Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GRIDCO INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VARENTEC, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01134
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,293,922 B2
`__________________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 2 
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS .......................................................................... 4 
`‘922 PATENT .................................................................................................. 5 
` 
`  REFERENCES CITED IN SUPPORT OF INSTITUTED GROUNDS
`OF PETITION ................................................................................................. 9 
`A.  D’Aquila ................................................................................................ 9 
`B. 
`The Green Book .................................................................................. 10 
`C. 
`NoMAX ............................................................................................... 10 
`D. 
`IEEE SVC ............................................................................................ 10 
`E. 
`Technologies Taught by the Cited References Fundamentally
`Differ from the ‘922 Patent Claims ..................................................... 11 
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 17 
`  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 17 
`A. 
`“edge of the distribution power network” ........................................... 17 
`  PETITIONER’S ASSERTED GROUNDS ................................................... 22 
`A.  Ground 1A: D’Aquila in view of the Green Book Fails to
`Render Obvious Claims 1-2, 8-10, and 15-16 .................................... 27 
`Ground 1B: D’Aquila in view of the Green Book and IEEE
`SVC Fails to Render Obvious Claim 3 ............................................... 40 
`Ground 2A: The Green Book in view of NoMAX Fails to
`Render Obvious Claims 1-2, 8-10, and 15-16 .................................... 41 
`D.  Ground 2B: The Green Book in view of NoMAX and IEEE
`SVC Fails to Render Obvious Claim 3 ............................................... 48 
`Ground 3A: D’Aquila in view of NoMAX Fails to Render
`Obvious Claims 1-2, 8-10, and 15-16 ................................................. 48 
`Ground 3B: D’Aquila in view of NoMAX and IEEE SVC Fails
`to Render Obvious Claim 3 ................................................................. 51 
`  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 51 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`2001
`
`Declaration of James Kirtley, Ph.D
`
`2002
`
`Curriculum Vitae of James Kirtley, Ph.D
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`Excerpts from Kirtley, James, ‘Electric Power Principles, Sources,
`Conversion, Distribution and Use’, Wiley (2010)
`Excerpts from Fink, Donald G. and Wayne Beaty, Standard
`Handbook for Electrical Engineers, 13th Edition, McGraw Hill
`(1993)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board should not institute Inter Partes Review (IPR) on claims 1-3, 8-
`
`10, and 15-16, of U.S. Patent No. 9,293,922 (“the ‘922 Patent,” Ex. 1001) because
`
`petitioner GridCo Inc. (“Petitioner”) has not met its burden of showing it has a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim with respect to any of its
`
`proposed grounds of unpatentability.
`
`Patent Owner, Varentec, Inc., (hereinafter, “Varentec”) is an innovator at the
`
`forefront of power electronics. The ‘922 Patent, titled “Systems and Methods for
`
`Edge of Network Voltage Control Of a Power Grid ” to Deepakraj Divan et al., is
`
`one of many patents in Varentec’s patent portfolio directed towards improving the
`
`operation of the power grid. In particular, the ‘922 Patent is directed towards
`
`technology that more efficiently regulates voltage at the edge of the power grid.
`
`This problem has become even more challenging in recent years in view of the
`
`addition of many different types of power sinks and sources that affect the stability
`
`of the power grid at its edge.
`
`In this proceeding, Petitioner has requested that particular claims of the ‘922
`
`Patent be found invalid in view of four different references grouped into three sets
`
`of combinations. In particular, Petitioner cites to U.S. Patent 5,402,057
`
`(“D’Aquila”) and three non-patent literature references—a power electronics
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`reference book referred to as the “Green Book,” a product manual called
`
`“NoMAX,” and a journal article referred to as IEEE SVC (collectively, the “Cited
`
`References”). Ultimately, each combination suffers from the same fundamental
`
`shortcomings when compared with the ‘922 Patent. First, none of the references
`
`discloses or teaches locating a plurality of VAR sources at or near the edge of the
`
`distribution power network. Second, none of the references discloses or teaches
`
`employing non-continuous monitoring of proximate voltage before determining
`
`whether to enable a VAR component of a source. And third, none of the references
`
`discloses or teaches using different delays for each of the plurality of VAR
`
`sources.
`
`Together, these differences are an artifact of a fundamental gap between the
`
`respective objectives of the ‘922 Patent and each of the Cited References—namely,
`
`the ‘922 Patent claims using VAR sources to regulate voltage at or near the edge of
`
`the distribution power network with non-centralized coordination, while still
`
`avoiding infighting, whereas the Cited References disclose technologies for
`
`regulating voltage at or near a power substation using a uniform delay to avoid
`
`reacting to transient voltages—a phenomenon referred to in the Cited References
`
`as “hunting.” For the reasons discussed in more detail below, infighting and
`
`hunting are different phenomena.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`
`While the problem of infighting is acknowledged in the Cited References,
`
`those references teach addressing the infighting problem with centralized control.
`
`But centralized control becomes impractical when the VAR sources are moved
`
`from the substations on the power grid to the edge of the power grid. To address
`
`this problem of infighting when VAR sources are located at or near the edge of the
`
`distribution power network, the ‘922 Patent claims the novel solution of using non-
`
`continuous monitoring and differential delays.
`
`For at least these reasons, the Petitioner has failed to show a reasonable
`
`likelihood of demonstrating that the Cited References render obvious the
`
`challenged claims, and thus, the Board should decline to institute an IPR.
`
` RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`This IPR is part of a larger dispute between the parties in which Varentec
`
`asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 9,014,867 and two of its children, the ‘922 Patent and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,104,184 against GridCo, Inc. in the District Court for the District
`
`of Delaware, that case entitled Varentec, Inc. v. GridCo, Inc., Case No. 16-217-
`
`RGA filed on April 1, 2016. GridCo has since responded by filing two petitions for
`
`Inter Partes Review: (i) the present proceeding; and (ii) IPR2017-01135
`
`challenging claims of the ‘867 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`
`
`
`‘922 PATENT
`
`U.S. Application 14/659,480 was filed March 16, 2015 and issued as the
`
`‘922 Patent on March 22, 2016. (Ex. 1001, p. 1.) The ‘922 Patent generally
`
`discloses technology relating to the regulation of voltage on a power grid using
`
`volt-ampere reactive (“VAR”) sources. (Ex. 2001, ¶ 27.) For example, voltage is
`
`generally distributed to consumers “within a narrow band specified by ANSI
`
`C84.1.” (Ex. 1001, 1:40-43.) This voltage band is generally between 116 and 124
`
`volts. (Id., 1:43-45; Ex. 2001, ¶ 27.) However, load changes along distribution
`
`feeders (i.e., the power lines that couple consumer loads to the power grid) cause
`
`the line voltages to vary. (Id.; Ex. 1001, 1:45-50.) Voltage may be regulated on the
`
`power grid to compensate for these fluctuations using volt-ampere reactive (VAR)
`
`devices “with slow responding capacitors and electro-mechanical switches,”
`
`“medium response capacitors and thyristor switched capacitors,” and “power
`
`converter based VAR control using Static VAR sources or static synchronous
`
`condensers (STATCOMs).” (Ex. 1001, 1:51-58; Ex. 2001, ¶ 27.)
`
`The ‘922 Patent claims priority to the ‘867 Patent, which, in turn, claims
`
`priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos. 61/535,892, 61/579,610,
`
`61/635,799, and 61/635,797 filed between September 16, 2011 (the “Critical
`
`Date”) and April 19, 2012. (Ex. 1001, pp. 1-2.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`
`The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) allowed the challenged
`
`claims of the ‘922 Patent, filed as U.S. Application No. 14/659,480, after just one
`
`round of prosecution. (See Ex. 1014.) The PTO initially rejected all claims on June
`
`1, 2015 as allegedly being indefinite because “[t]he term ‘near’ is not defined in
`
`the claim, [and] the specification does not,” allegedly, provide a standard for a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) to ascertain the meaning of the term
`
`sufficient to limit the scope of the claims. (Id., 75-79.) The June 1, 2015 office
`
`action also alleged that claims 1-4 and 9-17 were anticipated by D’Aquila and U.S.
`
`Publication No. 2005/0194944 (“Folts”), and further alleged that the remaining
`
`claims were obvious in view of D’Aquila or Folts in combination with U.S.
`
`Publication No. 2008/0247105 (“Divan”). (Id., 75-94.) Notably, the Petitioner
`
`relies on D’Aquila for all but two of its grounds raised in its Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review. Varentec responded on September 2, 2015 with argument and
`
`amendments clarifying, for example, that the VAR sources non-continuously
`
`monitor proximate voltage and determine, after a delay, whether to enable the
`
`VAR compensation component, wherein the delay extends for a predetermined
`
`length of time. (Id., 95-104.)
`
`On October 1, 2015, the PTO issued a final office action maintaining its
`
`indefiniteness rejection and alleging that claims 1 and 9-17 were obvious in view
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`of D’Aquila in combination with U.S. Patent No. 5,402,057 (“Nakamura”). (Id.,
`
`105-125.) Varentec responded on November 30, 2015 with argument that the term
`
`“near” would have been readily understood by a POSITA based on the ‘922
`
`Patent’s specification, in view of, among other things, similar claim language
`
`discussed by the Federal Circuit in Young v. Lumenis, Inc., 492 F. 3d 1336, 1346-
`
`47 (Fed. Cir. 2007). (Ex. 1014, 126, 131, 134.) Varentec also amended claim 1 to
`
`incorporate the allowable subject matter of claim 2, namely, to recite that “the
`
`delay associated with each VAR source extends for a predetermined length of time
`
`that is not equal to the delay associated with any other of the plurality of VAR
`
`sources.” (Id, 126-134.) In response, the PTO issued a Notice of Allowance on
`
`December 11, 2015.
`
`Importantly, the D’Aquila reference, which Petitioner cited in four of its six
`
`grounds raised in its petition for Inter Partes Review of the ‘922 Patent, was
`
`clearly considered during prosecution. Accordingly, the ‘922 Patent carries a
`
`presumption of administrative correctness, particularly with respect to the
`
`patentability of its claims in view of D’Aquila. See In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 861
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1985) (Nies, concurring) (citing American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa
`
`& Sons, Inc. 725 F.2d 1350, 1358-1360 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
`
`The ‘922 Patent includes 16 claims directed towards systems and methods
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`for regulating power at the edge of the power grid using a plurality of shunt-
`
`connected, switch-controlled VAR sources without centralized control. (Ex. 1001.)
`
`Instead, infighting is controlled by using a strategy of non-continuous voltage
`
`monitoring and non-uniform delays prior to inserting or removing a VAR source
`
`from the power grid. (Id.; Ex. 2001, ¶ 40.) Representative claim 1 recites:
`
`1. A system comprising:
`a distribution power network;
`a plurality of loads at an edge of the distribution
`power network, each load configured to receive power
`from the distribution power network; and
`a plurality of shunt-connected, switch-controlled
`Volt-Ampere Reactive (“VAR”) sources, wherein each
`VAR source is located at or near the edge of the
`distribution power network,
`is configured
`to non-
`continuously monitor and detect a proximate voltage at or
`near the edge of the distribution power network, and
`comprises a processor and a VAR compensation
`component, the processor configured to enable the VAR
`source to determine, after a delay, whether to enable the
`VAR compensation component based on the proximate
`voltage and adjust network volt-ampere reactive by
`controlling a switch to enable the VAR compensation
`component based on the determination;
`wherein the delay associated with each VAR source
`extends for a predetermined length of time that is not equal
`to the delay associated with any other of the plurality of
`VAR sources.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`
` REFERENCES CITED IN SUPPORT OF INSTITUTED GROUNDS
`
`OF PETITION
`
`A. D’Aquila
`
`U.S. Patent 5,402,057 to D’Aquila et al. (“D’Aquila”) was filed on April 27,
`
`1992 and issued on March 28, 1995. (Ex. 1003, p. 1.) D’Aquila is directed towards
`
`regulating voltage using a shunt connected reactive power source. (Id.)
`
`Specifically, D’Aquila discloses “a system for coordinating shunt reactance
`
`switching in a power distribution substation which includes a transformer having a
`
`primary voltage and a secondary voltage for supplying low voltage power to a
`
`load.” (Id., 2:19-22.) The system uses voltage and power meters “for measuring the
`
`primary voltage and the reactive (or real) power flowing to the load.” (Id., 2:22-
`
`26.) A programmable logic controller receives measurements of primary and
`
`reactive power and “connects or disconnects at least one shunt reactance across the
`
`load to maintain the load voltage substantially constant.” (Id., 2:26-34.)
`
`Accordingly, D’Aquila teaches a centralized control of the reactive power sources.
`
`D’Aquila also describes that “in order to eliminate hunting and excessive reactance
`
`switching (either on and off), it is desirable to include a ‘deadband’ range around
`
`ideal operating voltage and power conditions.” (Id., 5:19-25.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Green Book
`
`The non-patent literature publication cited by the Petitioner, Electric Utility
`
`Engineering Reference Book: Volume 3: Distribution Systems (Ex. 1004) (the
`
`“Green Book”) was purportedly published by Westinghouse Electric Corporation
`
`in 1965. The Green Book is a technical reference relating to electric power
`
`systems. The Green Book describes multiple aspects of a power distribution
`
`system, including load characteristics, distribution substations, distribution
`
`transformers, and voltage regulation. For example, the Green Book discusses the
`
`state of the art, as of 1965, for improving voltage regulation on a power
`
`distribution grid. (Id., p. 257.)
`
`C. NoMAX
`
`The non-patent literature publication cited by the Petitioner, “NoMAX® 900
`
`Series Switched Capacitor Controls Instruction Manual” (Ex. 1006) (“NoMAX”)
`
`was allegedly published by HD Electric Company on its website sometime in
`
`2006. NoMAX teaches using a shunt-connected capacitor bank to regulate voltage.
`
`D.
`
`IEEE SVC
`
`The non-patent literature publication cited by the Petitioner, “Static Var
`
`Compensator Models for Power Flow and Dynamic Performance Simulation” (Ex.
`
`1005) (“IEEE SVC”) was purportedly published by IEEE in Transactions on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`Power Systems, Vol. 9, No. 1 in February, 1994. IEEE SVC teaches using static
`
`VAR compensators to address transient instability conditions on a power
`
`distribution system. (Ex. 1005, p. 229.)
`
`E.
`
`Technologies Taught by the Cited References
`
`Fundamentally Differ from the ‘922 Patent Claims
`
`The Petitioner incorrectly equates the phenomenon known as infighting
`
`(also referred to as “pumping”) with a phenomenon known as hunting. (Paper 1, p.
`
`18.) This misconception forms the basis for Petitioner’s stated motivations to
`
`combine the Cited References as discussed in Petitioner’s stated grounds for
`
`challenging the claims of the ‘922 Patent. (Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 63-69.)
`
`Importantly, infighting and hunting are distinct concepts and should not be
`
`confused. (Id.) Specifically, hunting occurs when a temporary step in voltage (e.g.,
`
`a transient voltage) is greater than an upper or lower threshold limit, referred to in
`
`the Cited References as ‘bandwidth’ or a ‘deadband,’ and a reactive switching
`
`operation (e.g., switching a reactive power source) causes the voltage to step to the
`
`opposite side of the deadband, even though the transient voltage has or soon will
`
`dissipate and the voltage will return to normal. (Id., ¶ 63.) Hunting may also occur
`
`when a control action, such as switching a reactive power source, drives the
`
`voltage completely across the deadband. (Id.) In that case, the controller would
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`then act to drive voltage in the opposite direction. (Id.)
`
`In contrast, infighting occurs when one controller takes an action that would
`
`cause another, different controller, to take an action that would, in turn, cause the
`
`first controller to take an opposite action. (Id., ¶ 64.) Infighting may occur if
`
`multiple reactive power controllers have the same delay so they act at the same
`
`time, and if the sum of their actions exceeds the deadband. (Id.)
`
`Many of the distinctions between the technologies disclosed in the Cited
`
`References and the technology claimed by the ‘922 Patent are rooted in the
`
`fundamental difference between the respective objectives of those technologies—
`
`namely, the technologies disclosed by the Cited References are configured to
`
`address hunting, whereas the technology claimed the ‘922 Patent addresses
`
`infighting. (Id., ¶ 65.)
`
`With this distinction between infighting and hunting in mind, the voltage
`
`regulation devices taught by NoMAX, D’Aquila, IEEE SVC, and the Green Book
`
`(collectively, the “Cited Devices”) each share at least two common characteristics:
`
`(i) the VAR sources are deployed on the primary feeder lines at or near the
`
`substation, and not at or near the edge of the distribution power network; and (ii)
`
`the systems continuously monitor for voltage irregularities. (Id., ¶ 66.)
`
`First, with respect to locating the VAR sources on the primary feeder lines,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`the ‘922 Patent specifically describes such a configuration as a shortcoming in the
`
`prior art because, for example, “as the distance from the substation 102 increases,
`
`utility voltage 118 along the primary feeder (e.g., medium voltage distribution
`
`feeder 106) decreases.” (Ex. 1001, 6:29-32, Fig. 1a.) The ‘922 Patent explains that
`
`locating VAR sources at or near the edge of the distribution power network, as
`
`opposed to along the medium voltage or high voltage distribution feeder, results in
`
`flattening the overall voltage range “along the distance from the substation 102
`
`thereby saving energy, increasing responsiveness, and improving overall control
`
`along longer distribution feeders.” (Id., 6:48-52.)
`
`Second, with respect to continuous monitoring of sensed voltage, the
`
`difference between the Cited References as compared with the non-continuous
`
`monitoring claimed by the ‘922 Patent may be explained in the context of the
`
`following hypothetical example as illustrated by Demonstrative Figures 1 and 2,
`
`below. Each figure illustrates the situation in which sensed voltage at a particular
`
`voltage regulation device drops outside the deadband temporarily (e.g., a
`
`transient), returns back within the deadband, and then drops outside the deadband a
`
`second time (e.g., due to an extended voltage change at or near the device). (Ex.
`
`2001, ¶¶ 67-69.)
`
`Demonstrative Figure 1, below, illustrates how the Cited Devices would
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`react to this hypothetical sensed voltage profile with the objective of not reacting to
`
`the transient (e.g., as to avoid hunting). (Id.) When the sensed voltage goes below
`
`the low limit, a timer is set, but when the voltage returns back above the low limit
`
`for at least half the delay period, the impending operation is cancelled and the
`
`device must wait until the voltage goes back out of range and stays there for the
`
`delay time. (Id., ¶ 67.) In other words, the Cited Devices monitor the voltage
`
`continuously and, since the voltage returns above the low limit for more than half
`
`the set delay time, the device resets and waits for the sensed voltage to go out of
`
`range again. (Id.) The sensed voltage then goes below the low limit the second
`
`time, starting a second timer. (Id.) When the second timer expires the reactive
`
`source (e.g., a capacitor bank) is connected. (Id.)
`
`The continuous monitoring and the delay settings in these devices are
`
`designed to address reactions to transient voltages (i.e., hunting), and not
`
`infighting between multiple VAR sources. (Id., ¶ 68.) In the case of a transient, it
`
`is desirable for the VAR device to wait for some delay before reacting, so that if
`
`the transient dissipates and voltage is restored back to the deadband, the enabling
`
`of the VAR source would push the voltage back outside of the deadband. (Id.) This
`
`is an undesirable behavior, but is not infighting.
`
`In contrast, Demonstrative Figure 2, below, demonstrates how the ENVO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`device technology claimed by the ‘922 Patent would react to the same hypothetical
`
`sensed voltage profile. (Ex. 2001, ¶ 69.) When the voltage goes below the low
`
`limit for the first time, the ENVO device sets a timer, just like the Cited Devices.
`
`However, when the transient dissipates and the voltage returns above the low limit,
`
`the timer continues to run for the entire delay period. (Id.) This is because the
`
`ENVO device claimed by the ‘922 Patent non-continuously monitors the sensed
`
`voltage, and thus, does not cancel the timer after the voltage returns above the low
`
`limit. (Id.) Instead, the timer continues to run while the voltage again drops below
`
`the low limit. (Id.) In this hypothetical, the delay timer expires while the sensed
`
`voltage (now for the second time) is below the low limit, so the device enables a
`
`VAR compensation component at an earlier point in time than the Cited Devices.
`
`(Id.) In principle, this is because the ‘922 Patent claims the use of non-continuous
`
`monitoring and different delays on different VAR sources to address infighting,
`
`and not hunting. (Id.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`
`Demonstrative Figure 1 – Expected Operation of Cited Devices
`
`
`
`
`
`Demonstrative Figure 2: Expected Operation of ENVO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`
`
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would have either a graduate degree and
`
`five years of experience or a bachelor’s degree and ten years of experience, in the
`
`design and implementation of voltage regulation systems and methods on the
`
`distribution grid. (Paper 1, p. 18; Ex. 1002, ¶ 48.) This definition imparts arbitrary
`
`and excessive requirements.
`
`A POSITA with respect to the ‘922 Patent as of the Critical Date would
`
`generally have at least a Bachelor’s degree, or equivalent experience, and two
`
`years of relevant work experience in the area of power electronics, reactive power
`
`sources, and/or power grid management. (Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 17-20.)
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Patent Owner submits that, for purposes of this IPR only, most of the terms
`
`of the challenged claims of the ‘922 Patent are clearly understandable in view of
`
`their common and ordinary usage and in view of the specification of the ‘922
`
`Patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In addition, Patent Owner requests that the
`
`following claim construction, which is based on the broadest reasonable
`
`construction, be adopted:
`
`A.
`
` “edge of the distribution power network”
`
`Patent Owner submits that the term “edge of the distribution power network”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`as used in the challenged claims of the ‘922 Patent means “the customer-facing
`
`sides of the service transformers.” (Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 70-78.)
`
`Petitioner asserts that “at an edge of the distribution power network” means
`
`“on the portion of the distribution power network that is close to the load that is to
`
`receive power, which portion may be on a medium voltage portion or a low voltage
`
`portion of a distribution feeder.” (Paper 1, p. 7.) Petitioner has not cited any
`
`support for its assertion that the edge of the distribution power network includes a
`
`medium voltage portion of the power network (i.e., between 1,000 and 35,000
`
`volts). This is because the specification of the ‘922 Patent does not contemplate
`
`such a scenario. (Id.)
`
`Instead, Annotated Figs. 1a and 1b (each reproduced below) clearly
`
`demonstrate that the edge of the network is a low voltage side of multiple service
`
`transformers. (Ex. 2001, ¶ 73.) As illustrated in Fig. 1a, a plurality of loads is at the
`
`customer side of the service transformers (i.e., the edge of the distribution power
`
`network). (Id.) Similarly, Fig. 1b illustrates a plurality of ENVO devices (i.e., VAR
`
`sources) at the customer side of the service transformers (i.e., the edge of the
`
`distribution power network). (Id.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, ‘922 Patent, Fig. 1a (annotated)
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, ‘922 Patent, Fig. 1b (annotated)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s construction also suffers from an unsupported narrow
`
`interpretation of edge as being limited to a single load, but in fact, the ‘867 and
`
`‘922 Patents both use edge to mean something broader—it is an entire region of
`
`the distribution power network located at the loads, that is, on the customer side of
`
`a plurality of service transformers. (Ex. 2001, ¶ 74.) Specifically, there are multiple
`
`service transformers on a typical distribution power network, and the edge
`
`indicates the customer facing sides of those multiple service transformers, and not
`
`just a single transformer. (Id.)
`
`Furthermore, the specification of the ‘922 Patent explicitly describes what is
`
`meant by “edge.” For example, the ‘922 Patent explains:
`
`An edge of the network is the portion of a power distribution
`network that is proximate to the load that is to receive power. In
`one example, the load is a customer load that is to receive power.
`In one example, the load is a customer load. An edge of the
`network may be on the low-voltage side of a transformer. For
`example, the edge of network may comprise one or more feeder
`lines configured to provide power to multiple customer loads
`(e.g., housing residences).
`(Ex. 1001, 8:48-54, Figs. 1a, 1b, 1c, 3b; see also Ex. 1015, 8:46-54, Figs. 1a, 1b,
`
`1c, 3b.)
`
`Indeed, the claims themselves recite “a plurality of loads at an edge of the
`
`distribution power network.” (Ex. 1001, claim 1.) Notably, as shown in annotated
`
`Fig. 1a above, the specification of both the ‘867 Patent or the ‘922 Patent show the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`loads located on the customer sides of the service transformers (e.g., on the low
`
`voltage feeders). (Ex. 2001, ¶ 76.) This disclosure comports with the general
`
`understanding in the art that the loads that receive power are generally on the
`
`customer sides of the service transformers. (Id.) Thus, for the loads to be “at the
`
`edge” of the distribution power network means that the edge is the portion of the
`
`distribution power network that is on the customer-facing sides of the service
`
`transformers. (Id.) And the specification makes clear that “the edge of network
`
`may comprise one or more feeder lines configured to provide power to multiple
`
`customer loads (e.g., housing residences).” (Ex. 1001, 8:48-54; Ex. 1015, 8:38-44.)
`
`Thus, the edge includes the feeder lines on the customer facing sides of the service
`
`transformers (i.e., the final step down transformers before the customer loads that
`
`receive power). (Ex. 2001, ¶ 76.)
`
`Petitioner argues that a construction of “at an edge” that is limited to the low
`
`voltage side of a service transformer would conflict with the added limitation of
`
`claim 8 that “at least two of the plurality of [VAR] sources are on the low voltage
`
`side of a transformer . . . .” (Paper 1, p. 10 (citing Ex. 1001, claim 8).) But
`
`Petitioner overlooks the clearly intended distinction between claim 1 and claim 8.
`
`Specifically, whereas independent claim 1 recites a system with a plurality of VAR
`
`sources at or near the edge of the distribution power network, i.e., on the customer-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`facing sides of the service transformers (plural), claim 8 requires at least two of
`
`those VAR sources to be on the low voltage side of a single service transformer.
`
`(Ex. 2001, ¶ 77.) This distinction correlates to Fig. 3b from the ‘922 Patent, an
`
`annotated version of which is reproduced below, which illustrates a system where
`
`two VAR sources are located on the low voltage side of a single service
`
`transformer. (Id.)
`
`Ex. 1001, ‘922 Patent, Fig. 3b (annotated)
`
`
`
`For the reasons discussed above, under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, a POSITA as of the Critical Date would have understood that “edge
`
`of the distribution power network” means “the customer-facing sides of the service
`
`transformers.” (Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 70-78.)
`
` PETITIONER’S ASSERTED GROUNDS
`
`The Petitioner challenged claims 1-2, 8-10 and 15-16 of the ‘922 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-22-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`across six different asserted grounds and four different alleged prior art references.
`
`(Paper 1, pp. 3-4.) Specifically, Petitioner’s grounds include:
`
`1A. Obviousness of claims 1-2, 8-10, and 15-16 over D’Aquila in view of
`
`the Green Book;
`
`1B. Obviousness of claim 3 over D’Aquila in view of the Green Book and
`
`IEEE SVC;
`
`2A. Obviousness of claims 1-2, 8-10, and 15-16 over the Green Book in
`
`view of NoMAX;
`
`2B. Obviousness of claim 3 over the Green Book in view of NoMAX and
`
`IEEE SVC;
`
`3A. Obviousness of claims 1-2, 8-10, and 15-16 over D’Aquila in view of
`
`NoMAX; and
`
`3B. Obviousness of claim 3 over D’Aquila in view of the Green Book and
`
`IEEE SVC.
`
`In each of these stated grounds, the Petition overlooks at least three
`
`fundamental differences between the challenged claims and D’Aquila, the Green
`
`Book, NoMAX, or IEEE SVC:
`
`(1) The ‘922 Patent claims locating the VAR sources at or near the edge of
`
`the power distribution network whereas the Cited References teach
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-23-
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-01134
`
`
`
`locating VAR sources away from the edge (e.g., near or at the
`
`substation);
`
`(2) The ‘922 Patent claims non-continuous monitoring of proximate
`
`voltage prior to enabling a VAR source whereas the Cited References
`
`teach continuous monitoring of voltage; and
`
`(3) The ‘922 Patent claims using different delays on different VAR sources
`
`to avoi