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. 8,498,749
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,498,749
`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.
`
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8....................................1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1).............................1
`B.
`Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ......................................1
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ...................2
`D.
`Service Information...............................................................................2
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW.................................................2
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................3
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103...................................................3
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104............................3
`A.
`Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)..............................3
`B.
`Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested.............3
`C.
`Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3) ..........................4
`i.
`Control selector.......................................................................... 4
`ii. Web application ......................................................................... 6
`iii.
`Detection module....................................................................... 6
`iv.
`Network device, alarm system, lighting system, HVAC
`system, home media management system, smart
`appliance, set-top box, hot water heater .................................... 8
`Altering an operating condition ................................................. 9
`v.
`SUMMARY OF THE ’749 PATENT...........................................................10
`A.
`Brief Description .................................................................................10
`B.
`Summary of the Original Prosecution of the ʼ381 Patent ...................10
`C.
`Summary of the Original Prosecution of the ’749 Patent...................11
`VII. OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1–9 BY ROSENBLATT IN VIEW OF
`SCHLAGE.....................................................................................................13
`A.
`Rosenblatt............................................................................................13
`B.
`Schlage ................................................................................................16
`C.
`Reasons for Combining Rosenblatt and Schlage ................................19
`
`VI.
`
`i
`
`

`
`Claim 1 ............................................................................................. .. 22
`
`Claim 2 ............................................................................................. .. 34
`
`Claim 3 ............................................................................................. .. 36
`
`Claim 4 ............................................................................................. .. 37
`
`Claim 5 ............................................................................................. .. 39
`
`Claim 6 ............................................................................................. .. 39
`
`Claim 7 ............................................................................................. .. 40
`
`Claim 8 ............................................................................................. .. 41
`
`Claim 9 ............................................................................................. .. 41
`
`VIII. OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-9 BY TRUNDLE IN VIEW OF EHLERS
`
`AND ROSENBLATT .................................................................................. ..43
`
`A.
`
`Trundle .............................................................................................. ..43
`
`C.
`
`Ehlers ................................................................................................. ..46
`
`D. Mapping of Claim Elements ...............................................................22
`D. Mapping of Claim Elements ............................................................. ..22
`Claim 1 ............................................................................................... 22
`Claim 2 ............................................................................................... 34
`Claim 3 ............................................................................................... 36
`Claim 4 ............................................................................................... 37
`Claim 5 ............................................................................................... 39
`Claim 6 ............................................................................................... 39
`Claim 7 ............................................................................................... 40
`Claim 8 ............................................................................................... 41
`Claim 9 ............................................................................................... 41
`VIII. OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-9 BY TRUNDLE IN VIEW OF EHLERS
`AND ROSENBLATT....................................................................................43
`A.
`Trundle ................................................................................................43
`B.
`Trundle’s Effective § 102(e) Date.......................................................45
`B.
`Trundle’s Effective § lO2(e) Date ..................................................... ..45
`C.
`Ehlers...................................................................................................46
`D.
`Reasons for Combining.......................................................................48
`D.
`Reasons for Combining ..................................................................... ..48
`E. Mapping of Claim Elements ...............................................................53
`E.
`Mapping of Claim Elements ............................................................. ..5 3
`Claim 1 ............................................................................................... 53
`Claim 2 ............................................................................................... 64
`Claim 3 ............................................................................................... 65
`Claim 4 ............................................................................................... 67
`Claim 5 ............................................................................................... 68
`Claim 6 ............................................................................................... 69
`Claim 7 ............................................................................................... 69
`Claim 8 ............................................................................................... 70
`Claim 9 ............................................................................................... 71
`IX. NON-REDUNDANCY GROUNDS.............................................................71
`X.
`CONCLUSION..............................................................................................72
`XI. CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ...........................................................73
`
`IX. NON-REDUNDANCY GROUNDS ........................................................... ..7l
`
`Claim 1 ............................................................................................. .. 53
`
`Claim 2 ............................................................................................. .. 64
`
`Claim 3 ............................................................................................. .. 65
`
`Claim 4 ............................................................................................. .. 67
`
`Claim 5 ............................................................................................. .. 68
`
`Claim 6 ............................................................................................. .. 69
`
`Claim 7 ............................................................................................. .. 69
`
`Claim 8 ............................................................................................. .. 70
`
`Claim 9 ............................................................................................. .. 71
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ . .72
`
`XI.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ......................................................... ..73
`
`ii
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Allure Energy, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l Inc.,
`Case Number 1:15-cv-00079-RP..........................................................................1
`Allure Energy, Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc.,
`Case Number 9:13-cv-00102-RC .........................................................................1
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..........................................................................45
`In re Giacomini,
`612 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..........................................................................45
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ......................................................................19, 48
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................................................................4, 6, 7
`KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007).....................................................................................passim
`Magnetar Techs. Corp. v. Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc.,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15679 (D. Del. 2014).............................................passim
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.,
`357 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ....................................................................19, 48
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319................................................................................................2
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8.................................................................................................................1, 2
`
`iii
`
`

`
`37 C.F.R
`
`37 C.F.R.
`
`37 C.F.R
`§ 42.10(b)..............................................................................................................2
`§42.10(b) ............................................................................................................ ..2
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.15(a) ..............................................................................................................3
`§42.15(a) ............................................................................................................ ..3
`§ 42.24.................................................................................................................73
`§42.24 ............................................................................................................... ..73
`§ 42.100(b)............................................................................................................4
`§42.100(b) .......................................................................................................... ..4
`§ 42.103.................................................................................................................3
`§42.1o3 ............................................................................................................... ..3
`§ 42.104.............................................................................................................3, 4
`§42.1o4 ........................................................................................................... ..3, 4
`
`iv
`
`iv
`
`

`
`EXHIBITS
`
`EXHIBIT 1001 Declaration of Edwin Selker
`
`EXHIBIT 1002 U.S. Patent No. 8,498,749
`
`EXHIBIT 1003
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,498,749
`
`EXHIBIT 1004 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0081375
`(Rosenblatt)
`PCT Publication WO 2009/088901 (Schlage)
`
`EXHIBIT 1005
`
`EXHIBIT 1006 U.S. Patent No 8,350,697 (Trundle)
`
`EXHIBIT 1007 U.S. Provisional Patent App. 61/179,224 (Provisional to
`Trundle)
`EXHIBIT 1008 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0117330 (Ehlers)
`
`EXHIBIT 1009
`
`“A Persuasive GPS-Controlled Thermostat System” (Gupta)
`
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,174,381
`
`EXHIBIT 1011 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0289643
`(Application to Trundle)
`2008 Merriam Webster Definition of “toggle”
`
`EXHIBIT 1012
`
`EXHIBIT 1013
`
`2006 Proliphix Thermostat Installation Guide
`
`v
`
`

`
`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)
`
`Patent Owner Allure Energy initiated the litigation styled Allure Energy,
`
`Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., Case Number 1:15-cv-00079-RP, W.D. Tex. In this
`
`action, Allure Energy asserted two patents related to the ’749 patent (8,457,797
`
`and. 8,626,344). Honeywell successfully petitioned for inter partes review of the
`
`‘797 patent (IPR2015-01253) and the ‘344 patent (IPR2015-01251, IPR2015-
`
`01248). The action filed in the Western District of Texas is stayed until final
`
`written decisions in the inter partes reviews. Petitioner is also challenging
`
`claims 2-7 and 15 (IPR2016-01093, filed May 24, 2016) and claims 8-14
`
`(IPR2016-01094, filed May 24, 2016) of the ’954 patent.1 Finally, Petitioner is
`
`1 Related patent 8,506,954 was previously asserted in the litigation styled
`
`Allure Energy, Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc., Case Number 9:13-cv-00102-RC, E.D.
`
`Tex. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes review of claims
`
`2–7 and 15 of the ’954 patent based on Galvin (U.S. 2010/0250590) and Kansal
`
`(U.S. 7,953,518). See Nest Labs, Inc. v. Allure Energy, Inc., IPR2014-01426,
`
`Paper 6, at 5–10 (PTAB, March 10, 2015). Both were settled.
`
`1
`
`

`
`challenging claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,174,381 (IPR2016-01475, filed
`
`July 21, 2016).
`
`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) and, all of Alston & Bird LLP, 101 S. Tryon, 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.
`
`II.
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`Honeywell International Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Honeywell”) petitions for
`
`inter partes review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, of
`
`claims 1–9 of U.S. Patent 8,498,749. Honeywell demonstrates below that there
`
`is a reasonable likelihood of prevailing (“RLP”) on at least one claim identified
`
`as unpatentable.
`
`2
`
`

`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The claims of the ’749 patent are directed a web-based and mobile-based
`
`user interface that can enable and disable location-based functionality of a
`
`network device via a control selector. As outlined below, because the
`
`specification of the ’749 patent does not describe both a web-based and mobile-
`
`based embodiment of the control selector and because prior art not at issue
`
`before the examiner discloses the control selector, claims 1-9 are unpatentable
`
`over the teachings of Rosenblatt in view of Schlage and also the teachings of
`
`Trundle in view of Ehlers and Rosenblatt.
`
`IV.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`Petitioner authorizes Deposit Account No. 16-0605 to be charged for the
`
`petition fee of 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a), and for any additional fees.
`
`V. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A.
`Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’749 patent is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR.
`
`B.
`
`Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`
`This Petition includes a supporting evidentiary declaration of Edwin
`
`Selker (Exhibit 1001). Rosenblatt (nonprovisional filed September 30, 2008),
`
`Schlage (international filing date December 31, 2008), Trundle (nonprovisional
`
`filed May 18, 2010) and Trundle Provisional (filed May 18, 2009), and Ehlers
`
`3
`
`

`
`(nonprovisional filed July 28, 2003) are each prior art under § 102(e), having
`
`been filed on or claiming priority to a date before the ’749 patent’s earliest
`
`recited priority date, Aug. 21, 2009. Petitioner does not concede that any claim of
`
`the ’749 patent is entitled to the benefit of provisional Applications 61/235,798
`
`(filed Aug. 21, 2009) or 61/255,678 (filed Oct. 28, 2009). Neither the Patent
`
`Owner nor the Examiner cited the aforementioned references during prosecution.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`
`In an IPR, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the BRI standard, claim terms
`
`are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood 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).
`
`i. Control selector
`Figure 6B of the ’749 patent depicts a user interface having a “control
`
`selector” 651:
`
`4
`
`

`
`The specification of the ’749 patent describes Figure 6B as depicting “a
`
`scheduling tool . . . used to display a proximity control selector 651 configured to
`
`enable and disable proximity control of a residential site…or various other
`
`controls that can be used to manage energy use at a site, or any combination
`
`thereof a button or other input that is configured to enable and disable proximity
`
`control of a detection module.” EX1002, 41:18-40. As Dr. Selker confirms, a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would interpret this disclosure
`
`5
`
`

`
`to describe “a commonly used radio button or other input to turn functionality on
`
`and off, in this case the ability of the mobile device to track its proximity for
`
`purposes of controlling a networked device.” EX1001, ¶¶ 43-44; EX1002, 41:18-
`
`40, Fig. 6B. Accordingly, a POSA at the time of the invention would construe
`
`“control selector” under the BRI standard to be “a button or other input that is
`
`configured to enable and disable proximity control of a detection module.” Id.
`
`ii. Web application
`The specification of the ’749 patent does not provide a definition of web
`
`application, but gives an example of the use of a web application. The ’749
`
`patent states, “[A] simplified user interface of TSTAT 208 can be deployed. . . .
`
`scheduling use of TSTAT 208 can be provided using on-line or web application
`
`based scheduling tool.” EX1002, 13:23-41. Dr. Selker states that “the ’749
`
`patent is simply relying on known technology to provide access to an electronic
`
`user interface.” EX1001, ¶ 45; id. Accordingly, a POSA at the time of the
`
`invention would give this term its plain and ordinary meaning and, thus, would
`
`understand the term to mean “an application that runs in a web browser.” Id.
`
`iii. Detection module
`The ’749 patent states, “[f]or example, proximity detection module 234 can
`
`include rules based logic to determine if an altering condition of a resource at a site
`
`202 should be altered.” EX1002, 9:34-37. The claims of the ʼ749 patent do not
`
`6
`
`

`
`include the term “proximity,” and instead only recite a “detection module.”
`
`EX1001, ¶ 46-50. However and as Dr. Selker recites “the vast majority of the
`
`circumstances in which the patent addresses a ‘detection module’ it does so in the
`
`context of a ‘proximity detection module.’ … As a result, the person of ordinary
`
`skill would understand that the terms “proximity detection module” and “detection
`
`module” should be given the same definition. ” Id.
`
`The “detection module” is configured to generate a control action report if
`
`the user has traveled beyond a certain preset distance: “detection module 234 can
`
`access location data . . . provided by mobile device 210 . . ..” EX1002, 13:2-4.
`
`Each time the term “detection module” is used in the specification, it is used in
`
`relation to the determination of current location and the determination of a
`
`distance-based measure with regard to the site. EX1002, 32:11-17. The “detection
`
`module” is further described as configured to detect the distance a reporting device
`
`is from a site. EX1002, 33:3-9. The ’797 patent states, “detection module 524 can
`
`be operated as a background process that periodically requests a location from
`
`location reporting device 512.” EX1002, 33:3-9. To accomplish its determination
`
`of a distance, the “detection module” is configured to obtain location information
`
`for the reporting device. EX1002, 33:3-9. In other examples, the “detection
`
`module” is configured to output both a location and a direction of travel of the
`
`mobile device. ’797 patent, 33:35-39.
`
`7
`
`

`
`The Board has previously construed the related 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 1-4 and 6-9 associate the
`
`“detection module” with various remote, network appliances, the phrase “disposed
`
`on a thermostat” adopted in the prior proceeding has been omitted from the
`
`construction. In addition, in the prosecution history of the related ʼ381 patent the
`
`Patent Owner was clear that the detection module could be located at multiple
`
`different locations. EX1010, 42-43. Accordingly, the person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSA”) would have construed “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, ¶¶ 46-50.
`
`iv. Network device, alarm system, lighting system, HVAC
`system, home media management system, smart
`appliance, set-top box, hot water heater
`The specification of the ’749 patent describes a “network device” as
`
`including many different devices. EX1002, 3:45-4:10. Dr. Selker confirms that
`
`“the control of the detection modules associated with any one of the disclosed
`
`“network devices” would generally operate in the same manner, and the
`
`8
`
`

`
`substitution of one network device for another would not fundamentally change my
`
`interpretation of the system described in each of the claims.” EX1001, ¶¶ 53-54.
`
`Accordingly, a POSA would have construed a “network device” as any of the
`
`devices identified in the specification or any other useful device. EX1001, ¶ 54.
`
`v. Altering an operating condition
`The specification of the ’749 patent states, “[p]rocessor 402 can be used to
`
`initiate altering an operating condition of a network device in response to
`
`detecting AMI data received from the AMI enabled smart meter.” EX1002,
`
`27:25-31. Further, the specification describes that “proximity detection module
`
`524 can be used to initiate altering an operating condition of an associated site in
`
`response to a location of mobile device 500.” EX1002, 33:24-27. The term
`
`“altering an operating condition” is used in the specification to refer to a change
`
`or the initiation of a change of a setting of a device. See EX1002, 57:32-37 (“As
`
`a WIFI connection is altered, controller 1302 can initiate altering an operating
`
`condition of a resources such as TSTAT 1320, one or more wireless devices
`
`1308, 1310, 1312, or various other resources accessible to controller 1302.”).
`
`Accordingly, a POSA at the time of the invention would understand this term to
`
`mean “change or cause a change of a setting of any device that is capable of
`
`electronically communicating with a remote device and is capable of being
`
`altered as a result of the electronic communication.” EX1001, ¶ 53.
`
`9
`
`

`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’749 PATENT
`A.
`Brief Description
`
`The claims of the ’749 patent are directed to a web based control selector
`
`within a hosted web application and a mobile-based control selector within a user
`
`interface of a mobile device, both of which are able to be toggled between an
`
`enabled setting and a disabled setting. Figure 6B of the 797 patent depicts what
`
`was intended by the claimed control selector, which is simply an “on” / “off”
`
`button. The claims then allow for the altering of a network device, based on an
`
`enabled setting and the location of the mobile device. Likewise, the claims recite
`
`disabling the detection module if the selector is set to disabled.
`
`The specification of the ’797 patent does not describe an embodiment
`
`including both a hosted web application and a mobile-based control selector that
`
`are simultaneously useable to enable proximity detection, and it does not appear
`
`that Allure believes this to be a point of novelty. Indeed, the only point of
`
`novelty that Allure argued during prosecution was based on the control selector.
`
`See, e.g., EX1003, 51-56, 91-94.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Original Prosecution of the ʼ381 Patent
`
`The prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 8,174,381 (“the ʼ381 patent”) is
`
`relevant to the instant Petition to the extent that the Patent Owner specifically
`
`addressed the Trundle reference and admitted that the reference discloses certain
`
`10
`
`

`
`elements of the claims of the ʼ381 patent. Patent Owner identified Trundle
`
`(EX1006, the publication of EX1011) 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 already concedes that Trundles
`
`discloses:
`
`- 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).
`
`EX1010, 459. In the same document, Patent Owner likewise admitted that many
`
`of the elements of claims 2-11 are disclosed in Trundle. EX1010, 459-460. Further
`
`still, Patent Owner confirmed support for such features in the Trundle provisional.
`
`EX1010, 460-461. Patent Owner also clarified that the detection module can be
`
`located at multiple different locations. EX1010, 42-43.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the Original Prosecution of the ’749 Patent
`
`An August 1, 2012, non-final action rejected then-pending claims 21-39 as
`
`obvious over Podgorny et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20080281472, hereinafter
`
`11
`
`

`
`“Podgorny”) in view of Pouchak (U.S. Pub. No. 20050040247, hereinafter
`
`“Pouchak”). EX1003, 111-123.
`
`In response, applicant cancelled claims 1-20, and made certain narrowing
`
`amendments to distinguish and clarify the invention. EX1003, 91-94. Applicant
`
`specifically attempted to distinguish the invention over Podgorny by stating that
`
`“Podgorny fails to disclose a control selector that is capable of communicating
`
`with a detection module in order to manage at least one network device at a site.”
`
`Id.
`
`A December 31, 2012 final office action allowed amended claims 21-29
`
`and rejected then-pending claims 30-39 as obvious over Podgorny in view of
`
`Pouchak in further view of Logan (U.S. Pub. No. 20070037605, hereinafter,
`
`“Logan”). EX1003, 62-70. In response, applicant cancelled claims 30-39.
`
`EX1003, 56. Applicant also amended independent claim 21 “to further
`
`distinguish the subject invention by the required step of enabling a detection
`
`module in response to an enabled setting of at least one of the web-based control
`
`selector and the mobile-based control selector.” EX1003, 93.
`
`Notice of Allowance was filed on March 25, 2013. The Notice of
`
`Allowance stated that claim 21 was allowed because the prior art did not disclose
`
`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
`
`12
`
`

`
`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
`the altering of the operating condition is initiated based on the
`location of the mobile device.
`
`EX1003, 31. However, references that were not before the Examiner
`
`disclose each of these features.
`
`VII. OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1–9 BY ROSENBLATT IN VIEW OF
`SCHLAGE
`Each of the arguments below is made from the standpoint of a POSA in
`
`the field of the ’749 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, at ¶ 11.
`
`A.
`
`Rosenblatt
`
`Rosenblatt, which was filed in 2008, describes a system that allows a user to
`
`remotely control a thermostat and other network devices based on proximity.
`
`EX1004, ¶ 0318, Figure 71C; EX1001¶¶ 57-58. Figure 7 of Rosenblatt, which is
`
`reproduced below, illustrates that the disclosed mobile device or computer can
`
`connect to network devices, including thermostats, through a number of different
`
`pathways. EX1004, Fig. 7; EX1001, ¶ 70. One of those ways is by relying on a
`
`web service and a server. Id.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Rosenblatt describes using its system on a now common and recognizable
`
`device – an iPhone – and describes that “the handheld device 40” includes a
`
`“device control application.” EX1004, ¶ 0316.
`
`14
`
`

`
`The Rosenblatt system explicitly includes a “check box 1000, which may
`
`enable a user to determine the basis for controlling the thermostat 986. For
`
`example and as illustrated in FIG. 71B, a user may control the thermostat 986
`
`based on the user’s location . . .” EX1004, ¶ 0317; see also EX1001, ¶¶ 59-60
`
`15
`
`

`
`Rosenblatt further discloses that its user interface is available on a mobile
`
`application and that the controllable network device can also be controlled by
`
`software. EX1004, ¶¶ 92, 98, Claim 13; see also EX1001, ¶¶ 61-62.
`
`B.
`
`Schlage
`
`Schlage is directed to inter alia remote control of “security and other devices
`
`in homes, [] a door lock that can be monitored and controlled remotely through a
`
`mobile device or via a computer network, and [] a gateway device that couples a
`
`radio frequency mesh network to a computer network.”. EX1005, ¶ 2; EX1001, ¶
`
`63.
`
`In particular, Figure 7 of Schlage, reproduced below, describes a system for
`
`controlling a thermostat and other network devices including a door lock and
`
`lights. EX1005, Fig. 7; EX1001, ¶ 64.
`
`16
`
`

`
`Schlage discloses a router that communicates with “a consumer mobile application
`
`or a consumer web application” over the Internet. EX1005, ¶ 99; EX1001, ¶ 64.
`
`Additionally, the mobile application and web application described in Schalge
`
`“provide similar controls and include a graphical interface” that can take numerous
`
`forms. Id.
`
`Schlage further discloses that a “router communicates via the Internet with
`
`either a consumer mobile application or a consumer web application. Both
`
`applications provide similar controls and include a graphical interface . . ..”.
`
`EX1005, ¶ 99; EX1001, ¶ 64. Figure 29, reproduced below, illustrates an
`
`interface, available as a webpage, that a user would access in order to remotely
`
`17
`
`

`
`control a thermostat.
`
`EX1005, Fig. 29. Figs. 20-22, also reproduced below, illustrate an interface,
`
`available on a mobile device that a user would access in order to control on a
`
`thermostat. The interface includes numerous buttons and controls, including
`
`controls for enabling and disabling various functionality. For example, as depicted
`
`in Figure 29, a user can use the mobile interface to select whether to turn a fan on
`
`or off.
`
`18
`
`

`
`EX1005, Figs. 20-22; EX1001, ¶ 65.
`
`C.
`
`Re