UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`GRIDCO, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VARENTEC, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 9,014,867
`Issue Date: Apr. 21, 2015
`Title: Systems And Methods For
`Edge Of Network Voltage Control Of A Power Grid
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-01135
`____________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIMS 1-3, 8-10, 15-18, AND 22 OF PATENT NO. 9,014,867)
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................................ iv
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ...................................... 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 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) ................... 1
`D.
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ............................... 2
`INTER PARTES REVIEW FEE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .......................... 2
`II.
`III. CONTENTS OF PETITION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................ 2
`A.
`Grounds For Standing: 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ..................................... 2
`B.
`Challenged Claims ................................................................................ 2
`C.
`Grounds Of Challenge: 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) .................................... 2
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’867 PATENT, EXHIBIT 1001..................................... 4
`A.
`Purported Invention in the ’867 patent .................................................. 4
`B.
`Independent Claims 1, 3, and 17 ........................................................... 5
`C.
`Prosecution History of the ’867 patent, Exhibit 1013 ........................... 5
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ........................ 6
`A.
`“at an edge of the distribution power network” .................................... 7
`1.
`“an edge of the distribution power network” .............................. 7
`2.
`“at an edge of a power distribution network” ............................. 9
`“non-continuously monitor the proximate voltage” ............................11
`B.
`VI. TECHNOLOGY AT ISSUE .............................................................................11
`A.
`Power Distribution Networks ..............................................................11
`B.
`Voltage regulation on Power Distribution Networks ..........................12
`C.
`Switched Capacitors ............................................................................14
`D.
`Infighting .............................................................................................14
`VII.LEVEL OF SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE IN THE ART ................................15
`VIII.
`CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUND FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY.............................................................................................15
`A.
`Ground 1A: Claims 1-2, 8-10, 15-18, and 22 are obvious in view of
`D’Aquila and the Green Book .............................................................16
`1.
`Independent claim 1 ..................................................................16
`2.
`The Green Book teaches the time delay approach recited in
`claim 1 .......................................................................................23
`D’Aquila provides an explicit reason to look to the Green Book
`and apply its methods ................................................................26
`
`3.
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Use of the Green Book’s time delay method is obvious under
`KSR even absent D’Aquila’s explicit teaching ........................27
`Dependent claims 2, 8-10, and 15-16, are likewise unpatentable
`in view of the D’Aquila and the Green Book. ..........................28
`a. Dependent claim 2 ....................................................28
`b. Dependent claim 8 ....................................................28
`c. Dependent claim 9 ....................................................29
`d. Dependent claim 10 ..................................................29
`e. Dependent claim 15 ..................................................30
`f. Dependent claim 16...................................................31
`Independent claim 17 and its dependent claims 18 and 22 are
`likewise obvious in view of D’Aquila and the Green Book. ....31
`a. Dependent claim 18 ..................................................34
`b. Dependent claim 22 ..................................................34
`Ground 1B: Claim 3 is obvious in view of D’Aquila and the Green
`Book, further in view of IEEE SVC ....................................................34
`Ground 2A: Claims 1-2, 8-10, 15-18, and 22 are obvious in view of
`the Green Book and NoMAX..............................................................35
`1.
`Independent claim 1 ..................................................................36
`2.
`The combination of Green Book with NoMAX is obvious as
`merely applying a known technique to solve a previously
`recognized problem ...................................................................48
`a. The Green Book recognized the purported problem
`with the prior art systems ................................................48
`b. The Green Book also recognized the claimed solution
`
`50
`One of skill would look to NoMAX to provide the details of
`implementing the known solution and thereby arrive at the
`claimed invention ......................................................................51
`Dependent claims 2, 8-10, and 15-16, are likewise unpatentable
`in view of the Green Book and NoMAX ..................................51
`a. Dependent claim 2 ....................................................51
`b. Dependent claim 8 ....................................................52
`c. Dependent claim 9 ....................................................53
`d. Dependent claim 10 ..................................................53
`e. Dependent claim 15 ..................................................55
`f. Dependent claim 16...................................................56
`Independent claim 17 ................................................................57
`a. Dependent claims 18 and 22 .....................................59
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`-ii-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`D.
`
`E.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Ground 2B: Claim 3 is obvious in view of The Green Book and
`NoMAX and further in view of IEEE SVC ........................................60
`Ground 3A: Claims 1-2, 8-10, 15-18, and 22 are obvious in view of
`D’Aquila, further in view of NoMAX ................................................61
`1.
`Independent claim 1: D’Aquila and NoMAX together teach all
`the elements of claim 1 .............................................................61
`The combination of D’Aquila and NoMAX is an obvious
`design choice
`that merely combines prior art elements
`according to known methods to yield predictable results .........64
`Dependent claims 2, 8-10, and 15-16, are likewise unpatentable
`in view of the D’Aquila and NoMAX ......................................66
`a. Dependent claim 2 ....................................................66
`b. Dependent claim 8 ....................................................67
`c. Dependent claim 9 ....................................................67
`d. Dependent claim 10 ..................................................67
`e. Dependent claim 15 ..................................................68
`f. Dependent claim 16...................................................69
`Independent claim 17 ................................................................69
`a. Dependent claims 18 and 22 .....................................71
`Ground 3B: Claim 3 is obvious in view of D’Aquila and NoMAX,
`and further in view of IEEE SVC........................................................71
`IX. ONE SKILLED IN THE ART WOULD REASONABLY EXPECT
`SUCCESS IN THE PROPOSED COMBINATIONS IN GROUNDS 1-3 .............72
`X. THERE
`ARE
`NO
`OBJECTIVE
`INDICIA
`INDICATING
`NONOBVIOUSNESS .............................................................................................73
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................74
`
`4.
`
`F.
`
`-iii-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Name
`Ex. #
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,014,867
`1002 Declaration of Dr. Richard E. Brown, P.E.
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 5,402,057 to D’Aquila
`1004 Electric Utility Engineering Reference Book
`Volume 3: Distribution Systems
`1005 Static Var Compensation Models for Power Flow
`and Dynamic Performance Simulation, 9 IEEE
`Transactions on Power Systems 229, 1994.
`1006 NoMAX Instruction manual 900 Series Switched
`Capacitor Controls ©2007
`1007 Declaration of Christopher Butler of Internet
`Archive regarding NoMAX
`1008 Declaration of Kimberly A. Bengson of HD
`Electric Company regarding NoMAX.
`1009 District Court Complaint
`1010 District Court PI memorandum opinion
`1011 Joint Proposed Claim Constructions
`1012 Patent Owner Markman Brief
`1013 Excerpted File History of U.S. Patent No.
`9,014,867 (App. No. 13/488,330)
`1014 Excerpted File History of U.S. Patent No.
`9,293,922 (App. No. 14/659,480)
`1015 U.S. Patent No. 9,293,922
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`
`Identifier
`the ’867 patent
`Brown
`D’Aquila
`the Green Book or
`GB
`IEEE SVC
`
`NoMAX
`
`Butler
`
`Bengson
`
`Complaint
`PI Decision
`Proposed CC
`PO Markman
`the ’867 file history
`
`the ’922 file history
`
`the ’922 patent
`
`-iv-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Petitioner certifies that Gridco, Inc. (“Petitioner”) is the real party-in-
`
`interest.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
` Petitioner is aware of one related judicial matter:
`
`Varentec, Inc. v. Gridco, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00217 filed on April 1,
`
`2016 in the District of Delaware. The ’867 patent—along with two others—is
`
`being asserted against Gridco in this proceeding. The two other patents, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,104,184 and U.S. Patent No. 9,293,922, are in the same patent family.
`
`In addition, Gridco files today a petition for inter partes review challenging
`
`claims in the ’922 patent.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Gridco appoints William G. Jenks (Reg. No. 48,818) of Jenks IP Law as lead
`
`counsel, and appoints Victor B. Lebovici (Reg. No. 30,864) of Preti Flaherty as
`
`back-up counsel. An appropriate Power of Attorney is filed herewith.
`
`In addition, Gridco intends to seek the admission of Jeffrey Talbert as
`
`additional back-up counsel pro hac vice under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). Mr. Talbert is
`
`an experienced litigating attorney and is familiar with the subject matter at issue as
`
`he is lead counsel in the related litigation.
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`D.
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Service of any documents to lead and back-up counsel can be made to Jenks
`
`IP Law, 1050 17th ST NW, Suite 800, Washington DC and PretiFlaherty, 60 State
`
`Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02109.
`
`Petitioner consents to service by email at wjenks@jenksiplaw.com,
`
`vlebovici@preti.com, and patents@preti.com.
`
`II.
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW FEE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`The inter partes review fee set forth in § 42.15(a) accompanies this petition.
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge or credit Petitioner’s
`
`Deposit Account No. 23-0804 for any additional required fees or overpayments,
`
`respectively.
`
`III. CONTENTS OF PETITION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`Grounds For Standing: 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`A.
`Petitioner certifies that the ’867 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the claims of the ’867 patent on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`B.
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-18, and 22 of the ’867 patent.
`
`C.
`
`Grounds Of Challenge: 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`
`-2-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`(i)
`
`D’Aquila—Exhibit 1003—U.S. Patent No. 5,402,057 issued Mar. 28,
`
`1995 and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`(ii)
`
`The Green Book—Exhibit 1004—Electric Utility Engineering
`
`Reference Book, Distribution Systems, Westinghouse Electric
`
`Corporation. This well-known manual was printed in 1965 and is prior
`
`art under Section 102(b).
`
`(iii)
`
`IEEE SVC—Exhibit 1005—Static Var Compensation Models for Power
`
`Flow and Dynamic Performance Simulation, 9 IEEE Transactions on
`
`Power Systems 229-240 (1994), was published February 1994 and is
`
`prior art under Section 102(b).
`
`(iv) NoMAX—Exhibit 1006—NoMAX® Instruction Manual 900 SERIES
`
`Switched Capacitor Controls was distributed to the relevant population
`
`and made publically available by the HD Electric Company during 2007.
`
`Exhibit 1008, Bengson ¶¶2-6. It was also published on that company’s
`
`website during 2007. Exhibit 1007, Butler ¶¶3-6, Exhibit A. It is
`
`therefore prior art under Section 102(b).
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of the challenged claims on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`Ground Claims
`1A
`1-2, 8-10, 15-18,
`and 22
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`References
`D’Aquila and the Green Book
`
`-3-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`Ground Claims
`1B
`3
`
`2A
`
`2B
`
`3A
`
`3B
`
`1-2, 8-10, 15-18,
`and 22
`3
`
`1-2, 8-10, 15-18,
`and 22
`3
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`References
`D’Aquila, the Green Book, and IEEE
`SVC
`The Green Book and NoMAX
`
`The Green Book, NoMAX, and IEEE
`SVC
`D’Aquila and NoMAX
`
`§ 103
`
`D’Aquila, NoMAX, and IEEE SVC
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’867 PATENT, EXHIBIT 1001
`
`The application that issued as the ’867 patent was filed June 4, 2012. It
`
`claimed priority to five provisional applications, the earliest of which was filed on
`
`Sept. 16, 2011. Exhibit 1001, ’867 patent, Col. 1:8-23. Multiple patents and
`
`pending applications claim priority to the ’867 patent, including the ’922 and ’184
`
`patents, which have been asserted in the related litigation.
`
`A.
`
`Purported Invention in the ’867 patent
`
`The ’867 patent generally addresses voltage regulation on a power
`
`distribution network. It characterizes the purported invention as “edge of network
`
`voltage control of a power grid.” Exhibit 1001, Abstract. It discloses volt-ampere
`
`reactive (“VAR”) sources (essentially a combination of switch, capacitor, and
`
`control processor) that may be placed near loads that receive power on the grid.
`
`Voltage regulation is accomplished by switching the capacitor into the circuit when
`
`higher voltage is desired and switching the capacitor out of the circuit when lower
`-4-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`voltage is desired. Id., Col. 3:1-10. The VAR sources may each activate or
`
`deactivate their capacitors “based at least on voltages proximate to the VAR
`
`sources.” Id., Col. 6:48-52, Col. 9:46-50.
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 3, and 17
`
`System claims 1 and 3 are nearly identical. Each recites a “distribution
`
`power network,” “loads,” and “shunt-connected switch-controlled VAR sources,”
`
`which VAR sources include a processor and a VAR compensation component, e.g.
`
`a capacitor. Both claims require (1) loads “at an edge of the distribution power
`
`network” (2) VAR sources “at the edge of the distribution power network,” and (3)
`
`the processor being configured to determine after a delay whether to enable the
`
`VAR compensation component and adjust network VAR by controlling “a switch
`
`to enable the corresponding VAR compensation component.” Method claim 17
`
`recites essentially the same elements but identifies two particular VAR sources.
`
`All three claims require the delay extend for a predetermined length of time
`
`and at least two VAR sources with different delays. Claim 3 requires a third VAR
`
`source with the same delay as one of the other two VAR sources.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’867 patent, Exhibit 1013
`
`Prior to issuance, the claims that became the petitioned independent claims
`
`stood rejected in view of D’Aquila alone. Exhibit 1013 at 195-197. Patent Owner
`
`amended the independent claims by, among other things, adding that the relevant
`
`-5-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`delay(s) extend “for a predetermined length of time.” Exhibit 1013 at 249-251.
`
`An interview followed, in which the Patent Owner agreed to incorporate the
`
`“different-delay” limitations of then-dependent claims into the challenged
`
`independent claims. Exhibit 1013 at 268. The Examiner allowed these claims,
`
`explaining that D’Aquila taught every element of the claims except the different
`
`delays:
`
`Referring to claim 1, none of D’Aquila, Folts, or Shapiro, taken
`either alone or in obvious combination disclose a system,
`having all the claimed features of applicant’s instant invention,
`specifically including “wherein the delay of each of the
`plurality of shunt-connected, switch-controlled VAR sources is
`not equal.”
`
`Exhibit 1013 at 283-84 (same for present-claims 3 and 17.)
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`
`Claims in an IPR are given their broadest reasonable construction. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In the related litigation, the parties have exchanged proposed
`
`claim constructions but briefing is not yet complete. Exhibits 1011-1012. The
`
`District Court has denied Patent Owner’s preliminary injunction motion, and in
`
`doing so set forth a preliminary understanding of certain terms. Exhibit 1010.
`
`Petitioner proposes the following constructions for the purposes of this IPR
`
`only, reserving the right to argue a narrower or no construction in the District
`
`Court.
`
`-6-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`A.
`
`“at an edge of the distribution power network”
`
`All challenged independent claims recite “loads at an edge of the distribution
`
`power network” and/or VAR “sources at the edge of the distribution power
`
`network.” Thus, understanding the scope of the claims requires understanding the
`
`meaning of “an edge” of the distribution network. And further what it means to be
`
`“at” that edge.
`
`As shown below, “at an edge of the distribution power network” should be
`
`understood to mean “on that 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.” One of skill would
`
`understand that the medium voltage portion of a distribution feeder would typically
`
`be at 1,000 to 35,000 volts; while the low voltage portion would typically be at up
`
`to 1,000 volts. Brown, Exhibit 1002 ¶27.
`
`1.
`
`“an edge of the distribution power network”
`
`The ‘867 specification defines “an edge of the network” in terms of a load:
`
`An edge of the network is the portion of a power distribution
`network that is proximate the load that is to receive power.
`
`Exhibit 1001, Col. 8:38-40. Thus, the edge is defined in relationship to the load
`
`that is to receive power. “In one example,” the specification states, “the load is a
`
`customer load.” Id., Col. 8:40-41.
`
`-7-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`“Load” alone is broadly defined and does little to limit the scope of “an
`
`edge”:
`
`A load is any component, circuit, device, piece of equipment or
`system on the power distribution network which consumes,
`dissipates, radiates or otherwise utilizes power.
`
`Exhibit 1001, ’867 patent, Col. 8:30-33. Thus, every physical component of the
`
`network is a load. Power lines, for example, dissipate and radiate power.
`
`In the figures,“[l]oads are depicted as houses or residences.” Id., Col. 8:26-
`
`27. But loads may be commercial or industrial establishments:
`
`In addition to houses or residences, those skilled in the art will
`appreciate that the loads can be any loads including but not
`limited to, commercial or industrial establishments.
`
`Id., Col. 8:27-30. Thus the loads contemplated include residential, commercial,
`
`and industrial loads regardless of the amount of power or voltage required by the
`
`load. Id., Col. 8:26-30.
`
`The ’867 specification further states that: “An edge of the network may be
`
`on the low-voltage side of a transformer. For example, the edge of the network
`
`may comprise one or more feeder lines configured to provide power to multiple
`
`customer loads (e.g. housing residences).” Id., Col. 8:41-44 (emphasis added).
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the repeated use of the permissive
`
`“may” indicates that the “edge” referenced in all independent claims need not be
`
`on the secondary (low voltage) feeder. The ’867 specification states that VAR
`
`-8-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`sources “may be coupled to any line or feeder” configured to provide power to one
`
`or more loads.” Id., Col. 9:61-64. Thus, the “edge” might also be on the primary
`
`(medium voltage) feeder, i.e., the low voltage side of a substation transformer—so
`
`long as the edge is proximate a load that receives power.
`
`Thus, in this proceeding “an edge of the distribution power network” is best
`
`understood as “that portion of the distribution power network that is near a load
`
`that receives power.”
`
`“at an edge of a power distribution network”
`2.
`Having defined “an edge,” what does it mean to be “at an edge of a power
`
`distribution network?” The ’867 specification uses “at an edge” only in the claims
`
`and in a paragraph that appears to closely mimic claim language. Exhibit 1001,
`
`Col. 3:31-34. One example of “at the edge of the network” is “near a load of the
`
`power grid.” Id., Col. 16:13-15.
`
`The patent provides an example where the VAR source may be coupled to
`
`the low voltage side of a service transformer. Id., Col. 9:59-61. But that is not
`
`limiting. Another example, noted above, shows a VAR source which “may be
`
`coupled to any line or feeder configured to provide power to one or more loads
`
`(e.g., on or at the edge of a network).”). Id., Col. 9:61-64. Thus, being “at an
`
`edge” allows for coupling to “any” line/feeder that powers one or more loads.
`
`-9-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`The claims themselves make clear that “at an edge” is not limited to the
`
`secondary or low voltage side of a service transformer. While claim 1 recites a
`
`plurality of VAR “sources at the edge of the distribution power network,” claim 8
`
`is more specific. Claim 8 recites “at least two of the plurality” of “VAR sources
`
`are on a low voltage side of a transformer.” Under the doctrine of claim
`
`differentiation, claim 1 is understood to be broader than claim 8. Thus, claim 1
`
`does not require any VAR sources be on a low voltage side of any transformer.
`
`Instead, claim 1 may be met by VAR sources on the high voltage side of a
`
`transformer. In other words, “at an edge” may include a portion of the power
`
`distribution network on either side (high or low voltage) of a transformer so long
`
`as the transformer is near a load that is to receive power.
`
`Combining this evidence, in this proceeding, “at an edge of the distribution
`
`power network” is best understood as “on that 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.” A
`
`POSA understands that the medium voltage portion of a distribution feeder would
`
`typically be at 1,000 to 35,000 volts; while the low voltage portion would typically
`
`be at up to 1,000 volts. Brown, Exhibit 1002 ¶27.
`
`This construction excludes the high voltage transmission lines on the high
`
`voltage side of a substation but does not exclude the primary (medium voltage) or
`
`-10-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`secondary (low voltage) feeders that deliver power to loads. It does not exclude
`
`loads that require higher levels of power and voltage—such as a factory or
`
`industrial plants—even when that voltage is higher than the voltage supplied to
`
`most homes by secondary feeders.
`
`B.
`
`“non-continuously monitor the proximate voltage”
`
`In the related litigation, Patent Owner argues that the term “non-
`
`continuously monitor the proximate voltage,” which appears in the independent
`
`claims, be construed as “waiting for a delay and then evaluating the proximate
`
`voltage to determine, after the delay, whether to enable a VAR compensation
`
`component based on the proximate voltage.” Exhibit 1011 at 8.
`
`Petitioner proposes, under BRI, for this proceeding only, that “non-
`
`continuously monitor the proximate voltage,” be construed as proposed by Patent
`
`Owner. Id.
`
`VI. TECHNOLOGY AT ISSUE
`
`A.
`
`Power Distribution Networks
`
`Electric power systems may be thought of as including generating,
`
`transmission, and distribution systems. Exhibit 1004 at 9. Figure 1, Green Book
`
`page 1, is “an academic but accurate pictorial of the power system,” which
`
`includes a generating plant, a transmission system, and the “component parts of the
`
`distribution system.” Exhibit 1004 at 9. Those components include the bulk
`
`-11-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`power substation, the subtransmission system, the distribution substation, primary
`
`feeder circuits, distribution transformers and secondary/service lines. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Voltage regulation on Power Distribution Networks
`
`Power is delivered to loads throughout the power distribution network.
`
`Power delivery may take place at different voltages depending on the requirements
`
`of the loads that receive the power. Customers on a portion of the distribution
`
`network may experience voltage drop—a difference between the voltage at the
`
`-12-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`transmitting and receiving ends of a feeder main or service. Exhibit 1004 at 255.
`
`One illustration of voltage drop is shown in Figure 18.
`
`Exhibit 1004 at 270. Figure 18(a) shows that, particularly under heavy load, the
`
`voltage provided consumers along a primary feeder drops as the distance from the
`
`substation increases. Id. Such voltage drop may be harmful to equipment or
`
`consumer appliances. It may also require higher than ideal voltages near the
`
`substation. Therefore, system voltage regulation—“maintaining the voltage at the
`
`-13-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`consumer’s service entrance within permissible limits”—is needed in most power
`
`networks. Exhibit 1004 at 255; Exhibit 1002 ¶¶29-33.
`
`C.
`
`Switched Capacitors
`
`One method of voltage regulation uses switched shunt-connected capacitors
`
`to increase/decrease voltage as needed. Exhibit 1004 at 270. Coupling a capacitor
`
`in shunt with a load typically increases the voltage on a feeder and disconnecting
`
`the capacitor typically decreases the voltage on the feeder. Exhibit 1002 ¶¶37-38.
`
`Thus, for example, switched shunt-connected capacitors, as shown in Figure
`
`18(c), are activated when the system is under heavy load (and the voltage would
`
`drop below acceptable limits). The connection/disconnection of such capacitors
`
`may be subject to various control methods, e.g. time, temperature, or voltage
`
`control. Exhibit 1004 at 332. Voltage control has “the advantage of initiating a
`
`switching operation only when the circuit voltage conditions request an operation.”
`
`Exhibit 1004 at 333.
`
`D.
`
`Infighting
`
`If multiple switched shunt capacitors are connected to a feeder at the same
`
`time, it is possible that the combined introduction of two or more capacitors may
`
`cause the feeder voltage to rise from below a lower threshold voltage to above an
`
`upper threshold voltage. Exhibit 1002 ¶38. If two capacitors are disconnected
`
`concurrently upon detection of a proximate voltage above the upper threshold, it
`
`-14-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`may cause the voltage to undesirably decrease from above the upper threshold
`
`voltage to below the lower threshold voltage. Without coordination, such
`
`undesired switching may result in unnecessary operations moving the system
`
`voltage repetitively above and below the desired voltage. This condition is
`
`referred to as hunting, pumping or infighting. Id.
`
`VII. LEVEL OF SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE IN THE ART
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the references. Here, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have either (1) a graduate
`
`degree in electrical engineering with 5 years of experience in the design and
`
`implementation of voltage regulation systems and methods on distribution power
`
`grids, or (2) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering with at least 10 years of
`
`experience in the design and implementation of voltage regulation systems and
`
`methods on the distribution power grid. Exhibit 1002 ¶48.
`
`VIII. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM
`UNPATENTABILITY
`
`EXPLANATION OF GROUND
`
`FOR
`
`The claims are obvious as shown below; Petitioner therefore has a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on each proposed ground. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a);
`
`37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(4).
`
`-15-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`A.
`
`Ground 1A: Claims 1-2, 8-10, 15-18, and 22 are obvious in view
`of D’Aquila and the Green Book
`
`As explained below, and by Dr. Brown, Exhibit 1002 ¶¶68-133, the
`
`challenged claims are obvious over D’Aquila and the Green Book. In Figures 1-3,
`
`D’Aquila “operates essentially to regulate the voltage to the load and to switch
`
`shunt reactances as necessary to ensure that the load voltage remains essentially
`
`constant.” Exhibit 1003, Col. 5:3-7.
`
`Every element of the claims or its obvious equivalent is explicitly disclosed
`
`by D’Aquila except the precise delay mechanism, which D’Aquila suggests and
`
`the Green Book teaches.
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 1
`1.a
`A system comprising:
`
`The preamble should be disregarded as not breathing life and meaning into
`
`the claim. Regardless, D’Aquila teaches a system. Exhibit 1003, Col. 9:6-7 (“4.
`
`A system for …”).
`
`1.b
`
`a distribution power network;
`
`D’Aquila discloses a distribution power network. Exhibit 1003, Col. 3:14-
`
`31 (“The present invention also includes a method for regulating shunt reactance-
`
`switching in a power transmission system…”). D’Aquila, Figures 1 through 3,
`
`shows various embodiments of the distribution power network.
`
`-16-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

` D’Aquila, Figure 2
`
`-17-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`a plurality of loads at an edge of the distribution power
`1.c
`network, each of the plurality of loads configured to receive
`power from the distribution power network; and
`
`D’Aquila discloses a plurality of loads at an edge of the distribution power
`
`network. Bus 1 and Bus 2 in the power distribution network shown in Figure 3
`
`connect “to various loads.” Exhibit 1003, Col. 4:53-58.
`
`D’Aquila further discloses that each of the loads is configured to receive
`
`power from the network. Load 18 is shown connected to Bus 2 in Figure 3. A
`
`POSA understands that bus 1 and bus 2 supply voltages V1 and V2 to the “various
`
`-18-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`loads” so that those loads may “receive power” from the network. Exhibit 1002
`
`¶70.
`
`a plurality of shunt-connected, switch-controlled Volt-
`1.d.i
`Ampere Reactive (“VAR”) sources at the edge of the distribution
`power network,
`
`In D’Aquila, Figures 2 and 3, the capacitors, 26 and 28, relay drivers, 32 and
`
`34, and logic controller 30 form VAR sources that are shunt-connected and switch-
`
`controlled. Exhibit 1003, Col. 4:17-19 (“Shunt reactances 26 and 28 (illustrated as
`
`capacitors) are connected in shunt to the load via switches S1 and S2.”). While the
`
`paragraph cited discusses Figure 1, common components within Figures 1-3
`
`operate in the same manner. Id., Col. 4:48-50 (“Otherwise, the elements and
`
`operation of the system in FIG. 2 are similar to that disclosed above regarding FIG.
`
`1.”), Col. 4:60-62.
`
`The VAR sources are shown in D’Aquila Figures 2 and 3 at the edge of the
`
`distribution network. As explained above “at the edge of the distribution power
`
`network” means the components in question are close to the load. The switch
`
`locations, S1 and S2, ensure that the capacitors “are connected in shunt to the
`
`load,” i.e., at the edge. Exhibit 1003, Col. 4:17-19. (Likewise, the capacitors are
`
`shown immediately adjacent the switches. D’Aquila, Figs. 1-3.) Figure 2, in
`
`particular, shows the switches immediately adjacent the load (without even a line
`
`-19-
`
`11644265.1
`
`

`

`break indicating potential distance). Thus, the VAR sources shown act close to the
`
`load, which satisfies the requirement that they be “at the edge.”
`
`Further, a POSA understands that placement of the switch controller is a
`
`mere design choice and that placing a controller, switch, and c