IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`
`DOCKET NO.: 2211726-00149
`Filed on behalf of Unified Patents Inc.
`By:
`
`(David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com)
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`(Daniel.Williams@wilmerhale.com)
`Daniel V. Williams, Reg. No. 45,221
`(Evelyn.Mak@wilmerhale.com)
`Evelyn C. Mak, Reg. No. 50,492
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Roshan Mansinghani, Reg. No. 62,429
`Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518
`
`Unified Patents Inc.
`1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
`Washington, DC, 20009
`Tel: (202) 805-8931
`
`
`(roshan@unifiedpatents.com)
`(jonathan@unifiedpatents.com)
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`WIRELESS MONITORING SYSTEMS LLC
`Patent Owner
`IPR2018-00027
`Patent 9,280,886
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,280,886
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 29, 35, 37-42, 51-54
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`Page
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 3 
`A. 
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 3 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 3 
`C. 
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 4 
`D. 
`Service Information, Email, Hand Delivery and Postal ........................ 4 
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 4 
`II. 
`III.  OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 4 
`A. 
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................ 5 
`1. 
`U.S. Pat. 6,215,405 (filed on May 11, 1998; published on
`Apr. 10, 2001) (“Handley” (EX1003)), which is prior art
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................ 5 
`U.S. Pat. 5,499,196 (filed on Oct. 19, 1993; published on
`Mar. 12, 1996) (“Pacheco” (EX1004)), which is prior art
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................ 5 
`U.S. Pat. 6,057,549 (filed on May 30, 1997; published on
`May 2, 2000) (“Castleman” (EX1005)), which is prior art
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ............................................................ 5 
`U.S. Pat. 6,360,277 (filed on Jul. 22, 1998; published on
`Mar. 19, 2002) (“Ruckley” (EX1006)), which is prior art
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................ 5 
`Grounds for Challenge .......................................................................... 5 
`B. 
`IV.  TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ................................................................. 6 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’886 PATENT ............................................................ 8 
`A. 
`Summary of the Alleged Invention ....................................................... 8 
`B. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 13 
`C. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 13 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 15 
`A.  Means-Plus-Function Terms ............................................................... 16 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`“a comparison module configured to…” (claim 1) .................. 18 
`1. 
`“a communication module configured to…” (claim 1) ............ 19 
`2. 
`“a circuit monitoring module configured to…” (claim 29) ...... 20 
`3. 
`“a communications module to…” (claim 29) ........................... 22 
`4. 
`VII.  SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...................................................... 23 
`A.  Ground I: Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 38-42, 51 are rendered obvious by
`Handley in view of Pacheco ............................................................... 23 
`1. 
`Overview of Handley ................................................................ 23 
`2. 
`Overview of Pacheco ................................................................ 27 
`3. 
`Reasons to Combine Handley and Pacheco ............................. 30 
`4. 
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 34 
`5. 
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 48 
`6. 
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 49 
`7. 
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 50 
`8. 
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 50 
`9. 
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 50 
`10.  Claim 10 .................................................................................... 50 
`11.  Claim 38 .................................................................................... 51 
`12.  Claim 39 .................................................................................... 52 
`13.  Claim 40 .................................................................................... 53 
`14.  Claim 41 .................................................................................... 53 
`15.  Claim 42 .................................................................................... 53 
`16.  Claim 51 .................................................................................... 54 
`Ground II: Claims 29, 35, 37, 52-54 are rendered obvious by Handley
`in view of Pacheco, Castleman, and Ruckley ..................................... 55 
`1. 
`Overview of Castleman ............................................................ 55 
`2. 
`Overview of Ruckley ................................................................. 58 
`3. 
`Claim 29 .................................................................................... 59 
`4. 
`Claim 35 .................................................................................... 76 
`5. 
`Claim 37 .................................................................................... 76 
`6. 
`Claim 52 .................................................................................... 77 
`7. 
`Claim 53 .................................................................................... 77 
`8. 
`Claim 54 .................................................................................... 78 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 79 
`
`B. 
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Unified Patents Inc. (“Unified” or
`
`“Petitioner”) certifies that Unified is the real party-in-interest, and further certifies
`
`that no other party exercised control or could exercise control over Unified’s
`
`participation in this proceeding, the filing of this petition, or the conduct of any
`
`ensuing trial.
`
`B. Related Matters
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,280,886 (“’886 patent” (EX1001)) is owned by Wireless
`
`Monitoring Systems, LLC (“Patent Owner”).
`
`The ’886 patent is the subject of the following pending district court
`
`proceedings: Wireless Monitoring Systems LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al., 2-17-cv-
`
`00501 (E.D. Tex.); Wireless Monitoring Systems LLC v. Comcast Corporation, 2-
`
`17-cv-00502 (E.D. Tex.); Wireless Monitoring Systems LLC v. MONI Security, LP,
`
`2-17-cv-00503 (E.D. Tex.); Wireless Monitoring Systems LLC v. Smith Thompson
`
`Security, LLC, 2-17-cv-00504 (E.D. Tex.); Wireless Monitoring Systems LLC v.
`
`Charter Communications, Inc., 2-17-cv-00505 (E.D. Tex.); Wireless Monitoring
`
`Systems LLC v. Vector Security, Inc., 2-17-cv-00506 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`
`C. Counsel
`David L. Cavanaugh (Reg. No. 36,476) will act as lead counsel; Roshan
`
`Mansinghani (Reg. No. 62,429) will act as primary back-up counsel; and Jonathan
`
`Stroud (Reg. No. 72,518), Daniel V. Williams (Reg. No. 45,221), and Evelyn C.
`
`Mak (Reg. No. 50,492) will act as back-up counsel.
`
`D.
`Service Information, Email, Hand Delivery and Postal
`Unified consents to electronic service at david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`and roshan@unifiedpatents.com. Petitioner can be reached at Wilmer Cutler
`
`Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC
`
`20006, Tel: (202) 663-6000, Fax: (202) 663-6363, and Unified Patents Inc., 1875
`
`Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10, Washington, DC 20009, Tel: (650) 999-0889.
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)–(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 29, 35, 37-42, 51-54 of the ’886 patent.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below:1
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Pat. 6,215,405 (filed on May 11, 1998; published on Apr. 10,
`2001) (“Handley” (EX1003)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(e)
`U.S. Pat. 5,499,196 (filed on Oct. 19, 1993; published on Mar. 12,
`1996) (“Pacheco” (EX1004)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b)
`U.S. Pat. 6,057,549 (filed on May 30, 1997; published on May 2,
`2000) (“Castleman” (EX1005)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`102(a)
`U.S. Pat. 6,360,277 (filed on Jul. 22, 1998; published on Mar. 19,
`2002) (“Ruckley” (EX1006)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(e)
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Professor Paul Franzon
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`(“Franzon Declaration” or “Franzon” (EX1002)), requests cancellation of
`
`challenged claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 29, 35, 37-42, 51-54 as unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`1 The ’886 patent issued from a patent application filed prior to enactment of the
`
`America Invents Act (“AIA”). Accordingly, the pre-AIA statutory framework
`
`applies.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`
`IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`By December 2000, it was well known to provide devices for monitoring the
`
`status of circuits in alarm systems, security management systems, fire systems, and
`
`building management systems. (’886 patent at 1:37-59 (EX1001); Handley at
`
`2:55-65, Fig. 1 (EX1003); Pacheco at 4:65-5:3, Fig. 1 (EX1004); Franzon ¶16
`
`(EX1002)).
`
`In these alarm or security systems, it was known to provide circuits, such as
`
`sensors, to monitor “a zone or area of protection.” (Handley at 2:60-62 (EX1003);
`
`Franzon ¶17 (EX1002)). These systems supported many different types of sensors
`
`that could monitor for different conditions within a specified area. For example, it
`
`was known to use sensors such as motion detectors, fire detectors, water detectors,
`
`glass break detectors, door/window contacts, shock sensors, switches, keypads,
`
`temperature sensors, etc. (Handley at 2:60-65 (EX1003); Pacheco at 5:19-29
`
`(EX1004); Franzon ¶17 (EX1002)).
`
`In these alarm/security systems, it was also known to provide a monitoring
`
`device (e.g., alarm panel, alarm interface, keyboard controller) that could receive
`
`data from these sensors and use this data to detect for a normal condition or for one
`
`or more alarm conditions in the specified area associated with a sensor. (Handley
`
`at 2:55-3:16, 4:47-5:48, Figs. 1-3 (EX1003); Pacheco at 4:65-5:29, 6:45-7:18,
`
`Figs. 1-3 (EX1004); Franzon ¶18 (EX1002)). It was further known that this
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`monitoring device typically included a processor, among other circuit components,
`
`that received the data from the sensors, compared the data from each sensor to one
`
`more thresholds that corresponded to different conditions (e.g., normal/alarm, door
`
`open/closed, fire/water not detected/detected, temperature below/exceeded a
`
`threshold), and assigned a status (e.g., set a flag or bit to logical “0” or “1”
`
`depending on the condition) based on the comparison. (Handley at 3:42-48, 4:47-
`
`5:48, Figs. 1-3 (EX1003); Pacheco at 5:19-29, 6:45-7:18, Figs. 2-3 (EX1004);
`
`Castleman at 15:7-35, Figs. 11-12 (EX1005); Franzon ¶18 (EX1002)).
`
`In these alarm/security systems, it was also known that this monitoring
`
`device could then transmit the assigned status information from the sensors to a
`
`remote monitoring system over a network that uses a telephone dialer, cellular
`
`telephone technology, or other means of wired or wireless communication.
`
`(Handley at 3:2-12, Fig. 1 (EX1003); Pacheco at 4:66-5:3, Figs. 1-2 (EX1004);
`
`Franzon ¶19 (EX1002)). To transmit the assigned status, it was known that this
`
`monitoring device included a transmitter as well as additional hardware and/or
`
`software that could support different industry standard network topologies and
`
`protocols including, for example, Fieldbus, process field bus (PROFIBUS),
`
`Seriplex, smart distributed system (SDS), DeviceNet, and controller area network
`
`(CAN). (Id.; Ruckley at Abstract (EX1006); Franzon ¶19 (EX1002)).
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`In these alarm/security systems, it was known that multiple monitoring
`
`systems from different areas (e.g., different houses, buildings, parts of a structure)
`
`could transmit the assigned status information for their corresponding sensors to
`
`the same remote monitoring station. (Pacheco at 1:25-43 (EX1004); Franzon ¶20
`
`(EX1002)). It was also known that the remote monitoring system was a computer
`
`system having a monitor that would display specific alarm information about the
`
`various monitoring circuits. (Pacheco at 4:31-41, 13:50-14:15, Figs. 1, 8C
`
`(EX1004); Franzon ¶20 (EX1002)). It was further known that personnel at the
`
`remote monitoring system could use this specific alarm information to take the
`
`appropriate action. (Handley at 4:66-5:3 (EX1003); Pacheco at 1:33-60 (EX1004);
`
`Franzon ¶20 (EX1002)). For example, if the specific alarm information indicates
`
`an alarm condition for a sensor associated with a monitoring device located at a
`
`building that requires immediate attention (e.g., a fire has been detected), the
`
`personnel could immediately dispatch a firetruck to that building. (Franzon ¶20
`
`(EX1002)).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’886 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of the Alleged Invention
`The background section of the ’886 patent describes prior art security
`
`management systems (SMS), problems associated with upgrading and modifying
`
`these known SMS systems, known attempts to address these problems, and
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`problems associated with these known attempts. (’886 patent at 1:37-3:13
`
`(EX1001)). The ’886 patent purports to solve these problems by providing
`
`“monitoring systems” that are “especially useful in security management systems,
`
`fire systems and building management systems.” (Id. at 1:26-30 (EX1001)).
`
`These monitoring system purport to “allow[] the retrofit of existing security
`
`management systems, fire systems and building management systems, while
`
`utilising the existing circuit wiring regardless of existing resistance values.
`
`Retrofits and new installations may use various PLCs and operator interfaces, and
`
`a variety of hardware and software, instead of being locked into proprietary
`
`hardware and software.” (Id. at 4:28-35 (EX1001)). (Franzon ¶21 (EX1002)).
`
`Figure 2 shows a monitoring system having three components: a centralized
`
`SMS control unit (element 5 – shown in red), multiple circuit monitoring devices
`
`(elements 10, 20, 30 – shown in blue), and multiple field devices (elements A, B, C
`
`– shown in green). (’886 patent at 4:66-5:8, Fig. 2 (EX1001)). The circuit
`
`monitoring devices “monitor the status of various [electrical] circuits containing
`
`field devices such as motion detectors, read switches on doors and windows,
`
`smoke detectors, etc.” (Id. at 5:1-5 (EX1001)). The SMS control unit includes a
`
`communications module (element 7) and a programmable logic controller (PLC)
`
`having a microprocessor (element 6) that reads the status of the various electrical
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`circuits from the associated circuit monitoring devices. (Id. at 5:9-15, 7:45-54, Fig.
`
`2 (EX1001)). (Franzon ¶22 (EX1002)).
`
`
`
`Figure 3 shows the block diagram for the circuit monitoring devices in
`
`Figure 2. (’886 patent at 4:50-51, 5:62-63, Fig. 3 (EX1001)). The circuit
`
`monitoring device includes an operational amplifier (OPAMP) (element 40 –
`
`shown in red), an analog to digital (A/D) converter (element 41 – shown in brown),
`
`a microprocessor (element 42 – shown in orange), and a communication module
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`(element 43 – shown in purple). (Id. at 5:63-66, Fig. 2 (EX1001)). (Franzon ¶23
`
`(EX1002)).
`
`
`
`The OPAMP receives as input an analog signal from the field device. (Id. at
`
`5:66-6:1 (EX1001)). The A/D converter converts the analog signal from the
`
`OPAMP to a count value representing a numerical representation of the end-of-line
`
`resistance of the field device.
`
` (’886 patent at 6:1-4 (EX1001)).
`
` The
`
`microprocessor compares the count value to various thresholds to determine the
`
`status of the field device. (Id. at 6:5-8 (EX1001)). The communication module
`
`communicates the result of the comparison to the SMS control unit. (Id. at 6:8-16
`
`(EX1001)). (Franzon ¶24 (EX1002)).
`
`Figure 4 of the ’886 patent shows a diagrammatic representation of the
`
`comparisons performed by the microprocessor in the circuit monitoring device to
`
`determine the status of the field device. (’886 patent at 6:34-41, Fig. 4 (EX1001)).
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`
`
`
`The microprocessor compares the measured count value to each of four thresholds:
`
`(1) 8,000; (2) 15,000; (3) 16,000; and (4) 30,000. (Id. at 7:17-19, 7:25-26, Fig. 4
`
`(EX1001)). The four thresholds result in five different threshold ranges, each of
`
`which corresponds to one of five different status conditions:
`
`(1) count value between 0 and 8,000—Open Circuit condition assigned;
`
`(2) count value between 8,000 and 15,000—Alarm 1 condition assigned;
`
`(3) count value between 15,000 and 16,000—Normal condition assigned;
`
`(4) count value between 16,000 and 30,000—Alarm 2 condition assigned; and
`
`(5) count value between 30,000 and 32,767—Short Circuit condition assigned.
`
`(Id. at 6:37-48, Fig. 4 (EX1001)). Based on the comparison, the microprocessor
`
`generates an output in the form of individual flags or digital bits that are
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`transmitted to the SMS control unit. (Id. at 7:25-33, 7:38-40 (EX1001)). (Franzon
`
`¶25 (EX1002)).
`
`The ’886 patent describes two types of communication modules in the
`
`circuit monitoring device. In one type, the communication module “is adapted for
`
`communication across the back plane of the PLC to the microprocessor 6.” (’886
`
`patent at 6:11-13, Fig. 2 (EX1001)). In another type, the communication module
`
`“is a DeviceNet™ communication module implementing the DeviceNet™
`
`communication standard.” (Id. at 6:13-16, Fig. 2 (EX1001)). (Franzon ¶26
`
`(EX1002)).
`
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the earliest
`
`priority application for the ’886 patent, i.e., December 4, 2000, would have at least
`
`a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering or an equivalent field, as
`
`well as at least 2-3 years of academic or industry experience in circuit design,
`
`microprocessor programming, and network interfaces, or comparable industry
`
`experience(s). (Franzon ¶31 (EX1002)).
`
`C.
`Prosecution History
`The application for the ’886 patent was filed November 13, 2014. It claims
`
`priority as a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 8,816,869, filed on July 1, 2013, which
`
`is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 8,912,893, filed on September 30, 2010 (“’893
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`patent”), which is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 7,834,744, filed on July 13, 2007,
`
`which is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 7,256,683, filed on December 3, 2001
`
`(“’683 patent”), which claims priority to Australian Appl. No. PR1878, filed on
`
`December 4, 2000. (’886 patent at cover page (EX1001)).
`
`A week after filing, the Applicant filed a Preliminary Amendment that
`
`cancelled originally-filed claims 1-20 and added new claims 21-57 (application
`
`claims 21 and 49 correspond to issued claims 1 and 29, respectively). (File
`
`History, 11/21/14 Preliminary Amendment at 3-13 (EX1007)).
`
`In the only Office Action dated March 11, 2015, the Examiner rejected
`
`many of the claims (including claims 21 and 49) based on non-statutory double
`
`patenting over various claims of the ’893 and ’683 patents. (File History, 3/11/15
`
`Office Action at 1, 3 (EX1008)). The Applicant filed a Response adding new
`
`claims and filing a terminal disclaimer over the ’893 and ’683 patents. (File
`
`History, 5/26/15 Response at 1 (EX1009); File History, 5/26/15 Terminal
`
`Disclaimer at 1 (EX1010)).
`
`Then the Examiner allowed the claims. (File History, 10/7/15 Notice of
`
`Allowability at 2 (EX1011)). The Examiner’s reasons for allowance for
`
`independent claims 21, 31, and 49 were based on the claimed “comparison module
`
`configured to….” (Id. (EX1011)). The Examiner stated that the following
`
`limitations from claims 49-57 and 72-74 were subject to means-plus-function
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6: “a circuit monitoring module configured to…” and “a
`
`communications module to….” (Id. at 3 (EX1011)). The Examiner then identified
`
`the corresponding structures for these limitations: “communications module 43, fig.
`
`3, circuit monitoring module 10, 20, 30, fig. 2.” (Id. (EX1011)). (See generally
`
`Franzon ¶¶27-30 (EX1002)).
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claim terms of an unexpired patent in inter partes review, as here, are given
`
`the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC 778 F.3d 1271, 1279–81 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015). Any claim term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore given
`
`a broad interpretation.2 In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim
`
`terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as they would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the disclosure. In re
`
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special
`
`definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with “reasonable
`
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1994).
`
`2 Petitioner applies the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by
`
`the governing regulations. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`The following proposes several constructions and offers support for those
`
`constructions. Any claim terms not included should be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, as commonly understood by
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art. Should the Patent Owner, to avoid the prior art,
`
`contend that a claim term has a construction different from its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, the appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the
`
`claim to expressly correspond to its contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`A. Means-Plus-Function Terms
`Claims 1 and 29 include “module” terms that should be construed as means-
`
`plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6. (’886 patent at claims 1, 29
`
`(EX1001)).
`
`A claim term that does not recite the word “means” can still invoke 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶6 if the term “fails to ‘recite[] sufficiently definite structure’ or else
`
`recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing
`
`that
`
`function.’” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015). “Generic terms such as ‘mechanism,’ ‘element,’ ‘device,’ and other nonce
`
`words that reflect nothing more than verbal constructs may be used in a claim in a
`
`manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’ because they ‘typically do not
`
`connote sufficiently definite structure’ and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6.”
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`Id. at 1340. “‘Module’ is a well-known nonce word that can operate as a substitute
`
`for ‘means’ in the context of § 112, para. 6” because it “is simply a generic
`
`description for software or hardware that performs a specified function.” Id.
`
`When construing a means-plus-function limitation, the claimed function
`
`must be identified, and then the corresponding structure that performs the claimed
`
`function must be identified in the specification. Med. Instrumentation &
`
`Diagnostics Corp. v. Elektra AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003). A means-
`
`plus-function claim term is limited to the structures disclosed in the specification
`
`and equivalents. Id. “In a means-plus-function claim in which the disclosed
`
`structure is a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm,
`
`the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather the special
`
`purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.” WMS
`
`Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`The limitations “a comparison module configured to…” (claim 1), “a
`
`comparison module configured to…” (claim 1), “a circuit monitoring module
`
`configured to…” (claim 29), and “a communications module to…” (claim 29) each
`
`uses the nonce word “module” and merely recites function without reciting
`
`sufficient structure for performing that function. (’886 patent at claims 1, 29
`
`(EX1001)). In addition, during prosecution of the ’886 patent, the Examiner found
`
`the two “module” limitations of claim 29 subject to means-to-function. (See
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`Section V.C (Prosecution History)). Accordingly, each of these limitations should
`
`be construed as a means-plus-function limitation. (Franzon ¶43 (EX1002)).
`
`1.
`“a comparison module configured to…” (claim 1)
`Function: Claim 1 recites the following function for the “comparison
`
`module”:
`
`(1) “compare a digital value, which corresponds to a magnitude of the
`
`measured electrical parameter, to at least one threshold value stored in the
`
`memory, wherein the threshold value defines at least one range of digital values,”
`
`and
`
`(2) “assign a status based on the digital value being within the particular
`
`range defined by the threshold value.” (’886 patent at claim 1 (EX1001)).
`
`Structure: The specification does not recite the term “comparison module.”
`
`Claim 1 recites a “processor” having “modules comprising software to configure
`
`the processor” that include the “comparison module.” Accordingly, the structure
`
`needs to be a special-purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed
`
`algorithm. As structure, the specification discloses a processor programmed to
`
`perform the following steps:
`
`(1) compare a digital value to at least one threshold value,
`
`(2) if the digital value is below the at least one threshold value that falls
`
`within a first range of digital values, assign a first condition to the circuit, and
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`(3) if the digital value is above the at least one threshold value that falls
`
`within a second range of digital values, assign a second condition to the circuit.
`
`(’886 patent at 6:5-8, 6:34-48, 7:17-19, 7:25-40, Figs. 3-4, claim 1 (EX1001); see
`
`also Section V.A (Summary of the Alleged Invention)). The corresponding
`
`structure also includes equivalents of the disclosed structure. (See generally
`
`Franzon ¶¶44-45 (EX1002)).
`
`2.
`“a communication module configured to…” (claim 1)
`Function: Claim 1 recites the following function for the “communication
`
`module”: “generate a status signal including at least the assigned status.” (’886
`
`patent at claim 1 (EX1001)).
`
`Structure: The specification does not recite the term “communication
`
`module” in the context of claim 1.3 Claim 1 recites a “processor” having “modules
`
`comprising software to configure the processor” that include the “communication
`
`module.” Accordingly, the structure needs to be a special-purpose computer
`
`programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. As structure, the specification
`
`discloses a processor programmed to perform the following steps:
`
`(1) if a first condition is assigned to the circuit, set a first flag (or bit),
`
`3 Claim 29 recites the term “communications module.” (’886 patent at claim 29
`
`(EX1001)). While claims 1 and 29 recite a similar term, each claim uses the term
`
`differently by reciting a different function, and thus requires a different structure.
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`(2) if a second condition is assigned to the circuit, set a second flag (or bit),
`
`and
`
`(3) produce a status signal that includes at least the first flag (or bit) and the
`
`second flag (or bit).
`
`(’886 patent at 6:5-10, 7:25-40, Figs. 3-4, claim 1 (EX1001); see also Section V.A
`
`(Summary of the Alleged Invention)). The corresponding structure also includes
`
`equivalents of the disclosed structure. (See generally Franzon ¶¶46-47 (EX1002)).
`
`3.
`“a circuit monitoring module configured to…” (claim 29)
`Function: Claim 29 recites the following function for the “circuit
`
`monitoring module”: “receive a parameter of the circuit, compare the parameter to
`
`at least one threshold value and assign a discrete value concerning the circuit based
`
`on the comparison.” (’886 patent at claim 29 (EX1001)).
`
`Structure: During prosecution of the ’886 patent, the Examiner identified
`
`the corresponding structure for the “circuit monitoring module” as the “circuit
`
`monitoring module 10, 20, 30, fig. 2.” (See Section V.C (Prosecution History)).
`
`The specification does not recite the term “circuit monitoring module,” but uses
`
`the term “circuit monitoring device.” Fig. 2 and the corresponding description
`
`describe each of elements 10, 20, and 30 as a circuit monitoring device. (’886
`
`patent at 4:47-49, 5:5-8, 5:24-28, 5:37-61, Fig. 2 (EX1001)). Fig. 3 and the
`
`corresponding description describe the circuit for the circuit monitoring device,
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00027 Petition
`Patent 9,280,886
`which includes an operational amplifier (OPAMP) (element 40), an analog to
`
`digital (A/D) converter (element 41), a microprocessor (element 42), and a
`
`communication module (element 43). (Id. at 5:62-6:10, Fig. 3 (EX1001)).
`
`As structure, the specification discloses an OPAMP, an A/D converter, and a
`
`microprocessor.4 The OPAMP, which receives a parameter of the circuit, has an
`
`output that is coupled to the input of the A/D converter. The A/D converter has an
`
`output that is coupled to the input of the microprocessor. The microprocessor is
`
`programmed to perform the following steps:
`
`(1) receive a digital value from the A/D converter,
`
`(2) compare the digital value to at least one threshold value,
`
`(3) if the digital value is below the at least one threshold value that falls
`
`within a first range of digital values, assign a first condition to the circuit, and
`
`(4) if the digital value is above the at least one threshold value that falls
`
`within a second range of digital values, assign a second condition to the circuit.
`
`(Id. at 5:62-6:10, 6:34-48, 7:17-19, 7:25-40, Figs. 3-4, claim 29 (EX1001); see also
`
`Section V.A (Summary