. Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 318, Fig. 71C; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 92, 93,
`
`Fig. 71C).
`
`1h: “disabling the detection module in response to the disabled setting of the
`control selector.”
`
`
`
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Rosenblatt discloses this
`
`limitation through its description of a selectable checkbox on a computer or
`
`a mobile device that a user can access to enable proximity settings on a
`
`mobile device. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 317, 318, Fig. 71B; Ex. 1001
`
`¶¶ 94, 95).
`
`
`
`Claims 2–9
`
`Petitioner has shown adequately that the combination of Rosenblatt
`
`and Schlage accounts for the limitations of claims 2–7 and 9. Pet. 34–43.
`
`However, we find that Petitioner has not shown adequately that the
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01605
`Patent 8,498,749 B2
`
`
`combination of Rosenblatt and Schlage accounts for the limitations of
`
`
`
`claim 8. In particular, we determine that Petitioner’s reasoning that
`
`controllable hot water heaters were known devices and operated similarly to
`
`other devices disclosed in Schlage and Rosenblatt (Pet. 41) is inadequate.
`
`Such analysis fails to show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill would
`
`understand that Schlage and Rosenblatt suggest such a limitation. Thus,
`
`although Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on
`
`claims 2–7 and 9, we determine Petitioner has not shown a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on claim 8.
`
`Summary
`
`Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on showing
`
`that claims 1–7 and 9 would have been obvious over the combination of
`
`Rosenblatt and Schlage.
`
`B. Asserted Obviousness over Trundle, Ehlers, and Rosenblatt
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious o