Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 14
`Entered: May 4, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ALARM.COMINC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`VIVINT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ROLIDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Jnter Partes Review
`35 US.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F-R. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 14
`Entered: May 4, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ALARM.COMINC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`VIVINT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ROLIDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Jnter Partes Review
`35 US.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F-R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Alarm.com Incorporated (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper1,
`
`“Pet.’’) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4-23, 25-31, and
`
`33-41 of U.S. Patent No. 6,147,601 (Ex. 1101, “the ’601 patent”). Pet, 3.
`
`Vivint, Incorporated (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper
`12 (“Prelim. Resp.’””).! We review the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which
`
`provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless. .
`
`. there is
`
`a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respectto at
`
`least 1 of the claims challengedin the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`For the reasonsthat follow, and on this record, we are persuadedthat
`
`Petitioner demonstrates a reasonablelikelihood of prevailing in showing the
`
`unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17-23, 25—31, and 33-41 ofthe ’601
`
`patent. We, however, are not persuadedthat Petitioner demonstrates a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claim
`
`16 of the 601 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review only
`
`as to claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17-23, 25-31, and 33-41 of the ’601 patent.
`
`' On December17, 2015, atter Petitioner’s filing of the Petition, but before
`Patent Owner’s filing of the Preliminary Response, Patent Ownerfiled a
`Request for Certificate of Correction with respect to the ’601 patent, seeking
`to correct an alleged mistake in claim 39. Ex. 2003 (“Request”), 3. By
`Order dated January 28, 2016, we stayed the Request, pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.3, pending ourdecision on this Petition and the related petitions in
`Cases IPR2015-02004 and IPR2016-00155, and wealso authorized
`Petitionerto file a Brief limited to addressing certain issues related to the
`requested Certificate of Correction. See Paper 9 (“Order”). Petitioner filed
`its Brief shortly before Patent Ownerfiled its Preliminary Response.
`Paper 11 (Pet. Brief’).
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`A. The ’601 Patent
`
`The ’601 patent, entitled “Electronic Message Delivery System
`
`Utilizable in the Monitoring of Remote Equipment and Method of Same,”
`
`issued November 14, 2000, from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/317,235,
`
`filed May 24, 1999. Ex. 1101, at [21], [22], [45], [54]. The ’601 patent also
`
`claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/115,305, filed
`
`January 9, 1999 (“the °305 provisional”). Jd. at [60], 1:6—7.
`
`The 601 patent describes systems and methods for monitoring remote
`
`equipmentsuch as “devices .
`
`.
`
`. employed in heating, ventilating, and [air
`
`conditioning] (HVAC) systems.” Ex. 1101, Abstract, 1:11-14. The ’601
`
`patent explainsthat “i]t is desirable to be able to monitor remotely
`
`equipmentthat may require periodic preventive maintenance and/or that may
`
`require rapid response time should a catastrophic failure occur.” Jd. at 1:16—
`
`19. According to the ’601 patent, prior art systems were limited insofar as
`
`they did not“allow for sufficient flexibility in routing fault messages to a
`
`variety ofdifferent potential recipients of such messages via a variety of
`
`different media, depending on the urgencyor natureof the fault.” Jd. at
`1:66-2:3. The ’601 patent provides, as an example, that an HVAC customer
`
`may wantto send “certain non-emergency condition notifications (e.g., filter
`
`needs cleaning) to certain individuals (e.g., contractor/maintenance
`
`personnel) via a certain medium (e.g., e-mail) and emergency condition
`
`notifications (e.g., low or high refrigerant pressure) to other individuals
`
`(building owner, contractor, etc.) via other means(e.g., via beeper or other
`
`personal communication device).” Jd. at 2:5-14. “Such a list of who to
`
`contact via what means depending on which fault has occurred may be
`
`referred to as a ‘messageprofile.’” Jd. at 2:14-16. According to the 601
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`patent, conventional systems did not allow for “easy customer modifications
`
`to the message profile.” Jd. at 2:21-22.
`
`The ’601 patent purportedly solves these problems by disclosing a
`
`system for remotely monitoring electrical or mechanical equipmentthat can
`
`deliver fault notification messages to different individuals for different fault
`
`conditions via different electronic media, and in which a customer may
`
`modify its messageprofile interactively. Ex. 1101, 2:33-41. Figure 1 of the
`
`’601 patent, reproduced below,illustrates a schematic diagram of the
`
`preterred embodimentof this system. Jd. at 3:24—25, 5:38-39.
`
`Air-
`Condhioner
`
`|
`{
`
`1
`9
`
`Electronic Message
`Delivery Server
`
`
`
`Figure 41
`
`As shownin Figure 1, system 50 monitors existing pieces of
`
`electronic’equipment, such as air-conditioner 2, boiler 3, motorstarter 4,
`
`heater 5, or any other equipmentthat a prospective user desires to monitor.
`
`Ex. 1101, 5:39-42. Each piece of equipmentis fitted with interface 10 that
`
`periodically sends a status signal to electronic message delivery server 1
`
`indicating whether the piece of equipmentandits corresponding interface
`
`are functioning correctly. Jd. at 5:43-47. When a predetermined
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`“exception” condition, e.g., a fault condition, occurs in a piece of equipment
`
`being monitored, interface unit 10 sends a messageto electronic message
`
`delivery server 1. Jd. at 5:47—51. Electronic message delivery server 1 then
`
`routes the messageto the appropriate user interface, such as e-mail 6, fax 7,
`
`pager8, voice 9, etc., according to a messageprofile configured by the user
`
`via user-webclient 121 connected to Internet 122. Jd. at 5:51-55.
`
`In the described systems and methods, a sensor in communication
`
`with a piece of remote equipment determinesthe state of at least one
`
`parameter of the remote equipment. Ex. 1101, 2:48-50, 55-56. When the
`
`sensor detects an “exception” condition (i.e., an operating condition that is
`either out of the ordinary or beyond nominal parameters) in the remote
`equipment, an interface unit connected to the sensor and having a message
`
`generating mechanism generates an incoming exception message and
`
`forwards the message to a central computerscrver. Jd. at 2:56-65. The
`
`server forwardsat least one outgoing exception messageto at least one
`
`predetermined user-defined end device based on the incoming exception
`
`message. Id. at 2:65-67.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`The ’601 patentis the subject of a district court action between the
`
`parties titled Vivint, Inc. v. Alarm.com Inc., 2:15-cv-00392-CW-BCW
`
`(D. Utah 2015). Pet. 1; Paper 8, 2. In addition to this Petition, Petitioner
`
`also filed two other petitions challenging certain claims of the ’601 patent
`
`(Cases IPR2015-02004 and IPR2016-00155). In those cases,after taking
`
`into account the arguments presented in the preliminary responsesfiled by
`
`Patent Owner, we concluded that the information presented in the petitions
`
`did not establish that there was a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`
`
`
`TPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`prevail in challenging any of the claims of the ’601 patent as unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 on the asserted grounds presented. Case
`
`IPR2015-02004, Paper 14; Case IPR2016-00155, Paper 14.
`
`Petitioner hasalso filed ten other petitions, challenging certain claims
`
`of the following other patents owned by Patent Owner: (1) U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,462,654 B1 (Cases IPR2015-02003 and IPR2016-00161); (2) U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,535,123 B2 (Cascs IPR2015-01995 and IPR2016-00173);
`
`(3) U.S. Patent No. 6,717,513 B1 (Cases IPR2015-01997 and IPR2016-
`
`00129); (4) U.S. Patent No. 6,924,727 B2 (Cases IPR2015-01977 and
`
`IPR2015-02008); and (5) U.S. Patent No. 7,884,713 B1 (Cases IPR2015-
`
`01965 and IPR2015-01967). Pet. 1; Paper 8, 1-2.
`
`C. Illustrative Claimy
`
`Ofthe challenged claims, claims 1 and 22 are independent. Those
`
`twu claims are reproduced bclow:
`
`1. A method of monitoring remote equipment comprising the
`steps of:
`a) determininga state of at least one parameterofat least one
`piece of the remote equipment;
`b) communicating a message indicative ofthe state from the
`piece of remote equipment to a computerserver as an
`incoming message;
`c) enabling a user to remotely configure or modify a user-
`defined messageprofile containing outgoing message
`routing instructions, the user-defined message profile being
`storable on the computer server;
`;
`d) determining whether an incoming messageis an incoming
`exception message indicative of improper operation ofthe
`piece of remote equipment;
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`e) if it is determined in step d) that an incoming message is an
`incoming exception message, forwarding at least one
`outgoing exception message based on the incoming message
`to at least one user-defined communication device
`specifiable in the user-defined messageprofile,
`wherein the user can remotely configure or modify the user-
`defined messageprofile by remotely accessing the computer
`server.
`
`Ex. 1101, 8:51-9:6.
`
`22. Asystem for monitoring remote equipment, comprising:
`a sensor in local communication with a piece of remote
`equipment, said sensor detecting a state of at least one
`parameter of the piece of remote equipment;
`an interface unit, locally connected to said sensor, said interface
`unit having a message generating mechanism; and
`a computerserver in remote communication with said interface
`unit, said server adapted to receive messages generated by
`said interface unit, said computer server having a user
`interface, a user being capable of remotely accessing said
`computerservervia said user interface to remotely configure
`a user-defined messageprofile containing outgoing message
`routing instructions,
`wherein whensaid sensor detects an exception condition in the
`piece of remote equipment, said interface unit generates an
`incoming exception message indicative of the exception
`condition and forwards said messageto said server,
`
`and wherein said server forwardsat least one outgoing
`exception messageto at least one predetermined user-
`defined remote communication device based on said
`incoming exception messageas specified in said user-
`detined messageprofile.
`
`Ex. 1101, 10:43-11:2. Challenged claims 2 and 4—21 dependdirectly or
`
`indirectly from claim 1; and challenged claims 23, 25-31, and 33-41 depend
`
`
`
`IPR2U16-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`directly or indirectly from claim 22. Jd. at 9:7-10, 9:16-—10:42, 11:3-8,
`
`11:16-12:5, 12:14—54.
`
`D. References Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`Exhibit -_
`Reference
`
`1103|U.S. Patent No. 5,808,907, issued Sept. 15, 1998
`(“Shetty”)
`
`1104|U.S. Patent No. 6,040,770, issued Mar. 21, 2000
`(filed Sept. 4, 1998) (“Britton’’)
`
`1105|U-S. Patent No. 6,034,970, issued Mar. 7, 2000
`(filed July 2, 1997) (““Levac’’)
`
`
`
`1106|U.S. Patent No. 5,061,916, issued Oct. 29, 1991
`(“French”)
`
`Pet. 3. Petitioner also relies on a declaration of Arthur Zatarain, PE
`
`(Fx 1107).
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of the challenged claims on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Reference(s)|Basis|Claim(s) Challenged
`
`§ 103|1,2,4,6, 10-13, 15-17, 22,
`23, 25-27, 29, 33-35, and 38
`
`
`
`
`Shetty and Levac
`
`
`1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10-13, 15, 19,
`22, 23, 25-29, and 33-35
`
`§ 103
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`
`Reference(s)|Basis Claim(s) Challenged
`
`Shetty and Britton;
`5, 8, 9, 20, 21, 30, 31, 37, 39,”
`
`
`and/or Shetty,
`40, and 41
`
`Levac, and Britton
`
`
`Shetty and French;
`14, 17, 18, 36, 38, and 39
`and/or Shetty,
`Levac, and French
`
`
`
`
`
`Shetty, Levac,
`Britton, and French
`
`
`
`§ 103
`
`39
`
`Pet.9 10, 27, 38, 49; et. Brief 4-5.
`
`Il. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claims of an unexpired patent are given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1UU(b); Ottice Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012); In re Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275-79 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. granted sub
`
`nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890 (mem.) (2016).
`
`Underthis standard, we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable
`meaning of the wordsin their ordinary usage as they would be understood
`by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
`
`enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
`
`* In the Petition, Petitioner alleges that claim 39, as issued, is unpatentable
`over Shetty and French and/or Shetty, Levac, and French. Pet. 56, In
`Petitioner’s Brief, however, Petition contends that claim 39, as corrected by
`Patent Owner’s Certificate of Correction, instead is unpatentable both over
`Shetty and Britton and/or Shetty, Levac, and Britton, and over Shetty,
`Levac, Britton, and French. Pet. Brief 4—5S.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” Jn re
`
`Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Translogic
`
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and
`
`customary meaning is the meaning that the term would haveto a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in question.”) (internal quotation marks andcitation
`
`omitted). A patentee, however, may rebut this presumption by acting as his
`
`ownlexicographer, providing a definition of the term in the specification
`
`with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Jn re Paulsen, 30
`
`F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`In the Petition, Petitioner proposes constructions for the claim terms
`
`(1) “messageprofile containing outgoing message routing instructions” and
`
`(2) “message generating mechanism.” Pet. 7-9. In response, Patent Owner
`
`rejects Petitioner’s constructions and proposes an alternative construction for
`
`the term “message profile.” Prelim. Resp. 7-11.
`
`1. “message profile containing outgoing message routing
`instructions” / “message profile”
`
`The term “messageprofile containing outgoing message routing
`
`instructions” is recited in each of independent claims | and 22. Ex. 1101,
`
`8:60 61, 10:57-59. Petitioner argues that the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of this term is “information identifying a communications
`
`device or devices to receive an outgoing message from the computer server.”
`
`Pet. 7. According to Petitioner, “[t]he claimed message profile and routing
`
`instructions are used to delermine at least one ‘user-defined communications
`
`device’ to receive an outgoing ‘exception message’ from the computer
`
`server.” Id. Moreover, Petitioner contendsthat, “[a]lthough certain portions
`
`of the specification appear to require that the messageprofile also include
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`information about when and how to send messages(and not simply to which
`
`devices such messagesare sent), this narrower interpretation would be
`
`inconsistent with the claim language.” Jd. Petitioner further contends,
`
`The specification describes a “message profile” as “a list of who
`to contact via what means depending on which fault has
`occurred” (Ex. 1101 at 2:14-16) and “which exception conditions
`are reported to which individuals .
`.
`. [and] by which media(fax,
`e-mail, [personal communication service]) these individuals are
`to be notified.” Ex. 1101 at 4:41-43. However, as used in the
`claims, a “messageprofile” does not necessarily includeall of an
`exception type, media type, and specific device. Dependent
`claims 7 and 8 cover a user specifying device type and specific
`device in the message profile, which would be redundant if
`“message profile” already required those categories.
`Claims 1 and 22 do not merely claim a “messageprofile,”
`however, but a “message profile containing outgoing message
`routing instructions.” The claim language and specification
`indicate that
`the “routing instructions” must
`identify the
`communication device or devices that will receive an oulgoing
`message.
`
`Pct. 7-8,
`
`Patent Owner counters that the Specification of the °601 patentsets
`
`forth a definition ofthe recited “messageprofile,” as “a list of who to
`
`contact via what means depending on which fault has occurred.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 7. According to Patent Owner, “acting as its own lexicographer, the
`
`Patent Ownerset forth the meaning of‘messageprofile’ with clarity and
`
`deliberateness, using a definitional syntax: ‘a list of who to contact via what
`
`means depending on which fault has occurred may bereferred to as a
`
`“message profile.”’” Jd. at 8 (quoting Ex. 1101, 2:14-16). Patent Owner
`
`contendsthat, although Petitioner“argues that ‘a “message profile” does not
`
`necessarily include all of an exception type, media type, and specific device’
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`based on differentiation from dependent claims 7 and 8,” Petitioner
`
`“provides no explanation as to how its argued claim differentiation would
`apply to ‘a list of who to contact,’ whichis a part of the ‘message profile’
`
`definition.” Jd. (quoting Pet. 8). Patent Owneralso contendsthat, “[iJ]n
`
`addition to glossing overthe definition in the specification, [Petitioner’s]
`
`approachto its construction glosses overthe claim language. .
`
`. by solely
`
`interpreting the term ‘outgoing routing instructions.”” Jd. at9. According to
`
`Patent Owner, “[t]o satisfy the claim language, a messageprofile certainly
`
`must ‘contain|| outgoing routing instructions,’” but “the term ‘message
`
`profile’ itself has meaning as well.” Jd. Finally, Patent Owner contendsthat
`Petitioner’s construction also contradicts the claim language by “ignor[ing]
`
`that the phrase recites ‘outgoing message routing instructions’ in the plural,”
`whereas “[aJll that is required to satisfy the Petition’s proposed construction
`
`is information identifying a single destination of an outgoing message.” Jd.
`
`Onthis record, and for purposes of this Decision, we determinethat
`
`neither Petitioncr’s nor Patent Owner’s proposed constructions represent the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “message profile containing
`
`outgoing routing instructions,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 22.
`
`Asan initial matter, we are not persuaded that “Patent Ownerset forth
`
`the meaning of ‘messageprofile’ with clarity and deliberateness, using a
`
`definitional syntax.” See Prelim. Resp. 8; see also Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480
`
`(an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must
`
`do so “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” and,if done,
`
`must “‘set out his uncommondefinition in some manner within the patent
`
`disclosure’ so as to give oneof ordinary skill in the art notice of the change”
`
`in meaning). Although Patent Owneraccurately quotes the specification of
`
`12a
`
`
`
`IPR2016-001 16
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`the ’601 patent as stating that “a list of who to contact via what means
`
`depending on which fault has occurred may bereferred to as a ‘message
`
`profile’”(id. (quoting Ex. 1101, 2:14—16)), that statement, including its use
`
`of the permissive word “may,” at most reflects that ‘“‘a list of who to contact
`
`via what means depending on which fault has occurred” could be an
`
`example of a messageprofile. As Petitioner points out, that statement does
`
`not require that the claimed message profile must “necessarily includeall of
`
`an exception type, media type, and specific device.” Pet. 8. Nor doesit
`
`necessarily require “a list of who to contact.” Prelim. Resp.8.
`
`Although the 601 patent includes, as an example, that a customer
`
`may wantto send certain non-emergency condition notifications to certain
`
`individuals via a certain medium and emergency condition notificationsto
`
`different individuals via other means (Ex. 1101, 2:5-14), we do not read into
`
`that example any clear disclaimer of claim scope. See Jn re Am. Acad, of
`
`Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned
`
`against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment
`
`described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described,
`
`absent clear disclaimerin the specification.”). Indeed, the ’601 patent also
`
`includes other embodiments, in which, for example, multiple messages are
`
`sent to multiple recipients via differing media for the same exception
`
`condition (Ex. 1101, 3:10—13), or the same person is contacted by different
`meansat different times (id. at 4:57-58).
`,
`
`Although we conclude that Patent Owncr’s proposed construction
`
`does not constitute the broadest reasonable interpretation of “message
`
`profile,” we also are not persuaded that Petitioner’s proposed construction is
`
`correct. First, even though independent claim 22 recites that “said server
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`forwards at least one outgoing exception message” (Ex. 1101, 10:65-66), we
`
`find no corresponding languagerecited in independent claim 1 that would
`
`require that an outgoing message specifically must be “receive[d] .
`
`.
`
`. from
`
`the computerserver,” as proposed by Petitioner. Pet. 7. Second, claim 1
`
`recites “forwarding at least one outgoing exception message based on the
`
`incoming messageto at least one user-defined communication device
`
`specifiable in the .. . message profile” (Ex. 1101, 8:67—9:3 (emphasis
`
`added)), and claim 22 recites that an outgoing exception messageis
`
`forwardedto at least one predetermined user-defined remote communication
`
`device based on an incoming exception message “as specified in said...
`
`messageprofile” (id. at 10:65—11:2 (emphasis added)). Accordingly, we
`
`interpret the claimed messageprofile to “specify” a communication device.
`
`Third, the Specification describes a message profile as “data” that may be
`
`recorded in a database. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, 4:46-47, 6:50—52, 8:32-33.
`
`Based on the aboveconsiderations, we concludethat on this record,
`
`and for purposesof this Decision, that the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`of “message profile containing outgoing message routing instructions” in
`
`claims 1 and 22 is a “data record including instructions specifying at least
`
`one communication device to which an outgoing message can be routed in
`
`response to an incoming exception message.”
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`2.
`
`“message generating mechanism”
`
`Petitioner contendsthat the term “message generating mechanism,” as
`
`recited in independent claim 22, should be treated as a means-plus-function
`term under 35 U.S.C. § 112 96.3 Pet. 8.
`
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a
`means... for performing a specified function without the recital
`of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim
`shall be construed to cover the correspondingstructure, material,
`or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 11246. A limitation using the term “means for” creates a
`
`rebuttable presumption that the drafter intended to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`{ 6. Conversely, when a claim term lacks the word “means,” a presumption
`
`exists that the claim should not be interpreted under § 112 4 6, andthis
`
`presumption can be overcomeonlyif it is demonstrated that the claim terms
`
`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, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en
`
`banc in relevant part). When construing a means-plus-function limitation
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112 | 6, we mustfirst identify the claimed function, and
`
`wethen look to the specification to identify the correspondingstructurethat
`
`performs the claimed function. Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp.
`
`v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Cardiac Pacemakers,
`
`Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Our Rules
`
`3 Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) re-designated
`35 U.S.C. § 112 J 6, as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Because the ’601 patent has a
`filing date before September 16, 2012 (effective date of the statute), we refer
`to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`specifically require that the petition identify the corresponding structure in
`
`proposing a construction for a means-plus-function claim limitation.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). “This inquiry is undertaken from the perspective
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Cardiac Pacemakers, 296 F.3d at
`
`1113. However,if “this inquiry reveals that no embodimentdiscloses
`
`correspondingstructure, the claim is invalid for failure to satisfy the
`
`definiteness requirement of § 112,92.” Jd. at 1114. Indefiniteness,
`
`however, may not be argued as a ground for unpatentability in an inter
`
`partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b).
`
`Petitioner contendsthat the “message generating mechanism”recited
`
`in claim 22 “is a purely functional recitation and does notrecite any definite
`
`structure for performing the function of ‘generating messages.’” Pet. 8
`
`(citing Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348-49). Petitioner further contends that
`
`the Specification of the ’601 patent “does notdisclose a sufficient structure
`for performing the function of ‘generating messages”” and,“[t]hus, the claim
`
`is indefinite.” Jd. at 9. Petitioner continues:
`
`However, if the Board concludes that [claim 22] is not
`indefinite,
`Petitioner
`contends
`that
`the
`only
`possible
`“corresponding “structure” in the specification is “a processor of
`the interface unit executing an algorithm that generates a
`messageincluding an indication of message format, an indication
`of the equipment to which the messagerelates, and an indication
`of the specific exception condition if an exception condition
`exists”, as disclosed in lines 5:23-35 (Ex. 1101).
`
`Id.
`
`Patent Owner does not propose a construction of “message generating
`
`unit,” but respondsthat Petitioner has failed to show that “message
`
`generating mechanism” should be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112 7 6.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 10. Patent Owner contendsthat a person of ordinary skill in
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`the art, reading the claims as a whole, “would have understood that the
`
`claimsrecite sufficiently definite meaningas to the structure of the term”:
`
`Notably, in contrast to Williamson, which used the “module-for”
`construct in its claims[, c]laim 22 recites an “interface unit
`having a message generating mechanism,” and affirmatively
`recites an attribute of the “message generating mechanism”: that
`“said message generating mechanism generates an incoming
`exception message indicative of the exception condition and
`forwards said incoming exception message to said server.”
`[Petitioner] does not cite a single case at the Federal Circuit or
`the Board where § 112 4 6 has been applied to similar language
`without even using the word “for.”
`
`Id. at 10-11.
`
`In this case, we agree with Patent Ownerthat the term “message
`
`generating mechanism”is not a means-plus-function limitation andis not
`
`subject to construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112 46. As reproduced in
`
`Section I.C., supra, claim 22 recites, in part, “an interface unit, locally
`
`connectedto said sensor, said interface unit having a message generating
`
`mechanism.” Ex. 1101, 10:48—-50; see id. at 2:55—58 (“The inventive system
`
`includes a sensor in communication with a piece of remote equipment, and
`
`an interface unit, connected to the sensor, having a message generating
`
`mechanism.”). It is clear from the plain language of claim 22 that the recited
`
`message generating mechanismis part of the recited interface unit and is not
`
`merely a recitation of function without corresponding structure. As Patent
`
`Ownerpoints out, claim 22 also establishes a structural relationship between
`
`the message generating mechanismand otherstructural elements, including
`
`the recited sensor, remote equipment, and server, in addition to the interface
`
`unit. Prelim. Resp. 11. Because the ordinary meaning ofthis term as a
`
`message generating componentofthe recited interface unit is clear, we need
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,401
`
`not provide any further construction of message generating mechanism at
`
`this stage of the proceeding. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d
`
`1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that “claim terms need only be
`
`construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”
`
`(quoting
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999))).
`
`3. Other Claim Terms
`
`Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owneroffers constructions of any other
`
`claim term or phrase in the challenged claims. Only termsor phrases that
`
`are in controversy in this proceeding need to be construed, and then only to
`
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at
`
`803. For purposesof this Decision, no other claim terms or phrases require
`
`express construction.
`
`B. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`1. Principles ofLaw
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and thepriorart are “such
`
`that the subject matter[,] as a whole[,] would have been obviousat the time
`
`the invention was madeto a person havingordinary skill in the art to which
`
`said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`
`406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
`underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`prior art; (3) the level ofskill in the art;* and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.° Graham v. John Deere
`
`Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). We analyze the asserted grounds with the
`
`principles stated above in mind.
`
`2. Obviousness over Shetty
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10-13, 15-17, 22, 23, 25-
`
`27, 29, 33-35, and 38 of the 601 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 over Shetty and the knowledgeof a person ofordinary skill in theart.
`
`Pet. 9-27.
`
`Webegin ouranalysis with a brief overview of Shetty, and we then
`
`address the parties’ contentions with respect to the challenged claims.
`
`a. Overview ofShetty
`
`Shetty discloses a “method for providing informationrelating to a
`machine to a user.” Ex. 1103, Abstract. The method includes the steps of
`
`sensing predetermined events relating to the machine, producing
`corresponding eventsignals, delivering the event signals to a remotesite,
`comparingthe event signals to a profile of events corresponding to the user,
`and delivering a notification signalto the user if the event signals match the
`
`profile. Jd. Shetty explainsthat “[c]omputers and electronics are becoming
`increasingly common on many machines.” Jd. at 1:12-13. Shetty provides,
`
`* Petitioner proposes an assessmentofthe levelof skill in the art as of -
`January 1999. Pet. 6-7. Patent Owner does not challenge this assessmentor
`propose an alternative assessment. For purposesof this Decision andto the
`extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.
`> Patent Ownerdoes not contend in its Preliminary Response that such
`secondary considerations are present.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`as an example, that earthmoving machines now include many on-board
`
`sensors for recording parameter data during operation, and that on-board
`
`controllers also may calculate parameters of the machine based on sensor
`
`data. Jd. at 1:13-17. Shetty further explains that, “with the large increase in
`
`the numberof sensors and data being collected, the amountof data to be
`
`analyzed becomes unmanageable,” and “[a]dditionally, different persons, for
`
`example, the operator, the owner, etc. ..., may have need for different
`
`information.” Jd. at 1:18-24.
`
`weeeeeeeee
`
`Figure 1 ofShetty is reproduced below.
`t
`
`LEET AND MACHINE
`DATABASE
`MEANS104
`
`i
`'
`
`tt
`
`aww women ee Pe ew en wweee PTT”
`
`}
`ACSIMI
`REPORTk|
`122
`i3
`Report
`PAGER
`REPORT
`116
`
`NOTIFICATION
`MEANS
`112
`
`1]
`\
`'
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of an apparatus adapted for performing
`
`the method provided by Shetty. Ex. 1103, 1:39-40. With reference to
`
`Figure |, warning manager100 provides a method for providing information
`
`relating to a mobile machinein a fleet of mobile machines 118. Jd. at 1:52—
`
`55. Shetty discloses that each of mobile machines 118 includes a plurality
`
`of on-board sensors for measuring machine parameters. Jd. at 1:56-58.
`
`20
`
`it ‘1|F
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`Each mobile machine 118 als
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
