Declaration of Melvin Ray Mercer in Support of Patent Owner
`
`Valmont Industries, Inc.’s Response to Petition regarding U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,003,357
`
`Case IPR2015-01039
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Inter Parties Review
`
`
`
`Attn: Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`PO Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Commissioner:
`
`I, Melvin Ray Mercer, declare as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`1
`
`VALMONT 2006
`Lindsay v. Valmont
`IPR2015-01039
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
` SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................... 3
` QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................... 3
` MATERIALS CONSIDERED ............................................................................... 8
` RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ....................................................................... 9
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................... 10
` TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 13
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................. 15
`A. “hand-held” device/RUI ....................................................................................... 15
` THE ’357 PATENT .............................................................................................. 17
` THE PRIOR ART .................................................................................................... 18
`A. Scott ...................................................................................................................... 18
`B. Pyotsia .................................................................................................................. 20
`C. AIMS .................................................................................................................... 23
`D. Abts ....................................................................................................................... 26
`
`INSTITUTED GROUNDS .................................................................................. 28
`A. Ground 2: Scott, Pyotsia, and AIMS (Claims 1-3, 6-14, 17-18) .......................... 28
` A POSITA would not have Combined Scott with Pyotsia and AIMS ............. 28
`B. Ground 4: Scott, Pyotsia, and Abts (Claims 4, 5, 11, 15) .................................... 38
` Failure to Disclose Claimed Limitations ........................................................... 38
` A POSITA would not have Combined Scott with Pyotsia and Abts ................ 41
` CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 44
`
`2
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
` My name is Melvin Ray Mercer, Professor Emeritus of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering at Texas A&M University. I am currently President of M. Ray
`
`Mercer and Associates, Inc., an independent consulting firm.
`
`
`
`I have more than 47 years of dual industrial and academic experience in
`
`Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering. I received a B.S. in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Texas Tech University in 1968, a Master of Science in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Stanford University in 1971, and a Doctor of Philosophy in
`
`Electrical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin in 1980. Further, I have
`
`authored dozens of published technical papers and delivered many lectures addressing
`
`various aspects of Electrical and Computer Engineering. I founded Mercer and
`
`Associates, an independent consulting firm that I have owned and directed to this day,
`
`in 1984. Since that time, I have been providing private consultation and advice in
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering to numerous entities, including IBM Corp.,
`
`Rockwell International, Motorola Semiconductor, AT&T, Inc., and SigmaTel. Based
`
`on my below-described 47 years of dual industrial and academic experience in
`
`Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering, and the acceptance of my
`
`publications and professional recognition by societies in my field, I believe that I am
`
`considered to be an expert in the field of real-time monitoring and control of
`
`electronically controllable processing systems.
`
`
`
`1
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`I have been asked to provide an expert declaration on behalf of patent
`
`owner Valmont Industries, Inc. (“Valmont”). I understand that the petitioner in this
`
`case, Lindsay Corporation (“Lindsay” or “Petitioner”) assert that claims 1-18 of
`
`Valmont’s U.S. Patent No. 7,003,357 (the “’357 patent”) are obvious and anticipated
`
`in view of certain prior art, and that the Board instituted two obviousness grounds as to
`
`claims 1-15 and 17-18. I disagree with Lindsay’s contentions.1
`
`
`
`I am submitting this declaration in opposition to Lindsay’s conclusions in
`
`this inter partes review proceeding. I reserve the right to supplement or amend this
`
`declaration should additional data or other information that affects my conclusions
`
`become available.
`
`
`
`For my work in connection with this case, I am being compensated at
`
`$650.00 per hour. My compensation is in no way contingent upon the outcome of the
`
`proceeding or the specifics of my testimony or conclusions.
`
`
`
`I have been informed that Valmont owns US Patent No. 7,003,357 (“the
`
`’357 patent”). I have no financial interest in Valmont or the ’357 patent, nor to my
`
`recollection have I ever had any contact with Valmont or the inventors of the ’357
`
`patent.
`
`
`1 I understand that the Board instituted inter partes review as to all claims but claim 16,
`
`which I therefore do not address herein.
`
`
`
`2
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
`
`
`
`For the reasons given below, I have concluded that: (1) claims 1-3, 6-14,
`
`and 17-18 of the ’357 patent are not obvious in view of PCT Patent Application
`
`Publication No. WO 99/39567 to Scott et al. (“Scott”), U.S. Patent No. 7,010,294 to
`
`Pyotsia et al. (“Pyotsia”), and AIMS Telemetry Network Disclosed in “Irrigation
`
`Advances” (“AIMS”), as Petitioner proposes; and (2) claims 4, 5, 11 and 15 are not
`
`obvious in view of Scott, Pyotsia, and U.S. Patent No. 6,337,971 to Abts (“Abts”), as
`
`Petitioner proposes.
`
` QUALIFICATIONS
`
`
`
`In this section of my declaration, I provide a brief summary of my
`
`qualifications to act as an expert in this matter. A copy of my current Curriculum
`
`Vitae is attached as Exhibit A (Ex. 2016), which contains a listing of my education
`
`and experience.
`
`
`
`From 1968 to 1973, I was a Research/Development Engineer at General
`
`Telephone and Electronics Sylvania in Mountain View, California, during which time I
`
`also completed my M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University in 1971.
`
`During this period, I programmed minicomputer systems (predecessors to personal
`
`computers, smartphones, and modem servers) in machine language, assembly
`
`language, and various higher-level languages. I wrote simple Operating Systems, and
`
`most of the applications involved real-time processing as a significant aspect of the
`
`
`
`3
`
`5
`
`

`
`systems design. Much of this work was related to computer control of data collection
`
`and analysis systems used by organizations in the United States government.
`
` From 1973 to 1977, I was a Member of Technical Staff at Hewlett-
`
`Packard's Santa Clara Division and subsequently at Hewlett-Packard Laboratories in
`
`Palo Alto, California. During this time, I continued to develop application programs. I
`
`also designed interface hardware to interact with the software of the computers and
`
`accomplish various tasks. One major project for which I had overall responsibility was
`
`the real-time control of environmental test systems for satellites and satellite
`
`components. At HP Laboratories, among other projects, I developed hardware and
`
`software to provide real-time control of manufacturing systems for exotic solid state
`
`devices. Both of these projects involved many concepts and capabilities similar to
`
`those discussed in the Patent in Review in this inter partes review.
`
` From 1977 to 1980, I was a Lecturer in the Division of Mathematics,
`
`Statistics, and Computer Science at the University of Texas at San Antonio. As the
`
`director of a laboratory for teaching students to program and build hardware interfaces
`
`and control systems using small computers, I purchased, built, and operated some of
`
`the earliest personal computers. Additionally, I taught courses in the design of digital
`
`systems (and manufacturing systems) while also completing my Ph.D. in Electrical
`
`Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin in 1980.
`
`
`
`4
`
`6
`
`

`
` From 1980 to 1983, I was a Member of Technical Staff at Bell
`
`Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey. My work involved the programming of
`
`computers and the hardware design of components for communication systems. I was
`
`part of a three-person team that designed, tested, and directed the manufacture of an
`
`integrated circuit that was a key component in a digital telephone modem. Such
`
`modems are components potentially used in the Patent in Review in this inter partes
`
`review.
`
`
`
`In 1983, I was appointed Assistant Professor of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. In 1987, I was promoted to Associate
`
`Professor and Professor in 1991. During this period, I taught Computer Engineering
`
`courses at the undergraduate and graduate level, directed the research of graduate
`
`students, and consulted with numerous organizations.
`
`
`
`In 1995, I was appointed Professor of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering, Leader of the Computer Engineering Group, and Holder of the Computer
`
`Engineering Chair in Electrical Engineering at Texas A&M University in College
`
`Station, Texas. My teaching, my research, my technical publications, and my
`
`supervision of graduate students during this period included the areas of the modeling,
`
`design, and fabrication of digital hardware and software systems. My administrative
`
`duties included the development and enhancement of the Computer Engineering
`
`Group. As with previous my work (at The University of Texas at Austin), during this
`
`
`
`5
`
`7
`
`

`
`period, I taught courses at the undergraduate and graduate level, I directed the research
`
`of graduate students, and I consulted with numerous organizations on a variety of
`
`topics. I was also responsible for monitoring controlled experiments to optimize and
`
`quantify the use of tester time to detect defects in electrical products, and I was part of
`
`a team that used analytical techniques to predict the expected growth of quiescent
`
`currents in MOS transistors as a function of the reduction in integrated circuit feature
`
`sizes.
`
`
`
`In September 2005, I retired from my teaching position, and the Regents
`
`of the Texas A&M University System appointed me as Professor Emeritus of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering at Texas A&M University.
`
`
`
`In 1984, I formed Mercer and Associates, an independent consulting firm
`
`that I have owned and directed to this day. Since 1984, I have been providing private
`
`consultation and advice in Electrical and Computer Engineering to numerous entities,
`
`including IBM Corp., Rockwell International, Motorola Semiconductor, AT&T, Inc.,
`
`and SigmaTel.
`
`
`
`I first served as an expert witness at the request of the Office of the State
`
`Attorney General of Texas in 1984. Since that time, I have been hired by numerous
`
`law firms to provide them and their clients with expert consultation and expert
`
`testimony, often in the areas of patent infringement litigation related to Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering. Among other topics, I have opined with respect to
`
`
`
`6
`
`8
`
`

`
`communications systems including telephony, cell phone networks and devices, and
`
`particular characteristics of private and public network communications networks
`
`including the Internet. I have testified regarding stand alone and Internet-based on-line
`
`gaming systems. I have testified regarding home entertainment systems which use
`
`wireless communications. I have testified with respect to on-line educational
`
`institutions and technical aspects of their media distribution systems. I have testified
`
`with respect to media and entertainment systems for mobile vehicles. I have testified
`
`in a case involving the simultaneous acquisition of media from an external source to a
`
`storage device and presentation of different media stored on that same storage device
`
`via an entertainment device. I have testified in a case involving delta-sigma
`
`modulation for high performance analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog converters –
`
`such as those commonly utilized in personal computers.
`
` Throughout my career, I have been actively involved in numerous
`
`professional organizations including the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (“IEEE”), and I was recognized as an IEEE Fellow in 1994. I was the
`
`Program Chairman for the 1989 International Test Conference, which is an IEEE
`
`sponsored annual conference with (at that time) more than one thousand attendees and
`
`over one hundred presented papers. I won the Best Paper Award at the 1982
`
`International Test Conference.
`
`
`
`7
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`I also won a Best Paper Award at the 1991 Design Automation
`
`Conference, an annual conference with (at that time) more than ten thousand attendees
`
`and five hundred submitted papers, many of which related to the design of integrated
`
`circuit-based systems.
`
`
`
`I also won a Best Paper Award at the 1999 VLSI Test Symposium. This
`
`paper was focused on manufacturing techniques to optimize the quality of
`
`manufactured digital systems. I am the inventor of two United States patents that relate
`
`to the design of integrated circuits and digital systems. I was selected as a National
`
`Science Foundation Presidential Young Investigator in 1986. This award included
`
`$500,000 for support of my research.
`
`
`
`I have been asked by counsel for Valmont to offer my opinions regarding
`
`whether claims 1-3, 6-14, and 17-18 of the ’357 patent are obvious in view of Scott,
`
`Pyotsia, and AIMS, and whether claims 4, 5, 11, and 15 are obvious in view of Scott,
`
`Pyotsia, and Abts.
`
` MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`
`
`In forming my conclusions, I reviewed the ’357 patent, Scott, Pyotsia,
`
`AIMS, and Abts, as well as all documents cited in this declaration and those listed in
`
`Exhibit B (Ex. 2017).
`
`
`
`8
`
`10
`
`

`
` RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`
`
`I understand from counsel that for the Board to find a patent invalid, the
`
`Petitioners must present a preponderance of the evidence that the patent claims are
`
`invalid. I have been informed by counsel that when a party has the burden of proving
`
`any claim or defense by a preponderance of the evidence, it means one must be
`
`persuaded that Petitioners’ evidence is more probably true than not true. I understand
`
`from counsel that this is a higher standard of proof than the reasonable expectation of
`
`success threshold for institution.
`
`
`
`I am informed by counsel that the challenged claims are given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the patent specification. I am
`
`informed by counsel that for means-plus-function limitations, claim construction
`
`includes two steps: first, one must determine the claimed function; and second, one
`
`must identify the corresponding structure in the written description of the patent that
`
`performs that function. I observe that the Board has made some preliminary
`
`constructions of certain terms in the challenged claims. In forming the below opinions,
`
`I have applied the Board’s constructions except where specifically noted otherwise.
`
`For the terms the Board did not construe, I have been instructed by counsel to employ
`
`their broadest reasonable construction as understood by persons in this field.
`
`
`
`I have been informed by counsel that, when assessing whether a claim is
`
`obvious based on a combination of prior art references, the correct vantage point is
`
`
`
`9
`
`11
`
`

`
`from that of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (noting the
`
`July 1, 2002 filing date of the application for the ‘357 patent). I have been further
`
`informed that portions of a prior art reference should not be taken out of context and
`
`relied upon with the benefit of hindsight to show obviousness. I have been informed
`
`by counsel that a claim composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art. I
`
`also have been informed that a claim composed of several elements is not proved
`
`obvious merely because it is possible, or feasible, for a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to combine the elements. I have been informed that it is impermissible to use the
`
`patent as a roadmap to reconstruct the invention from the prior art using the benefit of
`
`hindsight. Similarly, I have been informed by counsel that there need not be a specific
`
`teaching or suggestion present in the references that motivates one to combine the
`
`references, I understand that it can be important to identify a reason that would have
`
`prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the
`
`way the claimed invention does.
`
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`
`
`I understand that patents are viewed from the vantage point of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. For my analysis, I have been told
`
`to assume that the relevant timeframe is July 1, 2002, the filing date of the application
`
`for the ’357 patent.
`
`
`
`10
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`I have been instructed by counsel that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`is not a genius or expert in the art at hand, or one with a unique or special skill, and is
`
`not necessarily represented by the skill, education, or experience of the inventor. I also
`
`have been informed that this person of ordinary skill in the art has common sense and
`
`ordinary creativity, and is not an automaton.
`
`
`
`I believe that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing
`
`date of the ’357 patent (a “POSITA”) would have had a Bachelor of Science Degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science with related work
`
`experience. Individuals with additional education or additional industrial experience
`
`could still be of ordinary skill in the art if that additional aspect compensates for a
`
`deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above. I base my
`
`evaluation of a person of ordinary skill in this art on my own personal experience,
`
`including my knowledge of students, colleagues, and related professionals at the time
`
`of interest. Also, I have been informed that it is not particularly helpful to merely
`
`establish the general educational and work experience of a POSITA. It is helpful to
`
`further set forth the types of knowledge that would and would not be held by a
`
`POSITA.
`
`
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would have knowledge of different types
`
`communication equipment that could be used for controlling irrigation equipment.
`
`Specifically, a POSITA would know and understand: (1) that a base station control
`
`
`
`11
`
`13
`
`

`
`system as discussed in the specification of the ’357 patent refers to a personal
`
`computer (“PC”) system at a location distant from the area being irrigated;2 (2) that a
`
`remote mount control panel system as discussed in the specification of the ’357 patent
`
`refers to a control panel mounted near the area being irrigated and requires connections
`
`between the remote mount system and the irrigation equipment;3 (3) that PC-based
`
`computer software as of the relevant time period could display and manage the
`
`operation of computer-controlled irrigation systems of the type used in golf courses,
`
`master planned housing developments, cemeteries, parks and the like, and that
`
`graphical user interfaces (“GUIs”) could be used in such display and management;4 (4)
`
`the wireless telecommunication methods as of the time of the invention, including a
`
`central computer or base station, would allow them to send data or alarms to a distant
`
`receiver, like a pager;5 and (5) as noted in the disclosure of Pyotsia, a mobile cellular
`
`phone would have a small screen, with low resolution, limited memory and limited
`
`display capabilities.6
`
`
`2 See Ex. 1001 (’357 patent) at 1:26-35.
`
`3 See Ex. 1001 (’357 patent) at 1:36-45.
`
`4 See generally Ex. 1004 (Scott).
`
`5 See Ex. 1008 (Abts) at 1:57-67, 2:64-3:18.
`
`6 See Ex. 1007 (Pyotsia) at 8:23-29.
`
`
`
`12
`
`14
`
`

`
` TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
` Through my 30+ years of experience in the electrical engineering field, I
`
`have become familiar with wireless network systems, some of which is relevant to this
`
`case.
`
` As of the effective date of the ’357 patent, there were significant problems
`
`associated with simplifying a graphical display from a web browser designed for
`
`presentation on a standard computer display so that a POSITA could utilize the same
`
`information from that web site when it was presented on the small display of a hand-
`
`held device. To a POSITA, these difficulties would teach away from utilizing this
`
`approach.
`
` Use of GUIs on small devices, such as PDAs and other handheld devices
`
`involved additional problems to be solved, making text-based communications on the
`
`screens of PDAs the norm. Creating and manipulating graphical icons on GUIs
`
`involved particular difficulties for hand held devices such as those identified in the
`
`specification of the ’357 patent around its priority date.7
`
` Exhibit 1012, a marketing brochure created by Petitioner Lindsay
`
`Corporation, at page 6, shows the type of hand held device used by the industry for
`
`irrigation in the 1996 timeframe. As you can see from the figures, the phone has no
`
`screen at all, let alone one that could incorporate graphics.
`
`
`7 See Ex. 1001 (’357 patent) at 6:11-19.
`
`
`
`13
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`If the same display technology is used in both a laptop and a PDA, then
`
`the display resolution is determined by the number of pixels in the display. In 2002,
`
`the most popular screen size for web browsing was 768 by 1024 pixels (about 786,000
`
`total pixels).8 For comparison, the Kyocera 6035 (referenced in the ’357 patent9) had a
`
`screen size of 160 by 160 pixels (about 26,000 total pixels).10 Thus the average
`
`computer display had more than 30 times the resolution of the display for a PDA
`
`specifically suggested by the authors of the ’357 patent.11 A POSITA contemplating
`
`
`8 Ex. 2008, “Higher screen resolutions more popular for exploring the internet
`
`according to OneStat.com,” OneStat.com (July 24, 2002), available at
`
`http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox8.html.
`
`9 Ex. 1001 (’357 Patent) at 6:17.
`
`10 Ex. 2009, “Kyocera QCP 6035 Specs” (Feb. 29, 2008) at 1, available at
`
`http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=specs&id=1163&c=kyocera_qcp_6035
`
`11 Ex. 1001 (’357 Patent) at 6:14-19.
`
`
`
`14
`
`16
`
`

`
`Figure 6 of Scott with a 30 times reduction in resolution would conclude that such
`
`information would not be useable on the display of the Kyocera 6035, or any other
`
`PDA with a display screen of similar resolution.
`
` Given the substantial number of difficulties set forth above and in
`
`connection with my discussion of the references and their proposed combinations
`
`below, a POSITA as of the 2001-2002 timeframe would not have thought it obvious to
`
`develop a handheld display relying on GUIs for use with irrigation. In fact, due to the
`
`major limitations involved with use of handheld devices such as PDAs at the time and
`
`the major known benefits from the use of laptop based GUIs with much larger
`
`screens, a POSITA would not have been motivated to use PDAs to display laptop-type
`
`GUIs for remote control of irrigation.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`“hand-held” device/RUI
`
`
`
`I have been asked to consider what a POSITA would have understood the
`
`term “hand-held” as used in the phrases “hand-held” device and “hand-held” RUI in
`
`the context of the ’357 patent at the relevant time. In its Petition, Petitioner proposed a
`
`
`
`15
`
`17
`
`

`
`construction of “hand-held” that includes laptop computers.12 In its Institution
`
`Decision, the Board did not construe “hand-held.”13
`
`
`
`I disagree that a POSITA would understand “hand-held” as used in the
`
`’357 patent to include a laptop computer. In my opinion, a POSITA would have
`
`understood a “hand-held” display/RUI as used in the ’357 patent to be limited to a
`
`display/RUI that could be operated while being held in a user’s hand, which would
`
`exclude laptop computers. The ’357 patent makes clear that a user must operate the
`
`device while being held in the user’s hand, as the ’357 patent discloses a “personal
`
`digital assistant (PDA) or similar portable hand-held computer of a compact size.”14 A
`
`POSITA would understand that a laptop computer, of 2002 or today, is not similar to a
`
`PDA in portability or compact size. A laptop computer is portable, but plainly not in
`
`the same manner as a PDA, which is much smaller, lighter, and—as a result—has
`
`differing processing capabilities. This would have been true in 2002.15 For example,
`
`
`12 Paper 1 (Petition) at 6.
`
`13 Paper 7 (Institution Decision) at 4-6.
`
`14 Ex. 1001 (’357 Patent) at 3:36-38 (emphasis added).
`
`15 Ex. 2010, David Sandoval, “Laptop Vs. PDA,” eHow.com, available at
`
`http://www.ehow.com/about_5513158_laptop-vs-pda.html; compare Ex. 2011, Lisa
`
`Gade, “HP iPAQ 2210/2215 Pocket PC 2003 PDA,” Mobile Tech Review (June 19,
`
`
`
`16
`
`18
`
`

`
`the 2001 publication of the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines hand-held as “held in
`
`the hand; esp : designed to be operated while being held in the hand.”16
`
`
`
`THE ’357 PATENT
`
` The ’357 patent, entitled “Method and Means for Reading the Status of
`
`and Controlling Irrigation Components,” issued on February 21, 2006. The ’357
`
`patent is generally directed to a handheld RUI using built in wireless telemetry means
`
`to remotely control irrigation equipment from any location.17 A user is able to use
`
`GUIs conveniently shaped like irrigation equipment or operating irrigation patterns of
`
`the irrigation equipment to control and/or monitor the irrigation equipment.
`
`
`
`I am informed by counsel that during prosecution, the applicants amended
`
`the claims to make clear that their invention is directed to a RUI with all claimed
`
`structural components integrated therein, as opposed to the prior art which used
`
`separate structural components.18 The applicants further amended the claims to make
`
`
`2003), available at http://www.mobiletechreview.com/ipaq_2215.htm with Ex. 2012,
`
`“Apple iBook G3/600 14-Inch (Early 2002 - Tr) Specs,” available at
`
`http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/ibook/specs/ibook_600_14.html.
`
`16 Ex. 2004 (Merriam-Webster dictionary, 2001) at 3.
`
`17 See, e.g., Ex. 1001 (’357 patent) at Abstract.
`
`18 Ex. 1002 (’357 patent file history) at 65-71 (3/25/2005 Remarks and Amendments).
`
`
`
`17
`
`19
`
`

`
`clear that certain claims of their invention are directed to GUIs shaped to identify
`
`particular types of irrigation equipment and/or operating irrigation patterns of
`
`irrigation equipment, and that a user could change the physical shape of the operating
`
`irrigation patterns by changing the status of the irrigation equipment with which it was
`
`associated.19
`
` THE PRIOR ART
`
`A.
`
`Scott
`
` Scott, entitled “Irrigation and Water Resource Management System,”
`
`bears an International Publication Date of August 12, 1999. Scott discloses a
`
`computer-controlled irrigation and water resource management system for golf
`
`courses. Scott distinguishes between the “irrigation system”/“irrigation system
`
`elements” on the one hand, and “water resource management”/“water resource
`
`management elements” (aka “water resource elements”) on the other.20
`
`
`19 Ex. 1002 (’357 file history) at 65-68, 73-74 (3/25/2005 Remarks and Amendments)
`
`and 43-46 (7/21/2005 Remarks).
`
`20 Ex. 1004 (Scott) at, e.g., Abstract; compare id. at 3:11-25 with 5:9-16, 7:35-6:1,
`
`8:18-23, 10:29-30, 13:21-22, 20:19-21; compare generally id. at 27:9-30:28
`
`(describing “Operation – Irrigation Application” with 32:30-40:36 (describing
`
`“Operation – Water Resource Management”); id. at Fig. 1 (elements 12 & 13).)
`
`
`
`18
`
`20
`
`

`
` Scott discloses controlling irrigation elements and water management
`
`elements using site maps. Site maps are either CAD drawings (preferably rendered via
`
`AUTOCAD) or video images of the relevant golf course, including the course’s
`
`irrigation equipment.21 The site map can include colors or shading of various features
`
`and/or icons.22
`
` Prior to use of the site map by a site user, the CAD drawing is rendered,
`
`boundaries are defined for various groups of irrigation and/or golf course elements,
`
`such as sprinkler heads, tee areas, greens, and roads, and attributes are entered for a
`
`group, such as flow rate of a sprinkler head.23
`
` During use of the site map by a site user,24 the site user can monitor and
`
`control the status of irrigation and water resource systems via the site map, including
`
`through various GUIs representing irrigation equipment and/or golf course elements.
`
`For example, as to controlling the irrigation system equipment, a user can enable or
`
`disable a sprinkler head by checking appropriate checkboxes associated with a
`
`
`21 Ex. 1004 (Scott) at 6:6-27.
`
`22 Ex. 1004 (Scott) at, e.g., 25:18-23.
`
`23 Ex. 1004 (Scott) at, e.g., 17:24-18:30, Fig. 3.
`
`24 Ex. 1004 (Scott) at 17:26-27, 20:31-33, Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`19
`
`21
`
`

`
`particular golf course location, such as the tees or fairways25 or may adjust the
`
`application parameters for a sprinkler head by clicking on the sprinkler head depicted
`
`in a site map and altering the sprinkler head’s setting.26 For another example, as to
`
`controlling the water resource management equipment, a user can turn a pump on or
`
`off by clicking on the pump depicted in a site map and selecting “on” or “off.”27
`
` Scott uses a desktop or laptop computer.28 The computer controls the
`
`irrigation equipment “by issuing the appropriate commands” via “any suitable digital
`
`or analog format known in the art and transmitted communications interface 12 by
`
`wire or by radio link to valve controller 28.”29
`
`B.
`
`Pyotsia
`
` U.S Patent No. 7,010,294 to Pyotsia et al., entitled “Wireless control of a
`
`field device in an industrial process,” issued on March 7, 2006 based on an application
`
`filed in the U.S. on April 14, 2000. Pyotsia discloses a mobile terminal for
`
`communicating over a cellular communication system featuring an interactive user
`
`
`25 Ex. 1004 (Scott) at 25:7-23.
`
`26 Ex. 1004 (Scott) at 28:16-24.
`
`27 Ex. 1004 (Scott) at 38:1-19, Figs. 27-28.
`
`28 Ex. 1004 (Scott) at 14:21-22.
`
`29 Ex. 1004 (Scott) at 11:35-12:3.
`
`
`
`20
`
`22
`
`

`
`interface that can be used to control, configure, or monitor a plurality of field devices
`
`in an industrial process.30 Pyotsia teaches against using GSM (e.g., 2G as of 2002),
`
`stating GSM was “not reliable enough for controlling industrial processes” and
`
`resulted in the “complicated management of various interrelated data… .”31
`
` Pyotsia discloses the use of a mobile terminal, which preferably “may be
`
`a standard mobile phone or similar device with a relatively small display,”32 that
`
`communicates over cellular communications systems with a central control room work
`
`station or device database 22,33 through an interactive user interface displayed on the
`
`mobile terminal. The device database 22 is a central repository provided with specific
`
`control software “which contains all necessary data and instructions sets for
`
`controlling, configuring, reading, etc., the field devices.”34 A WWW server 23 then
`
`utilizes the data in the device database 22 to generate said interactive user interface,
`
`i.e., “world wide web (WWW) pages in a WWW server 23,”35 displaye