Paper No. 15
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: July 9, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TRICKLESTAR LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EMBERTEC PTY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: July 9, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TRICKLESTAR LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EMBERTEC PTY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`In this inter partes review, instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314,
`TrickleStar LLC (“Petitioner”) challenges the patentability of claims 8 and
`10–16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,106,099 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’099 patent”), owned
`by Embertec Pty Ltd. (“Patent Owner”). We have jurisdiction under 35
`U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner
`has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 8 and 10–16 of
`the ’099 patent are unpatentable.
`
`A. Procedural History
`Petitioner filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 8 and 10–
`16 of the ’099 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On July 10, 2017, we instituted an
`inter partes review of claims 8 and 10–16 of the ’099 patent on the
`following grounds1: (1) claim 10 of the ’099 patent is unpatentable as
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2 over EP ’3793 and the ’707 patent4; and
`(2) claims 8 and 11–16 of the ’099 patent are unpatentable as obvious under
`
`
`1 We instituted on all claims and all grounds set forth in the Petition. See
`Pet. 3.
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the ’099
`patent has an effective filing date before the effective date of the applicable
`AIA amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
`103.
`3 EP 2 051 379 A1, filed Oct. 16, 2008, published Apr. 22, 2009 (Ex. 1002).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 7,034,707, issued Apr. 25, 2006 (Ex. 1007).
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over EP ’379, the ’707 patent, and EP ’752.5 Paper 11
`(“Inst. Dec.”), 33.
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner did not file a Patent Owner
`Response. See Ex. 3003 (email stating that Patent Owner “will not be filing
`a Patent Owner Response”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.120(a) (providing that “[a]
`patent owner may file a response to the petition addressing any ground for
`unpatentability not already denied”). Neither party requested oral argument.
`See Paper 14 (noting that neither party requested oral argument and ordering
`that no oral argument take place); 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a) (providing that “[a]
`party may request oral argument on an issue raised in a paper”).
`
`B. Related Matters
`The parties do not identify any related district court proceedings, but
`identify IPR2016-01336, in which the Board instituted inter partes review of
`claims 1–7 and 9 of the ’099 patent. See Pet. 1; Paper 7, 1. In IPR2016-
`01336, we issued a Final Written Decision on December 20, 2017,
`determining that Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence
`that claims 1–7 and 9 of the ’099 patent are unpatentable. TrickleStar LLC
`v. Embertec Pty Ltd., Case IPR2016-01336 (“IPR2016-01336”), Paper 11
`(PTAB Dec. 20, 2017).
`
`C. The ’099 Patent
`The ’099 patent is directed to an energy saving device that monitors
`the electrical power supply to electrical equipment to reduce unnecessary
`power consumption. Ex. 1001, [57], 1:14–18. The ’099 patent explains that
`“[m]onitoring can have many advantages, especially in detecting abnormal
`
`
`5 EP 1 223 752 A2, filed Nov. 30, 2001, published July 17, 2002 (Ex. 1003).
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`usage, faults and theft.” Id. at 2:60–61. For example, according to the ’099
`patent, the system may detect excessive power consumption in an office due
`to use of a portable heater and alert supervisory personnel to the abnormal
`energy usage. Id. at 2:62–67. The patent also describes alerting a user to
`cessation of power consumption, such as that caused by breakdown of a
`refrigerator or freezer. Id. at 3:1–4.
`Figure 1 of the ’099 patent, below, is a general representation the
`components of the energy saving device:
`
`Id. at 5:52–54. As illustrated in Figure 1 above, energy saving device 12
`includes one or more continually powered mains outlets 14 and two or more
`switched mains outlets 16. Id. at 5:58–60. According to the patent,
`electrical devices (not shown) are plugged into mains outlets 14 and
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`switched mains outlets 16 as required. Id. at 5:60–62. Energy saving device
`12 also includes mains power plug 18 for connection to a mains power
`supply (not shown) and microcomputer 50, which implements energy saving
`algorithms and includes flash and/or EEPROM non-volatile memory 52 for
`storing energy saving configuration parameters. Id. at 5:63–64, 6:56–64.
`Figure 1 above also illustrates a number of interfaces. Id. at 7:4–5.
`User interface 70 includes LCD or LED indicators 64, beeper 66, and
`pushbuttons and keypad 68. Id. at 7:20–21. According to the ’099 patent,
`the LCD or LED indicators “output data from monitored power consumption
`and provide an indication of status to the use[r]” and the beeper “provide[s]
`an audible output to indicate faults or status change conditions, such as
`imminent powering down of connected mains powered equipment.” Id. at
`7:22–24, 7:8–30.
`Figure 1 further illustrates “[s]ensor interface 72 and 73,” which
`according to the ’099 patent “provides an interface for wired connection of
`an external sensor module (not shown) including a remote control [infrared
`(IR)] sensor for IR remote control activity sensing in audio-visual
`applications.” Id. at 7:35–38. The patent states that “[t]he purpose of this is
`to enable automatic power reduction or power increase to electrical devices,
`such as in audio-visual equipment, if power can be reduced depending on
`user activity.” Id. at 7:41–44. For example, in the embodiment illustrated in
`Figure 3 of the ’099 patent for a networked universal wall plug or general
`power outlet (GPO), “when the user operates the wireless transmitter via its
`push button or touch sensor, a wireless RF signal would be transmitted and
`received by wall plug 12b, causing it to supply mains power to the
`appliance.” Id. at 8:65–67, 9:34–40. The ’099 patent also discloses that the
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`purported invention provides “[u]ser control to optimize energy savings
`function for individual outlets, e.g.[,] by setting idle power threshold levels,
`‘active standby’ timeout periods, etc.” Id. at 14:26–28.
`
`D. Illustrative Claims
`Among the challenged claims, claims 10 and 12 are independent.
`Claims 8, 10, and 12, along with claim 1 from which claim 8 depends, are
`illustrative of the challenged claims and read as follows:
`1.
` An energy saving device for reducing power
`consumption of an external electrical device, comprising:
`an input connectable to an external power supply;
`an output connectable to the external electrical device for
`selectively providing operating power thereto;
`a processor for controlling when power is supplied to the
`external electrical device via the output; and
`a sensor for monitoring wireless output signals of a remote
`control device that control functions of the external electrical
`device or another electrical device associated with the external
`electrical device, said sensor being coupled to the processor, and
`wherein the processor operates to terminate the power supplied
`to the external electrical device based upon the absence of the
`detection of the wireless output signals of the remote control
`device by the sensor.
`8. The energy saving device of claim 1, further
`comprising a power sensor configured
`to sense power
`consumption of the external electrical device, the processor
`being further configured to determine an operational state of the
`external electrical device from the sensed power consumption
`and to terminate the power supplied to the external electrical
`device when the external electrical device is determined to be in
`a selected state.
`10. An energy saving device including
`an electrical plug configured for connecting to a mains
`power supply;
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`an electrical socket configured for connecting to an
`electrical device;
`a switch configured to control electrical connection
`between said electrical plug and said electrical socket;
`a sensor configured to wirelessly sense activity of a user-
`operated remote control device, the activity configured to control
`said electrical device;
`a control module configured to monitor the sensor to
`determine a first length of time during which said activity has not
`been detected and to operate said switch to disconnect electrical
`connection between the electrical plug and the electrical socket
`when said first length of time exceeds a threshold value to
`prevent the electrical device from drawing power during at least
`some times when no user is present and using the electrical
`device.
`12. A system for monitoring power consumption of and
`controlling power supply to a plurality of electrical devices, the
`system including:
`communication apparatus for communicating with an
`energy saving device, the energy saving device having:
`a single electrical inlet configured to connect to a mains
`supply electrical outlet; and
`a plurality of controlled electrical outlets for selectively
`supplying electrical power to the electrical devices; and
`a power sensor for monitoring power consumption of at
`least one of the electrical devices connected to the controlled
`electrical outlets;
`a processor configured to control the connection of
`electrical supply from the mains supply electrical outlet to each
`of the controlled electrical outlets in response to a sensed power
`consumption state of at least one of the electrical devices[;]
`a device sensor for monitoring output of a remote control
`device, said device sensor being coupled to the device processor,
`and wherein the device processor operates to terminate the power
`supplied to the external electrical device based upon the absence
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`of the detection of output of the remote control device by the
`sensor.
`Id. at 15:5–19, 15:44–51, 16:1–16, 16:26–48.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Principles of Law
`To prevail in its challenge to Patent Owner’s patent claims, Petitioner
`must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are
`unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). “In an [inter partes
`review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with
`particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v.
`Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C.
`§ 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with
`particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to
`each claim”)). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic
`Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–
`27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
`U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis
`of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence
`of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`“A determination of whether a patent claim is invalid as obvious under § 103
`requires consideration of all four Graham factors, and it is error to reach a
`conclusion of obviousness until all those factors are considered.” Apple Inc.
`v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc)
`(citations omitted). “This requirement is in recognition of the fact that each
`of the Graham factors helps inform the ultimate obviousness determination.”
`Id.
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`time it was made, 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires us to resolve the level of
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383
`U.S. at 17. “The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art
`lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”
`Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The
`person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed
`to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC,
`Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Factors that may be considered in
`determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include, but are not limited
`to, the types of problems encountered in the art, the sophistication of the
`technology, and educational level of active workers in the field. Id. In a
`given case, one or more factors may predominate. Id. Generally, it is easier
`to establish obviousness under a higher level of ordinary skill in the art.
`Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir.
`2011) (“A less sophisticated level of skill generally favors a determination of
`nonobviousness . . . while a higher level of skill favors the reverse.”).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the invention would have had “at least an undergraduate degree in
`Electrical Engineering and three years of experience working with designing
`hardware and software interfaces and power supply and monitoring systems,
`or an equivalent combination of education and experience in related fields.”
`Pet. 6–7. Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Thomas A. Gafford, likewise opines
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had that background.
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 17.
`Patent Owner did not file a Patent Owner Response and thus does not
`challenge Petitioner’s contention or Mr. Gafford’s testimony regarding the
`level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.6
`We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner
`and Petitioner’s declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the
`asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt that definition of the level of
`ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. See Ex. 1001,
`1:14–15 (“The invention relates to aspects of the monitoring of electrical
`power supply to electrical equipment.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 1 (“The present
`invention relates to a method and system to provide power saving for
`electronic devices while such devices are in the standby mode and are not in
`use, particularly for a setting accommodating multiple electronic devices
`especially in the end-user sector.”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 1 (“The present invention
`refers to an automatic means switch device used to disconnect a load from
`the electrical mains line, particularly useful in association with electrical
`
`
`6 We note that, in its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner did not challenge
`Petitioner’s contention or Mr. Gafford’s testimony regarding the level of
`ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`appliances controlled by remote control units like, for example, television
`sets.”) (emphasis omitted); Ex. 1007, 1:8–10 (“The present invention relates
`to [a] system and a device for monitoring a household electric user, in
`particular a household appliance.”).
`
`C. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard).
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different from
`its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Petitioner notes that, in the decision to institute inter partes review in
`IPR2016-01336, the Board previously construed “electrical plug.” Pet. 8.
`Petitioner does not propose a different construction for “electrical plug” and
`does not propose an express construction for any other claim term. Id. at 7–
`8.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner asserted that each claim
`term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and specifically
`proposed constructions for “connectable” and “communication apparatus.”
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`Prelim. Resp. 30–42. Patent Owner, however, did not file a Patent Owner
`Response. Patent Owner thus has not, after institution, proposed any claim
`constructions or addressed our preliminary constructions of “electrical plug”
`and “connectable” or how we mapped “communication apparatus” to the
`prior art in our Institution Decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) (“Any
`material fact not specifically denied may be considered admitted.”); In re
`Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1379–1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding Patent
`Owner waived an argument addressed in Preliminary Response by not
`raising the same argument in Patent Owner Response).
`We determine that no claim terms require express construction. We
`address the scope of the terms “connectable” and “communication
`apparatus” in connection with our analysis below of the unpatentability of
`claims 8 and 12, respectively. See infra Sections II.E.2.b., II.E.2.c.
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness over EP ’379 and the ’707 patent
`Petitioner contends that claim 10 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over EP ’379 and the ’707 patent. Pet. 3, 8–20. Relying
`in part on the testimony of Mr. Gafford, Petitioner explains how the
`references allegedly teach or suggest the claim limitations and provides
`purported reasoning for combining the teachings of the references as
`claimed. Id. at 8–20 (citing Ex. 1006).
`As stated above, Patent Owner did not file a Patent Owner Response.
`We also note that Patent Owner did not challenge in its Preliminary
`Response Petitioner’s contention that the subject matter of claim 10 would
`have been obvious over EP ’379 and the ’707 patent. See generally Prelim.
`Resp. The burden, however, remains on the Petitioner to demonstrate by a
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claim 10 is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(e); Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378.
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments in the Petition as well as the
`evidence discussed in the Petition, including the declaration of Mr. Gafford.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claim 10 is unpatentable as obvious over
`EP ’379 and the ’707 patent.
`
`1. Summary of EP ’379
`Petitioner asserts that the ’099 patent “is a national stage entry of a
`PCT patent application designating the United States, filed on June 3, 2010
`and claims priority to Australian patent application AU2009902532.” Pet. 7.
`Petitioner argues that “the effective filing date of the ’099 patent is June 3,
`2010,” and “the earliest priority date of the ’099 patent is June 3, 2009”—the
`filing date of the Australian patent application. Id. Petitioner contends that
`EP ’379—which was published April 22, 2009—is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(a) or § 102(b). Pet. 3.
`Patent Owner did not challenge the prior art status of EP ’379 in its
`Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. Patent Owner also did
`not argue or provide any supporting evidence that the claims at issue are
`entitled to an invention date prior to June 3, 2009, the filing date of the
`Australian patent application. Because EP ’379 was published before the
`earliest possible invention date of record in this proceeding, Petitioner has
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that EP ’379 is prior art to claims
`8 and 10–16 of the ’099 patent at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`EP ’379 discloses a power saving system for electronic devices when
`the devices are in standby mode and not in use. Ex. 1002, 1. According to
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`EP ’379, television sets, audio systems, DVD players, and “many similar
`electronic devices widely used in the end-user electronics market consume
`energy in their standby mode, though the amount of energy consumed in this
`mode is less as compared to their operating mode.” Id. ¶ 2. EP ’379
`explains that an advantage of the invention described therein is saving
`energy that many devices consume during their standby period. Id. ¶ 28.
`Figure 2 of EP ’379, below, illustrates a block diagram of the power
`saving system:
`
`
`Id. ¶ 12. As shown above in Figure 2, a controller is connected to electronic
`devices such as television set, DVD player, and audio and video receiver.
`Id. ¶¶ 16, 17, 21.
`Figure 3 of EP ’379, below, illustrates the components of the
`controller:
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`
`Id. ¶ 12. As shown in Figure 3 above, the controller includes memory 13,
`microprocessor 12, a signal receiving unit (in this example, infrared receiver
`unit 10), a signal transmitting unit (in this example, infrared transmitter unit
`11), a main power supply, internal power supply 16, switches for powering
`on or off electronic devices 1 to 7 (shown in Figure 1), and plug outputs for
`connecting to electronic devices 1 to 7. Id. ¶¶ 16, 17, 21, 23.
`EP ’379 describes an example in which a user utilizes a remote
`control to transmit a signal to switch the television to standby mode, and the
`internal electronics of the television switch the television to standby mode.
`Id. ¶¶ 19, 24. EP ’379 discloses that the controller senses the remote control
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`signal and completely interrupts the power to the television after a short
`period of time, according to a predetermined shutting-down rule. Id.
`According to EP ’379, the controller also completely interrupts the power to
`other connected devices in accordance with rules stored in the memory of
`the controller. Id. ¶ 21. For example, the controller may also interrupt the
`power to the DVD player and the video/audio receiver, thereby saving
`power to all three devices. Id.
`EP ’379 also discloses that when the controller does not sense a signal
`from the remote control for a certain period of time (e.g., three hours), the
`controller may power off the devices connected to it in accordance with an
`automatic turning-off rule. Id. ¶ 26.
`
`2. Summary of the ’707 patent
`The ’707 patent is a U.S. patent titled “System and Device for
`Monitoring at Least One Household Electric User, in Particular a Household
`Appliance.” Ex. 1007, [54]. The ’707 patent issued April 25, 2006 and is
`prior art to the ’099 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Compare id. [45], with
`Ex. 1001, [22], [30].
`Figure 1 of the ’707 patent is shown below:
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 above illustrates a Multiple Smart Adapter (MSA) and a plurality of
`household electrical users (appliances) HA1–HA4, such as an electric oven,
`a dishwasher, and a refrigerator. Ex. 1007, 5:11–18. The ’707 patent
`discloses that the MSA “is interposed between a current outlet indicated with
`‘OUT’ in FIG. 1 and the electric users HA1–HA4.” Id. at 5:23–28.
`According to the ’707 patent, the MSA monitors and controls the
`electric users. Id. at 5:32–6:3. Figure 2, below, illustrates an
`implementation of the MSA:
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`Id. at 6:4–5. As illustrated above, the MSA includes a power meter (PM),
`which measures current absorbed by loads HA1–HA4 and the voltage
`applied to their terminals. Id. at 6:62–7:4. The ’707 patent discloses that the
`PM meters voltage V2, which is detected at the terminals of current sensor
`S, and voltage V1, and derives quantities “such as cost, power and
`energy . . . through appropriate mathematic elaborations.” Id. at 6:62–7:9.
`
`3. Analysis
`Petitioner contends that the combination of EP ’379 and the ’707
`patent teaches the limitations of claim 10. Pet. 8–20. Petitioner cites
`passages of EP ’379, and identifies components of the controller illustrated
`in Figure 3 of EP ’379 that purportedly correspond to each limitation of
`claim 10, except the claimed “electrical plug.” Id. at 8–20. Petitioner
`asserts that EP ’379 “is silent regarding whether the connection between the
`switches and the main power supply is an electrical plug” but that “[i]t was
`well-known at the time that electrical plugs were used for connecting energy
`saving devices to mains power supply.” Id. at 9 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1006 ¶ 20).
`Petitioner cites as an example the ’707 patent, which according to Petitioner
`describes an energy device that includes an electrical plug for connecting its
`energy device to the mains power supply. Id. at 9–11 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1007,
`Abstract, Fig. 1; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 54, 60). Petitioner also provides purported
`reasons for combining the teachings of EP ’379 and the ’707 patent as
`claimed. Id. at 11–12.
`Having reviewed the Petition and the evidence discussed therein, we
`determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claim 10 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`over EP ’379 and the ’707 patent. See Pet. 8–20.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`EP ’379 discloses “[a]n energy saving device.” Ex. 1002, [57]
`(disclosing “a method and system to provide power saving for electronic
`devices while such devices are in the standby mode and are not in use”);
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 60. The disclosed energy saving device is a controller that
`controls the on, standby, and off status of electronic devices. Ex. 1002 ¶ 14.
`The combination of EP ’379 and the ’707 patent teaches that the
`energy saving device includes “an electrical plug configured for connecting
`to a mains power supply.” EP ’379 discloses that the energy saving device
`is configured for connecting to a main power supply, as illustrated in
`Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 3 of EP ’379, below:
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`
`Pet. 9; Ex. 1002, Fig. 3, ¶ 23; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 51, 52, 60. Petitioner’s annotated
`Figure 3 adds a red oval around the illustrated “[m]ain power supply.”
`Pet. 9; Ex. 1002 ¶ 23. EP ’379 discloses that the line connecting the
`switches of the controller to the main power supply (as opposed to “internal”
`power supply 16 illustrated in Figure 3) is an input connectable to an
`external power supply. Ex. 1002, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 12 (“Figure 3 is a block diagram
`representing the internal structure of a controller employed according to the
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`present invention.”), 23 (“As can be seen in Figure 3, the controller may
`include many power switches (14a–14g) capable to powering on and off the
`relevant units [and] a main power supply (13) for the controller’s power
`consumption . . . .”); see also Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 52 (opining that Figure 3 shows
`that “the power saving system controller receives mains power”), 60
`(opining that main power supply depicted in Figure 3 is an external source of
`power supply).
`The ’707 patent discloses an electrical plug for connecting an energy
`saving device to a mains power supply, as illustrated in Petitioner’s
`annotated version of Figure 1 of the ’707 patent:
`
`
`
`Pet. 10; Ex. 1007, Fig. 1, 5:10–17, 5:22–27. Petitioner’s annotated Figure 1
`above adds a red oval around the depicted electrical cord and current outlet
`labeled “OUT.” Pet. 10; Ex. 1007, Fig. 1, 5:22–27. The ’707 patent
`discloses that a monitoring device called a Multiple Smart Adapter (MSA) is
`connectable to the current outlet “OUT” via an electrical cord with a plug.
`Ex. 1007, Fig. 1, 5:10–17, 5:22–27; see also Ex. 1006 ¶ 60 (opining that the
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`’707 patent illustrates an energy saving device including an electrical plug
`connectable to a mains power supply).
`EP ’379 also discloses that the energy saving device includes “an
`electrical socket configured for connecting to an electrical device.” EP ’379
`discloses seven sockets for connecting to external devices 1–7, respectively,
`as illustrated in Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 3 of EP ’379, below:
`
`
`Pet. 12–13; Ex. 1002, Figs. 1–3, ¶ 21. Petitioner’s annotated Figure 3 adds a
`red oval around the illustrated sockets/plugs of the controller. Pet. 12–13;
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 23. EP ’379 states that “[t]here are plugs (not shown in Figure 1)
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`provided on the controller unit, and each device is connected to a plug
`previously reserved for it.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 21; see also id. ¶ 23 (“[T]he plug
`outputs are previously assigned for certain devices, as illustrated in Figure
`3.”). EP ’379 discloses that the sockets/plugs are for interconnecting
`electronic devices 1–7 illustrated in Figure 1 to the controller, as shown in
`Figure 2. Ex. 1002 ¶ 21, claim 6 (“the plugs, i.e.[,] power sockets”).
`EP ’379 also discloses that the energy saving device includes “a
`switch configured to control electrical connection between said electrical
`plug and said electrical socket.” EP ’379 discloses that the controller
`includes switches, as illustrated in Petitioner’s annotated Figure 3 below:
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`
`Pet. 14; Ex. 1002, Fig. 3, ¶ 23. Petitioner’s annotated Figure 3 above adds
`red ovals around the seven input lines to the switches, the seven switches,
`and the seven sockets/plugs. Pet. 14; Ex. 1002, Fig. 3. EP ’379 discloses
`that “the controller may include many power switches (14a–14g) capable to
`powering on and off the relevant units.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 23. EP ’379 also
`discloses that the switches are under selective control to control the
`connection between a socket and the connection to the main power supply.
`Id. ¶¶ 19 (disclosing that the controller “is designed so as to individually or
`
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00839
`Patent 9,106,099 B2
`
`collectively interrupt the power of electronic device(s) connected to it”), 24
`(disclosing that the power of a device “is interrupted by means of the
`controller according to a predetermined shutting-off rule”).
`EP ’379 also discloses that the energy saving device includes “a
`sensor configured to wirelessly sense activity of a user-operated remote
`control device, the activity configured to control said electrical device.” EP
`’379 discloses that “[w]hen the user transmits a signal by means of a remote
`controller to switch a device that is controllable by the remote
`controller . . . , this signal is sensed also by the signal receiver provided on
`the controller.” Id. ¶ 19. EP ’379 similarly states that “the signals of
`remote controls of electronic devices connected to the subject controller
`[are] sensed, identified, and interpreted by the controller.” Id.
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
