`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`ECOBEE, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.
`
`(record) Patent Owner
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: (Unassigned)
`Patent No. 8,498,753
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET. SEQ
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ............................................................................................................................... ii
`
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL .......................................................................... 1
`
`NOTICE OF THE REAL-PARTIES-IN-INTEREST .................................................................... 1
`
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS ............................................................................................. 1
`
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION ..................................................................................... 3
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................... 3
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ............................................. 4
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`The ‘753 Patent Disclosure ..................................................................................... 4
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................................. 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Constructions in Co-pending Litigations ................................................... 11
`
`Claims 3, 4, 10, 16— “heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system” .......... 12
`
`III.
`
`DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS FOR UNPATENTABILITY......... 13
`
`Ground 1. Claims 1-20 are obvious over Wedekind in view of Ehlers. ...................................... 13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`Effective Prior Art Dates ...................................................................................... 13
`
`Overview of the Combination ............................................................................... 14
`
`Overview of Wedekind ......................................................................................... 14
`
`Overview of Ehlers ............................................................................................... 18
`
`Rationale (Motivation) Supporting Obviousness.................................................. 22
`
`Graham Factors .................................................................................................... 23
`
`Reasonable Expectation of Success ...................................................................... 24
`
`Analogous Art ....................................................................................................... 24
`
`Claim Mapping ..................................................................................................... 24
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,498,753 (“the ’753 patent”).
`
`1002
`
`Declaration of Rajendra Shah.
`
`1003
`
`C.V. of Rajendra Shah.
`
`1004
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,454,511 (“Van Ostrand”).
`
`1005
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,480,803 (“Pierret”).
`
`1006
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,197,666 (“Wedekind”)
`
`1007
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart in Smart HVAC Systems, and
`Components Thereof, 337-TA-1185 (ITC March 6, 2020).
`
`1008
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,216,956 (“Ehlers”).
`
`1009
`
`Redline comparison of claims 1, 9 and 15.
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`File History of U.S. App. Ser. No. 12/773,690 (the application
`that issued as the ‘753 patent).
`
`Horan, T, Control Systems and Applications for HVAC/R,
`Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1997.
`
`Levenhagen, J, HVAC Control and Systems, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
`1993.
`
`1013
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,957,690 (“Raaijmakers”).
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`ITC Notice dated December 15, 2020 regarding termination of
`the investigation as to the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No.
`8,498,753.
`
`Comparison Document - Google Petition filed in IPR2020-01504
`vs. Present Petition
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 of
`
`claims 1-20 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,498,753 (“the ‘753 patent”).
`
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL
`
`Lead Counsel
`Scott W. Cummings (Reg. No. 41,567)
`scott.cummings@dentons.com
`1900 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel.: (202) 496-7500
`Fax: (202) 496-7756
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Catherine N. Taylor (Reg. No. 78,518)
`catherine.taylor@dentons.com
`233 South Wacker Drive
`Suite 5900
`Chicago, IL 60606-6361
`Tel.: (312) 876-8000
`Fax: (312) 876-7934
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF THE REAL-PARTIES-IN-INTEREST
`
`The real-parties-in-interest are ecobee, Inc. and ecobee Ltd.
`
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS
`
`The ‘753 patent has also been asserted in the following litigations:
`
` EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, 1-19-cv-12322 (D. Mass. Nov. 12, 2019);
`
` EcoFactor, Inc. v. Alarm.com Inc. et al., 1-19-cv-12323 (D. Mass. Nov. 12,
`
`2019);
`
` EcoFactor, Inc. v. Daikin Industries, Ltd. et al., 1-19-cv-12324 (D. Mass. Nov.
`
`12, 2019)1;
`
`
`1 This case has been voluntarily dismissed.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
` EcoFactor, Inc. v. Ecobee, Inc. et al., 1-19-cv-12325 (D. Mass. Nov. 12, 2019);
`
` EcoFactor, Inc. v. Schneider Electric USA, Inc. et al., 1-19-cv-12326 (D. Mass.
`
`Nov. 12, 2019)2;
`
` EcoFactor, Inc. v. Vivint, Inc., 1-19-cv-12327 (D. Mass. Nov. 12, 2019); and
`
` Smart HVAC Systems, and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1185 (ITC)3.
`
`The following case is pending before the Board involving the ‘753 patent:
`
` Google LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., IPR2020-01504.
`
`This Petition is being submitted concurrently with a Motion for Joinder.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner requests institution and joinder with IPR2020-01504, which
`
`the Board instituted on March 9, 2021. Petitioner has spoken with counsel of
`
`record for Google, and Google does not oppose joinder to the IPR2019-01504
`
`petition.
`
`
`
`Whereas the present Petition is a “me-too” or “copycat” petition, wherein
`
`Petitioner agrees to assume a “passive understudy role,” the General Plastic factors
`
`are “effectively neutraliz[ed].” Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2018-00580,
`
`Paper 13 at 10 (Aug. 21, 2018). Furthermore, there are no active parallel
`
`proceedings involving the ‘753 patent. The district court litigations listed above
`
`have either been stayed or terminated, and the ITC investigation has been
`
`
`2 This case has been voluntarily dismissed.
`3 The investigation has been terminated with respect to the ‘753 patent.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`terminated with respect to the claims of the ‘753 patent. Exhibit 1014. Therefore,
`
`the present Petition should be granted.
`
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION
`
`Please address all correspondence to the lead counsel at the addresses shown
`
`above. Petitioners consent to electronic service by email at:
`
`scott.cummings@dentons.com and catherine.taylor@dentons.com.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the patent for which review is sought is
`
`available for inter partes review, and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting an inter partes review on the grounds identified in the petition. In
`
`this regard it is noted that the Petition is being accompanied by a joinder motion.
`
`Thus, the time limit for filing a Petition for inter partes review of 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.101(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) do not apply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(b).
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that claims 1-20 of the ‘753 patent be canceled
`
`based on the following ground:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Wedekind in view of Ehlers.
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`This petition presents “a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioners would
`
`prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition”, 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a), as shown in the Grounds explained below.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. The ‘753 Patent Disclosure
`
`The ‘753 patent at-issue (with an earliest-possible benefit date of 2009)
`
`relates generally to climate control systems, such as heating and cooling systems
`
`(“HVAC systems”). (Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:45-2:6, 3:49-52)(Ex. 1002, ¶30). Such
`
`HVAC systems have, for decades, been controlled by thermostats. (Ex. 1001,
`
`1:18-44)(Ex. 1002, ¶30). Thermostats are typically wall-mounted units that have
`
`an internal temperature sensor, and which allow a user to set a target temperature.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 1:18-44)(Ex. 1002, ¶30). The target temperature, or “setpoint”, is
`
`compared against the actual temperature, and the HVAC system switched on or off
`
`in an attempt to maintain the setpoint temperature. (Ex. 1001, 1:18-44)(Ex. 1002,
`
`¶30).
`
`The ‘753 patent states that there may be opportunities to improve typical
`
`HVAC system functioning. (Ex. 1001, 1:26-2:6)(Ex. 1002, ¶31). For example, the
`
`‘753 patent discusses having a system that uses measurements of inside
`
`temperature, outside temperature, and other factors to control a building’s HVAC
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`system. (Ex. 1001, 4:58-67, 5:63-6:9)(Ex. 1002, ¶31). As the ‘753 patent notes,
`
`the rate at which an HVAC system can heat or cool a building depends on the
`
`temperature outside, the capacity of the HVAC system, and the thermal properties
`
`of the building. (Ex. 1001, 1:45-59, 2:1-6)(Ex. 1002, ¶31). Such factors, states the
`
`‘753 patent, can be used in calculations relating to HVAC systems. (Ex. 1001,
`
`5:13-36, 5:62-6:9)(Ex. 1002, ¶31).
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘753 patent is directed overall to a system for reducing the
`
`cycling time of a climate control system. (Ex. 1002, ¶32). The system must,
`
`among other things, be able to determine a thermal performance value for a
`
`structure. (Ex. 1002, ¶32). It must also be able to determine a first time prior to a
`
`target time at which the climate control system should turn on (i.e., a start time) to
`
`reach a desired temperature (i.e., the target temperature). (Ex. 1002, ¶32).
`
`Furthermore, the system must be able to calculate and set a thermostatic controller
`
`with intermediate setpoints that occur between this first time and the target time.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶32).
`
`The claim limitations reciting “a first time prior to said target time at which
`
`said climate control system should turn on to reach the target temperature by the
`
`target time”, and “calculating a plurality of intermediate setpoints” relate to three
`
`well-known prior art concepts: setback / recovery schedules, optimum start /stop
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`times, and setpoint ramping. (Ex. 1002, ¶34). These concepts warrant some
`
`further explanation.
`
`A setback / recovery schedule is a simple way to save money. (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶35). In most programmable home thermostats, a user can set a schedule to lower
`
`and raise the setpoint temperature. (Ex. 1002, ¶35). To do so, users will set the
`
`thermostat to move to an uncomfortable, but less costly, temperature when they
`
`expect to be away from home (or asleep), and will set the thermostat to move to a
`
`comfortable temperature when they expect to be home (or awake). (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶35). For example, a home user in winter might want the temperature at 70° F
`
`between 7 and 9 AM and between 5 PM and 11 PM, but 58° F otherwise. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶35). A setback / recovery function in a thermostat would allow a user to
`
`program this schedule. (Ex. 1002, ¶35). The uncomfortable temperature (the
`
`“setback temperature”—in this case, 58° F), saves energy by preventing the
`
`furnace from cycling ‘on’. (Ex. 1002, ¶35). The process of going from the
`
`comfortable temperature (70° F) down to the uncomfortable temperature (58° F) is
`
`called “setback”, while the reverse process (58° F back to 70° F) is called
`
`“recovery”. (Ex. 1002, ¶35).
`
`The process of setback and recovery created another problem: if a user
`
`programmed the thermostat to set back to 58° F at night, and recover to 70° F by 7
`
`AM, the user presumably wanted the home to be at 70° F by 7 AM. (Ex. 1002,
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`¶36). However, the setback and recovery schedule might only change the setpoint
`
`of the thermostat to 70° F at 7 AM, causing a long delay until the temperature
`
`became acceptable. (Ex. 1002, ¶36). To avoid this problem, many prior art
`
`thermostats implemented an “optimum start / stop” feature. (Ex. 1002, ¶36). Such
`
`a feature would analyze the rate of heating and cooling of the home, and turn the
`
`HVAC system ‘on’ or ‘off’ in advance of the schedule times. (Ex. 1002, ¶36). In
`
`the example discussed above, the thermostat would make a prediction about the
`
`length of time necessary to heat the home, and turn the HVAC system ‘on’ well
`
`before 7 AM, to have the house at 70° F by 7 AM. (Ex. 1002, ¶36).
`
`The primary prior art reference asserted in this petition, U.S. Pat. No.
`
`5,167,666 to Wedekind, is such a system. (Ex. 1006)(Ex. 1002, ¶37). Wedekind
`
`teaches implementing a setback / recovery schedule (what it calls a “comfort
`
`schedule”) as shown in Fig. 2, reproduced below:
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`In the Figure, the horizontal axis is time, and the upper part of the vertical axis is
`
`temperature. (Ex. 1002, ¶37). One can see that the temperature begins at a
`
`comfortable level (T’f) in the upper left, between times t0 and t1. (Ex. 1002, ¶37).
`
`At time t1, the temperature reaches a setback period, and the thermostat setpoint
`
`drops to the setback temperature T’i. (Ex. 1002, ¶37). The temperature continues
`
`at this lower temperature for a time. (Ex. 1002, ¶37). This time is scheduled to
`
`end at t4, when the user instructed the temperature to return the comfortable level
`
`T’f. (Ex. 1002, ¶37). To ensure that the temperature is T’f by time t4, the Wedekind
`
`system begins heating (i.e. “recovery”) at an earlier time t3. (Ex. 1002, ¶37).
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`When conducting such a recovery operation from a low temperature to a
`
`high temperature (or vice-versa), the system could simply change the thermostat
`
`setpoint from the setback temperature to the comfort temperature, and let the
`
`HVAC system drive the temperature change. (Ex. 1002, ¶38). This could create a
`
`well-known problem, however. Specifically, many HVAC systems had multiple
`
`systems to heat (or cool). Taking the example of heating, a first level of heating
`
`might heat relatively inexpensively. Second and third-level heating systems might
`
`be more expensive to operate, and switch in only when needed, e.g. only when the
`
`difference between the setpoint and actual temperature was more than a few
`
`degrees. Thus, if a system carried out recovery by setting the thermostat to the
`
`target (much-higher) setpoint, second- and third-level heating systems might be
`
`turned ‘on’, resulting in more expensive heating, and negating the advantage of
`
`having a setback temperature. (Ex. 1002, ¶38)
`
`To avoid this problem, the prior art used the concept of setpoint “ramping”.
`
`Ramping involved changing the temperature of a space by automatically changing
`
`the thermostat setpoint in small increments, for example, by one degree Fahrenheit
`
`at a time. (Ex. 1002, ¶39). To go from a setback temperature to a comfortable
`
`temperature, then, a ramping algorithm would schedule a plurality of small,
`
`intermediate setpoint changes to take place at particular times. (Ex. 1002, ¶39).
`
`Because the difference between the thermostat setpoint and the actual temperature
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`would never be more than a few degrees during ramping, second and third-level
`
`HVAC systems would not engage, and energy would be saved. (Ex. 1002, ¶39).
`
`Ramping during a recovery period was a common technique in the prior art.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶40). For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,454,511 to Van Ostrand (Ex. 1004)—
`
`issued in 1995—states as follows:
`
`“Programmable thermostats have heretofore included a recovery
`
`feature that permits the activation of a heating or cooling system prior
`
`to the scheduled change in setpoint temperature. These programmable
`
`thermostats typically authorize the setpoint to incrementally
`
`change from a starting time that is often determined by the thermostat.”
`
`(Ex. 1004, 1:23-28)(Ex. 1002, ¶40). Van Ostrand continues “successive
`
`incrementing or decrementing of setpoint temperature will provide a smooth
`
`gradual ramping of the setpoint temperature over the predefined periods of
`
`time...” (Ex. 1004, 6:56-61)(Emphasis added)(see also Ex. 1005, 4:53-55)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶40).
`
`The second primary reference used in this petition, U.S. Pat. No. 6,216,956
`
`to Ehlers (Ex. 1008), explains temperature ramping during recovery periods as
`
`follows:
`
`“[R]amping will avoid or reduce the possibility of engaging the heating
`
`or cooling systems second or third level heating and cooling cycles
`
`which usually self-engage when a temperature differential of more than
`
`3 or 4 degrees exists between the set point and the actual temperature.
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`
`
`The second and third stage heating and cooling cycles mentioned are
`
`incorporated into most modern reverse cycle or heat pump systems....In
`
`most cases, the initiation of subsequent stages of heating or cooling
`
`cycles on such systems results in an energy consumption rate of two
`
`times that of the first stage. By maintaining the systems operation in
`
`the first stage cycle, maximum energy consumption efficiency is
`
`achieved...As a result, recovery ramping, when used in conjunction
`
`with multi-stage heating and air conditioning systems, will minimize
`
`excessive energy usage and a gradual return to a narrow dead-band
`
`range by avoiding second and third stage initiation.
`
`(Ex. 1008, 19:46-20:3)(Ex. 1002, ¶41).
`
`The present ‘753 patent claims are an obvious combination of optimum start
`
`time prediction based on prior art methods, with the known technique of recovery
`
`ramping. (Ex. 1002, ¶42).
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`“In an inter partes review proceeding, a claim of a patent... shall be
`
`construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to
`
`construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b)....” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.100(b).
`
`A. Claim Constructions in Co-pending Litigations
`
`Various parties to the ITC investigation captioned Smart HVAC Systems,
`
`and Components Thereof 337-TA-1185 (ITC) have taken claim construction
`
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`
`
`positions, shown in Ex. 1007. Respondents in that proceeding maintain that certain
`
`terms of the ‘753 patent are indefinite, while the Complainant-Patent Owner
`
`EcoFactor maintains that the terms are construable or require no construction. (Ex.
`
`1007, p. 8). These terms and constructions EcoFactor proposed are shown below:
`
`Term
`
`EcoFactor Proposed Construction
`
`“reducing the cycling time” /
`“minimizing the cycling time”
`(claims 1, 9, 15)
`
`
`“thermal performance values” (claims
`1, 9, 15)
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`“values indicating a rate of change of
`temperature in said structure in
`response to changes in outside
`temperature”
`
`“performance characteristic [of
`said/a/the climate control/air
`conditioning system]” (claims 1, 9, 15)
`
`“characteristic that is indicative of a
`capability to change inside
`temperature”
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1007, p. 8).
`
`Without conceding the definiteness of these terms, ecobee in this petition
`
`will apply EcoFactor’s proposed constructions before the ITC. See NEC Display
`
`Solutions of America, Inc. v. Ultravision Tech., IPR2019-01123, Institution
`
`Decision, Paper 7, pp. 12-14 (PTAB Dec. 2, 2019).
`
`B. Claims 3, 4, 10, 16 — “heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
`system”
`
`Claim 3, 4, 10, 16 use the phrase “heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
`
`system”.
`
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`
`
`The ‘753 patent uses the term “heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
`
`system” (often abbreviated “HVAC system”, Ex. 1002, ¶49) to mean devices for
`
`heating and/or cooling generally. For example, the ‘753 patent states:
`
`“The HVAC units may be conventional air conditioners, heat pumps,
`
`or other devices for transferring heat into or out of a building.”
`
`(Ex. 1001, 7:19-21)(Ex. 1002, ¶49).
`
`The Board should thus construe the phrase “heating, ventilation, and air
`
`conditioning system” to mean “a group of components working together to move
`
`heat or remove heat from the conditioned [structure/location].”. (Ex. 1002, ¶50).
`
`III. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS
`UNPATENTABILITY
`
`FOR
`
`Ground 1. Claims 1-20 are obvious over Wedekind in view of Ehlers.
`
`Claims 1-20 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 5,197,666 (“Wedekind”) (Ex. 1006) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6,216,956
`
`(“Ehlers”) (Ex. 1008).
`
`Neither Wedekind nor Ehlers was of record during the prosecution of any
`
`application leading to the ‘753 patent.
`
`A. Effective Prior Art Dates
`
`Wedekind issued on Mar. 30, 1993, and is therefore prior art under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Ehlers issued on April 17, 2001, and is therefore prior art under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`B. Overview of the Combination
`
`The combination of Wedekind in view of Ehlers renders the challenged
`
`claims obvious. (Ex. 1002, ¶54). In brief, Wedekind provides a system that
`
`implements a setback and recovery schedule with an optimum start time
`
`prediction. (Ex. 1002, ¶54). To predict the optimum start time for the recovery
`
`period, Wedekind teaches using a non-linear efficiency model. (Ex. 1002, ¶54).
`
`The model takes inside and outside temperature into account, and determines
`
`characteristics of both the HVAC system and the building itself. (Ex. 1002, ¶54).
`
`Wedekind does not, however, expressly teach using temperature ramping
`
`during recovery nor using forecasted temperature. These techniques, however,
`
`were well-known, and Ehlers teaches using both. (Ex. 1002, ¶55). This ground
`
`proposes that it would have been obvious to use temperature ramping to calculate
`
`intermediate temperature setpoints and to use forecasted outside temperatures as
`
`taught by Ehlers to improve the system of Wedekind. (Ex. 1002, ¶55).
`
`C. Overview of Wedekind
`
`Wedekind, issued fourteen years before the earliest application leading to the
`
`‘753 patent, teaches a “method and apparatus for adaptively optimizing climate
`
`control energy consumption in a building.” (Ex. 1006, Title). Wedekind uses
`
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`
`
`measurements of inside and outside temperature to control an HVAC system. (Ex.
`
`1006, 12:54-21:12). To do so, Wedekind constructs a “non-linear efficiency
`
`model”. (Ex. 1006, 12:54-21:12)(Ex. 1002, ¶56). From the model, Wedekind
`
`calculates various characteristics of the HVAC system and characteristics of the
`
`structure conditioned by the HVAC system, as well as the length of time required
`
`to heat and cool the structure. (Ex. 1006, 13:15-18, 14:19-29, 19:27-20:6)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶56). These values, in turn, are used to predict heating and cooling times
`
`needed for a setback and recovery schedule. (Ex. 1006, 17:53-63)(Ex. 1002, ¶56).
`
`By accurately predicting heating and cooling times, Wedekind can reduce energy
`
`consumption. (Ex. 1006, 17:53-63)(Ex. 1002, ¶56).
`
`Wedekind’s system is shown in Fig. 5 of Wedekind, reproduced here:
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`
`
`As can be seen from Fig. 5, Wedekind’s system manages a “climate control
`
`system” (i.e. HVAC system) 18 (lower right). (Ex. 1006, 3:25-33)(Ex. 1002, ¶58).
`
`Direct control is provided by a programmable thermostat (also lower right) with
`
`registers 45 that comprise a database. (Ex. 1006, 7:41-68)(Ex. 1002, ¶58). The
`
`database stores inside temperature measurements, which are measured at sensors
`
`34 (lower left), averaged, and then supplied to the thermostat (connecting arrow).
`
`(Id.). Inside temperature measurements, together with outside temperature
`
`measurements taken by sensors 36 (upper left), are also supplied to a processor that
`
`estimates system parameters and processes a “non-linear efficiency model” (right
`
`side, rn 66-76). (Ex. 1006, 12:54-21:12)(Ex. 1002, ¶58).
`
`The “non-linear efficiency model”, in turn, can be used to increase
`
`efficiency and reduce cycle time by optimizing setback and recovery schedules.
`
`Wedekind states:
`
`“The predictor system
`
`involves a mathematically formulated
`
`thermodynamic model of the enclosure 30 and its associated climate
`
`control system 18 which utilizes the measured thermal and
`
`thermodynamic parameters determined and stored in the registers 45
`
`or database 45, along with the measured outdoor air temperature, to
`
`determine in advance of implementation, the optimum thermostat
`
`setback schedule 80 which, while maintaining the user-specified
`
`occupancy comfort schedule 39, minimizes the input energy
`
`consumption of the climate control system 18.”
`
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`
`
`(Ex. 1006, 17:53-63)(Emphasis added)(Ex. 1002, ¶59).
`
`Wedekind’s model optimizes the setback schedule by correlating inside
`
`temperature to outside temperature over time and calculating several building and
`
`HVAC system parameters. (Ex. 1006, 9:39-49, 14:58-18:64)(Ex. 1002, ¶60).
`
`These parameters are used to predict recovery time periods (the time it will take an
`
`HVAC system to change the temperature from a setback point to a comfortable
`
`setpoint). (Ex. 1006, 7:19-23, 7:41-52, 17:53-63, 4:7-17, 4:48-54, 5:53-7:18,
`
`21:46-53)(Ex. 1002, ¶60). Such a recovery time is illustrated within the “comfort
`
`schedule” shown in Fig. 2 of Wedekind, reproduced here:
`
`(Ex. 1006, 4:7-37, Fig. 2)(Ex. 1002, ¶60). In Fig. 2, there is a recovery time period
`
`between times t3 and t4 (see x-axis). (Ex. 1006, 14:46-48)(Ex. 1002, ¶61). During
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`

`

`
`
`the recovery time period, the HVAC system is raising the temperature from the
`
`setback temperature (T’i) to the comfort temperature (T’f). (Ex. 1006, 7:19-23)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶61). This means that the HVAC system is ‘on’, driving the temperature
`
`higher, continuously during the recovery period. (Ex. 1006, 14:46-48)(Ex. 1002,
`
`61). The recovery period begins at an earlier time t3, calculated by Wedekind’s
`
`system, that is sufficiently in advance to allow the temperature to reach the comfort
`
`level (T’f) by time t4. (Ex. 1006, 4:38-45, 7:19-30)(Ex. 1002, ¶61).
`
`D. Overview of Ehlers
`
`Ehlers also teaches a method for reducing the cycling time of a climate
`
`control system. (Ex. 1002, ¶62). Specifically, Ehlers teaches an “environmental
`
`condition control and energy management system and method.” (Ex. 1008, Title,
`
`Abstract)(Ex. 1002, ¶62). Various embodiments of Ehlers’ system are shown in
`
`Figs. 2-4 of Ehlers. Figure 4 is reproduced here:
`
`
`18
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶62). It should be noted that the features of each of the embodiments of
`
`Figs. 1-3 are also applicable to Fig. 4. (Ex. 1008, 35:1-4, 8:1-9)(Ex. 1002, ¶62).
`
`This system of Fig. 4 can be used to manage a climate control system—
`
`specifically, an HVAC system. Ehlers states:
`
`“An embodiment of the system of the invention in a more enhanced
`
`residential, commercial and industrial form is shown in FIG. 4. This
`
`implementation includes...both contact closures and communication
`
`links for controlling the HVAC units on premise and both contact
`
`closures and communication links for controlling other equipment. The
`
`system may be microprocessor-controlled and contained within
`
`multiple thermostat-like units and a standalone computer.”
`
`
`19
`
`
`

`

`
`
`(Ex. 1008, 34:32-47)(Emphasis added)(see also Ex. 1008, 7:45-52, 27:54-57,
`
`28:2429, 30:21-25, 30:36-51, 33:38-51)(Ex. 1002, ¶63).
`
`As is directly relevant to the present ground, Ehlers teaches receiving and
`
`using weather information, including outside temperature and forecast information.
`
`(Ex. 1008, 2:57-58, 9:49-63, 11:35-63)(Ex. 1002, ¶64). Such information can be
`
`used in Ehlers to predict heating and cooling times for the building. (Ex. 1008,
`
`35:13-28)(Ex. 1002, ¶64).
`
`Ehlers also provides methods for minimizing the energy consumption of the
`
`HVAC system as well as associated energy costs. Ehlers states:
`
`“The present invention is directed to an environmental condition
`
`sensing and control system aimed at optimizing comfort and
`
`minimizing energy consumption and cost, based on user-defined
`
`comfort and cost level parameters.”
`
`(Ex. 1008, 2:42-45)(Emphasis added)(Ex. 1002, ¶65).
`
`Specifically, Ehlers teaches using setback and recovery schedules to reduce
`
`energy consumption when the user is away, or not expecting to be active. Ehlers
`
`states:
`
`“[T]he system will track patterns of set point change...For example, on
`
`Monday through Friday the occupant changes the set point at about 7:30
`
`AM to reflect a set back set point and changes it back to the normal
`
`setting at about 6:00 PM. At about 10:45 PM everyday, the occupant
`
`changes the set point to a set back set point. These patterns might
`
`20
`
`
`

`

`
`
`reflect an occupant’s desire to have different set points established
`
`during periods when they are at work or asleep. By activating a
`
`function in the system called ‘follow my lead’, the system would track
`
`such changes in set points and, over a period of time, would be capable
`
`of automatically performing such set point changes.”
`
`(Ex. 1008, 22:2-22)(Emphasis added)(Ex. 1002, ¶66).
`
`When temperature setpoint changes are made that would require operating
`
`the HVAC system, Ehlers teaches minimizing energy consumption through the use
`
`of “temperature ramping”. (Ex. 1008, 19:27-20:3)(Ex. 1002, ¶67). Temperature
`
`ramping, as explained above in the Background section, uses a plurality of
`
`intermediate setpoints to “cause the system to gradually ramp the temperature up
`
`or down over a period of time.” (Ex. 1008, 2:27-40)(see also Ex. 1008, 28:65-
`
`29:35, 19:27-20:3)(Ex. 1002, ¶67).
`
`Ehlers teaches that ramping reduces energy consumption. (Ex. 1008, 19:27-
`
`20:2)(Ex. 1002, ¶68). For example, Ehlers teaches that “the processor controls the
`
`heating and cooling system to ramp up or down indoor temperature during
`
`certain time periods to reduce energy consumption costs.” (Ex. 1008, 4:43-
`
`46)(Ex. 1002, ¶68). As discussed in the Background, Ehlers teaches that energy is
`
`reduced because ramping avoids or reduces the possibility of engaging second- or
`
`third-heating and cooling stages, which are less energy-efficient, when the
`
`temperature differs by a large amount (“more than 3 or 4 degrees”). (Ex. 1008,
`
`
`21
`
`
`

`

`
`
`19:45-51, 19:55-20:3)(Ex. 1002, ¶68). By using temperature ramping, the setpoint
`
`is changed in small increments, such that the difference between the current
`
`temperature and current thermostat setpoint will never be large enough to engage
`
`second- or third-stage heating or cooling systems. (Id.). In this way, Ehlers saves
`
`energy and reduces cycle time. (Id.).
`
`E. Rationale (Motivation) Supporting Obviousness
`
`It would have been obvious to use Ehlers’ teaching of ramping and
`
`forecasted temperature within Wedekind. (Ex. 1002, ¶69).
`
`The specific rationales for the combination are provided where appropriate
`
`under the relevant claim elements in the Claim Mapping section, below. In
`
`general, however, Wedekind and Ehlers are similar references. (Ex. 1002, ¶70).
`
`Both Wedekind and Ehlers relate to computer-directed systems for managing
`
`HVAC systems to optimize for energy consumption and user comfort. (Ex. 1006,
`
`Abstract, Title, 17:53-63)(Ex. 1008, Abstract, Title, 2:27-51, 19:55-20:3, 28:65-
`
`29:35, 19:27-20:3)(Ex. 1002, ¶70). Both references teach using inside and outside
`
`temperature measurements to help optimize energy consumption. (Ex. 1006, 4:55-
`
`5:1)(Ex. 1008, 12:45-54, 12:55-13:2, 14:9-15, 28:55-64, 33:52-62, 37:37-63)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶70). Both references also teach comfort schedules, i.e. adjusting
`
`temperature levels to save energy while a building occupant is away or asleep, but
`
`returning the temperature to comfortable levels when the occupant has returned or
`
`
`22
`
`
`

`

`
`
`is awake. (Ex. 1006, 4:7-21, Fig. 2, 7:19-30, 11:22-30)(Ex. 1008, 22:1-13)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶70). A POSA would have thus naturally looked to Ehlers when designing a
`
`syst