IPR2015-01039
`Filed: April 10, 2015
`
`
`Filed on behalf of
`Lindsay Corporation
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`Scott R. Brown
`Matthew B. Walters
`HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP
`10801 Mastin Blvd., Suite 1000
`Overland Park, Kansas 66210
`Tel: (913) 647-9050
`Fax: (913) 647-9057
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`LINDSAY CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VALMONT INDUSTRIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01039
`U.S. Patent No. 7,003,357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before: To be determined
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,003,357.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ...................................... 1
`
`II. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ......................................... 2
`
` A. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103 ......................... 2
`
`B. Certification of Grounds for standing .......................................................... 2
`
`C. Identification of Challenge ........................................................................... 2
`
` 1. Claims for Which Inter Partes Review is Requested under
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1). ........................................................................ 2
`
` 2. Identification of the Specific Art and Statutory Grounds on Which
`
` the Challenge is Based under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2). ........................ 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3. How the Construed Claims Are Unpatentable and Supporting
`
` Evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), (5). ....................................... 3
`
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE ’357 PATENT ................................................................ 4
`
` A. The Subject Matter of the ’357 Patent ......................................................... 4
`
`B. Relevant Prosecution History of the ’357 Patent ......................................... 4
`
`C. How the Challenged Claims Are to be Construed under
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.1043(b)(3) ............................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ’357 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE UNDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) ......................................................................................... 8
`
`
`V. DETAILED EXPLANATIONs UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) ..................... 9
`
` A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 6-14, and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,003,357 Are
` Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as Being Anticipated by PCT
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
` Patent Application Publication No. WO 99/39567 to Scott et al.
` (Ex. 1004). .................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
` 1. Overview of Scott and Why it Anticipates .............................................. 9
`
` 2. Detailed Application of the Prior Art to the Claims..............................17
`
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,003,357
` Are Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Being Obvious over
` Scott (Ex. 1004) in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,294 to Pyotsia
` (Ex. 1007) and AIMS Telemetry Network Disclosed in “Irrigation
` Advances” (Ex. 1012). ...............................................................................28
`
` 1. Overview of Pyotsia and AIMS Telemetry Network Disclosed in
`
` Irrigation Advances. ..............................................................................29
`
`
`
` 2. Detailed Application of the Prior Art to the Claim Claims. .................33
`
`C. Ground 3: Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 7,003,357 is Unpatentable under
` 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Being Obvious over Scott (Ex. 1004) in view of
` U.S. Patent No. 7,010,294 to Pyotsia (Ex. 1007) and PCT Patent
` Application Publication No. WO 99/36297 to Walker (Ex. 1005). ...........51
`
`
`
`
`
` 1. Overview of Walker ...............................................................................51
`
` 2. Detailed Application of the Prior Art to the Claim. ...............................52
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` D. Ground 4: Claims 4, 5, 11, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,003,357 Are
` Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Being obvious over Scott
` (Ex. 1004) in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,294 to Pyotsia (Ex. 1007)
` and U.S. 6,337,971 to Abts (Ex. 1008). .....................................................53
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1. Overview of Abts ...................................................................................53
`
` 2. Detailed Application of the Prior Art to the Claims ..............................56
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................59
`
`Certificate of Service on Patent Owner ...................................................................60
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS
`
`Statement of Relevance
`Patent at issue
`Prosecution History of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,003,357
`Parent to continuation-in-
`part U.S. Patent No.
`7,003,357
`Prior art to U.S. Patent No.
`7,003,357
`
`Prior art to U.S. Patent No.
`7,003,357
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,003,357
`1002 Prosecution History of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,003,357
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 6,853,883 to
`Kreikenmeier et al.
`
`1004 PCT Patent Application
`Publication No. WO 99/39567 to
`Scott et al.
`1005 PCT Patent Application
`Publication No. WO 99/36297 to
`Walker
`1006 Prosecution History of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,853,883
`
`1007 U.S. Patent No. 7,010,294 to
`Pyotsia et al.
`1008 U.S. 6,337,971 to Abts
`
`Prosecution History of U.S.
`6,853,883, parent to U.S.
`7,003,357
`Prior art to U.S. Patent No.
`7,003,357
`Prior art to U.S. Patent No.
`7,003,357
`1009 Declaration of Craig Rosenberg Expert Declaration regarding
`validity of claims of patent at
`issue
`Definition for “handheld” as
`used in claims
`
`1010 Definition of “handheld” at
`http://dictionary.reference.com/br
`owse/handheld
`1011 Definition of “graphical user
`interface” or GUI as found in
`IEEE Computer Standard 610.10-
`1994w
`1012 AIMS Telemetry Network
`Disclosed in “Irrigation
`Advances”
`
`Definition for “graphical
`user interface” or GUI as
`used in claims
`
`Prior art to U.S. Patent No.
`7,003,357
`
`Filed
`☒
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`☒
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`On behalf of Lindsay Corporation (“Lindsay”) and in accordance with 35
`
`U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq., inter partes review is requested for
`
`claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,003,357 (“the ’357 patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`Real Parties-In-Interest: Lindsay Corporation is the petitioner herein. In an
`
`abundance of caution, Lindsay further identifies the following affiliated entities
`
`that are real parties-in-interest herein: Lindsay Manufacturing, LLC; Digitec, Inc.;
`
`Elecsys International Corporation; Lindsay Sales & Service, LLC; Lindsay
`
`International Sales & Service, LLC; Watertronics, LLC; and Irrigation Specialists,
`
`Inc.
`
`Related Matters: Petitioner is aware of the following related matter: Valmont
`
`Industries, Inc. v. Lindsay Corporation, No. 1:15-cv-00042 pending in the District
`
`of Delaware before Honorable Judge Stark. As of the filing of this petition the
`
`complaint in the above referenced lawsuit has not been served.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Scott R. Brown (Reg. No. 40,535)
`HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP
`10801 Mastin Blvd., Suite 1000
`Overland Park, Kansas 66210
`srb@hoveywilliams.com
`Telephone: (913) 647-9050
`Fax: (913) 647-9057
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Matthew B. Walters (Reg. No. 65,343)
`HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP
`10801 Mastin Blvd., Suite 1000
`Overland Park, Kansas 66210
`mbw@hoveywilliams.com
`Telephone: (913) 647-9050
`Fax: (913) 647-9057
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`Lindsay consents to electronic service by e-mail at the above listed e-mail
`
`
`
`addresses of lead and back-up counsel.
`
`II. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`A.
`
`The required fees are submitted herewith. If any additional fees are due at
`
`Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103
`
`any time during this proceeding, the Office is authorized to charge such fees to
`
`Deposit Account No. 19-0522.
`
`B. Certification of Grounds for standing
`
`Lindsay certifies that the ’357 patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Lindsay is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the claims of the ’357 patent on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`Identification of Challenge
`
`C.
`
`
`1. Claims for Which Inter Partes Review is Requested under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1).
`
`Lindsay requests review and invalidation of claims 1-18 of the ’357 patent.
`
`2.
`
`Identification of the Specific Art and Statutory Grounds on
`Which the Challenge is Based under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(2).
`
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review based on the following prior art:
`
`Exhibit
`
`Prior Art Description
`
`Publication/Issue
`Date
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 99/39567 to
`Scott et al.
`PCT Patent Application Publication No. WO
`99/36297 to Walker
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent No. 7,010,294 to Pyotsia et al.
`Ex. 1008 U.S. 6,337,971 to Abts
`Ex. 1012 AIMS Telemetry Network Disclosed in
`“Irrigation Advances”
`
`August 12, 1999
`
`July 22, 1999
`
`March 7, 2006
`January 8, 2002
`Spring 1996
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review based on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`Ground Claim(s)
`1
`1, 6-14,
`and 16-18
`1-3, 6-14,
`and 16-18
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`3
`
`4, 5, 11,
`and 15
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ’357 Patent
`Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as Being
`Anticipated by Scott et al.
`Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Being Obvious
`over Scott et al. in view of Pyotsia et al. and AIMS
`Telemetry Network Disclosed in “Irrigation Advances”
`Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Being Obvious
`over Scott et al. in view of Pyotsia et al. and Walker
`Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Being Obvious
`over Scott et al. in view of Pyotsia et al. and Abts
`
`3. How the Construed Claims Are Unpatentable and
`Supporting Evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), (5).
`
`
`The following requirements are provided in Sections IV-V, below: (1) an
`
`explanation of how claims 1-18 of the ’357 patent are unpatentable under the
`
`statutory grounds identified above, including the identification of where each
`
`element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications; and
`
`(2) the exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied upon to support the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`challenge and the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including
`
`identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE ’357 PATENT
`
`A. The Subject Matter of the ’357 Patent
`
`The ’357 patent generally concerns a remote user interface for and method
`
`of remotely determining the status of and controlling irrigation equipment. (Ex.
`
`1001, Claims 1, 16, 17, and 18).
`
`The controller requires a hand-held display, a processor, wireless telemetry
`
`means (e.g., radio, RF, and/or cell phone telemetry) and software operable on the
`
`processor (Ex. 1001, Claims 1, 16, 17, and 18). The software and processor
`
`cooperatively cause data received by the wireless telemetry means from irrigation
`
`equipment to be displayed on the hand-held display, such as status information and
`
`different shapes and colors to identify particular types of equipment and their
`
`associated status. (Ex. 1001, Claims 1-18). The software and processor also
`
`cooperatively receive a user’s control commands and then transmit these
`
`commands, using the wireless telemetry means, to irrigation equipment. (Ex. 1001,
`
`Claims 16-18).
`
`B. Relevant Prosecution History of the ’357 Patent
`
`The ’357 patent claims priority to a parent patent application filed February
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`21, 2001, which issued February 8, 2005 as U.S. 6,853,883 (Ex. 1003). The ’357
`
`patent was filed on July 1, 2002 and is a continuation-in-part of U.S. 6,853,883.
`
`(Ex. 1001). The parent patent (Ex. 1003) does not include any support for claim
`
`limitations directed to graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and/or user manipulation of
`
`GUIs. Each of the claims of the ’357 patent recites graphical user interfaces
`
`(GUIs), and thus the ’357 patent claims have a July 1, 2002 priority date. A Notice
`
`of Allowance issued on August 4, 2005 in which the Examiner indicated allowance
`
`because none of the prior art disclosed “receiving a user’s commands to directly
`
`control the irrigation equipment in accordance with commands received from a
`
`user, through the user’s manipulation of the GUIs.” (Ex. 1002, pp. 16-20). The
`
`’357 patent issued on February 21, 2006 with 18 claims, of which claims 1, 16, 17,
`
`and 18 are independent.
`
`C. How the Challenged Claims Are to be Construed under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.1043(b)(3)
`
` A
`
` claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Lindsay therefore requests that the claim terms be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and consistent with the disclosure. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48756, 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012). However, because the district court may apply
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`a different standard, the claim interpretations presented in this petition do not
`
`necessarily reflect the claim construction that Lindsay believes should be adopted
`
`by the district court in the Litigation or in any other proceeding. Lindsay does not
`
`concede that constructions offered in this petition should be adopted by the district
`
`court in the Litigation.
`
`The terms “hand-held display” or “handheld RUI” as used in the ’357 claims
`
`should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and include any device,
`
`having a display screen, that can be used while held in the hands. The definition of
`
`hand-held in the online dictionary Dictionary.com is: “small enough to be used or
`
`operated while being held in the hand or hands.” (Ex. 1010). The ’357 patent
`
`discloses examples including a personal digital assistant (PDA) or similar portable
`
`hand-held computer of a compact size. (Ex. 1001, 3:35-38). Thus, a handheld RUI
`
`and/or a hand-held display may include, for example, a PDA, palmtop computer,
`
`laptop computer, mobile phone, tablet, or the like. (Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 13, 14, 43, and
`
`46).
`
`The term graphical user interface or GUI is ordinarily understood to be “A
`
`user interface that is graphical in nature; that is, the user can enter commands by
`
`using a mouse, icons and windows,” as distinguished from an interface requiring
`
`command line entry of instructions. (IEEE Computer Standard 610.10-1994w (Ex.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`1011 and Ex. 1009, ¶ 43)). As used in the specification and the claims, there is no
`
`narrower definition, although the claims when calling for “a plurality of GUIs”
`
`may also be understood to be referring to individual icons on a screen. (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex 1001, Cl. 1,16). Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses both
`
`individual icons that can be manipulated and more generally an interface that does
`
`not require command line entry of instructions.
`
`The phrase “directly control” as used in the ’357 claims requires only that
`
`user input is utilized to control “the irrigation equipment” in claim 16 and
`
`“irrigation components and other ancillary equipment” in claim 17. Direct is not
`
`used in the specification and this is the plain meaning from the claims. This
`
`language may be distinguished from the parent ’883 patent, which requires
`
`“directly transmitting telemetry” to those same elements. (Ex. 1003, Cl. 1, 3-4).
`
`This language was added in the parent to obtain allowance. (Ex. 1006, pg. 139,
`
`155, 156, and 160). Thus, in the present claims, if user input can be utilized to
`
`control the identified elements, it does not matter what communication pathway is
`
`utilized to send signals to the controlled element after being wirelessly transmitted
`
`from the hand held device. (Ex. 1009, ¶ 43).
`
`In each instance where a means-plus-function limitation is present, the claim
`
`shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`in the specification and equivalents thereof. In the ’357 patent, the “wireless
`
`telemetry means” recited in claims 1 and 16-18 are described in Col. 6, ll. 11-24 of
`
`the Detailed Description (Ex. 1001, 6:11-24). The phrase “means for displaying
`
`data received from the irrigation equipment…” in claim 16 is interpreted as
`
`referring to the software stored on the remote user interface (“RUI”) and the
`
`display 16 (Ex. 1001, 3:21-25 & 47-52), although no structure is explicitly
`
`provided for storing the software and other details of the software are not provided.
`
`It is also unclear to what specific structure the following phrase of claim 16 refers:
`
`“means for directly controlling the irrigation equipment in accordance with
`
`commands received from a user.” In the Summary and Detailed Description of the
`
`‘357 patent, this function is only broadly disclosed as being performed by the
`
`overall claimed device itself, referred to as the remote user interface (RUI) 14. (Ex.
`
`1001, 2:3-26 and 3:21-29).
`
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ’357 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`
`As detailed in the claim charts below, all limitations of claims 1-18 of the
`
`
`
`’357 patent were well known in the prior art. Scott (Ex. 1004) anticipates claims 1,
`
`6-14, and 16-18. Regarding various combinations of prior art, under the Supreme
`
`Court’s flexible and expansive KSR obviousness analysis, which includes recourse
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`to common sense, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
`
`problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person
`
`of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
`
`technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not
`
`of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR, Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,
`
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419-21 (2007). Updating known concepts “using modern
`
`electronic components in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such
`
`adaptation, such as decreased size, increased reliability, simplified operation, and
`
`reduced cost” is legally obvious. Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`
`485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Petitioner cites herein a variety of prior art
`
`references that anticipate or in combination render obvious a handheld controller
`
`having a processor and display utilizing a GUI to control irrigation equipment.
`
`Consequently, there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’357
`
`patent is unpatentable.
`
`
`
`V. DETAILED EXPLANATIONS UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)
`
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 6-14, and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,003,357
`Are Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as Being Anticipated
`by PCT Patent Application Publication No. WO 99/39567 to Scott
`et al. (Ex. 1004).
`
`
`
`1. Overview of Scott and Why it Anticipates
`
`PCT Patent Application Publication No. WO 99/39567 to Scott et al.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`(“Scott”) published August 12, 1999. Thus, Scott qualifies as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b). Scott was not cited during the prosecution.
`
`Scott discloses a computer-controlled irrigation system for monitoring and
`
`controlling irrigation system elements. (Ex. 1004, Abstract). (Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 30-31).
`
`The system may include a hand held computer such as a laptop with a video
`
`display (Ex. 1004, p. 12, ll. 16-22). A radio link is used to wirelessly send
`
`commands from the computer (e.g., a laptop) directly to valve controllers (Ex.
`
`1004, p. 11, ll. 35-36, p. 12, ll. 1-3)1. Software on the computer provides a
`
`graphical user interface (GUI) including animations and hyperlinked irrigation
`
`system elements that allow a user to zoom in on irrigation system elements and
`
`adjust programming parameters or monitor operation. (Ex. 1004, p. 43, ll. 3-6). For
`
`example, a reservoir level may be depicted on the display, and may appear higher
`
`or lower based on its actual monitored level. (Ex. 1004, p. 34, ll. 17-19). By
`
`clicking on or dragging various elements shown on the display, a user may adjust
`
`programming parameters, such as time of day that a valve is open or closed. (Ex.
`
`1004, p. 34, ll. 4-6, and p. 36, ll. 12-14).
`
`
`1 Page numbers referenced herein for Exhibits 1004, 1005 and 1012 are
`
`according to the page numbers assigned by the petitioner at the bottom of each
`
`page, not the originally-published page numbers.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Scott discloses that graphics on the display may be shaped to represent
`
`various irrigation and water resource elements (irrigation heads, pumps, reservoirs,
`
`etc.), which may be animated and visually display status information, such as the
`
`reservoir level. (Ex. 1004, p. 10, l. 3; p. 28, ll. 16-19; p. 34, ll. 17-19; p. 38, ll. 1-
`
`19; and Figs. 28-29). Scott also discloses coverage radius graphics shaped to
`
`identify operating irrigation patterns for the irrigation heads. (Ex. 1004, p. 28, ll.
`
`22-27). Furthermore, Scott discloses different color or shading of head icons
`
`indicating if the heads are enabled or disabled, and/or indicating what type of
`
`material, whether irrigation or chemigation, is being applied by the equipment.
`
`(Ex. 1004, p. 25, ll. 18-22 and p. 31, ll. 20-22). Scott discloses a plurality of
`
`individual screens interlinked for navigation, as demonstrated by the “back” button
`
`318. (Ex. 1004, p. 33, ll. 13-19).
`
`Claims 1 and 17
`
`
`
`Claim 1 requires “a remote user interface for reading status of and
`
`controlling irrigation equipment” in the form of “a hand-held display”; with “a
`
`processor”; “wireless
`
`telemetry means”; and “software operable on”
`
`the
`
`“processor” for “displaying data” as “GUIs”; “receiving” user “commands to
`
`control the irrigation equipment” through the GUIs; and “transmitting signals” “to
`
`control the irrigation equipment in accordance with” the commands. Independent
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`claim 17 is a method analogue to claim 1.
`
`
`
`Claims 1 and 17 are anticipated by Scott, which broadly teaches a water
`
`resource and management system, or irrigation system, remotely controlled and
`
`monitored by a laptop. (Ex. 1004, Abstract and pg. 14, ll. 16-22). (Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 44-
`
`46). The laptop is a “hand-held display,” as recited in claims 1 and 17. Scott also
`
`discloses a processor (e.g., INTEL PENTIUM) and software that displays
`
`irrigation equipment status data as GUIs, receives user commands through
`
`manipulation of the GUIs, and transmits control signals to irrigation equipment
`
`(e.g., valve controllers) wirelessly via radio link, as in claim 1 and 17. (Ex. 1004,
`
`pg. 11, ll. 3-5 and 35-36; pg. 12, ll. 1-3; pg. 14, ll. 17-19 and 30-34; pg. 21, ll. 23-
`
`25; pg. 34, ll. 4-6; pg. 36, ll. 12-14; and pg. 43, ll. 3-6).
`
`Claim 6
`
`
`
`Claim 6 adds the requirement that the irrigation equipment status
`
`information be displayed by GUIs “shaped to identify particular types of irrigation
`
`equipment.” Scott discloses a plurality of GUIs shaped to identify particular types
`
`of irrigation equipment. Specifically, Scott discloses animated and hyperlinked
`
`irrigation system elements, pump graphics, reservoirs, irrigation head icons, etc.
`
`for monitoring operation thereof (Ex. 1004, Figs. 16, 22, 23, 28, and 29; pg. 28, ll.
`
`16-19; pg. 34, ll. 17-19; pg. 38, ll. 1-19; and pg. 43, ll. 3-6). For example, these
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`irrigation system elements can display status information such as whether a pump
`
`is on or off based on animation of water moving through the pump. (Ex. 1004, p.
`
`38, ll. 1-19 and Figs. 28 and 29). A visual depiction of an actual reservoir level can
`
`also be displayed. (Ex. 1004, pg. 34, ll. 17-19, Fig. 23). (Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 47-48).
`
`Claims 7 - 9
`
`
`
`Claim 7 requires that the plurality of GUIs be displayed on a single screen.
`
`Claim 8 requires that the plurality of GUIs be displayed on a plurality of screens,
`
`and claim 9 requires the plurality of screens be interlinked for user navigation
`
`between them. Scott discloses displaying the irrigation system elements or GUIs
`
`on a single page as in claim 7 (Ex. 1004, pg. 43, ll. 3-6, Figs. 16, 22, and 23) as
`
`well as on multiple pages as in claim 8 (Ex. 1004, Figs. 16, 19, 21-29).
`
`Furthermore, the tool bars and “back” buttons illustrated in these figures in Scott
`
`also disclose the interlinking of the individual screens to navigate between and
`
`selectively display these screens, as in claim 9 of the ‘357 patent. (Ex. 1004, Figs.
`
`19 and 21-29, pg. 33, ll. 31-19). (Ex. 1009, ¶ 49).
`
`Claims 10-13
`
`
`
`Claim 10 requires the GUIs to be “shaped to identify operating irrigation
`
`patterns for specific irrigation equipment.” Claim 11 requires the GUIs change in
`
`shape in “response to a change in status” of the irrigation equipment. Claim 12
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`requires the GUIs to be “color-coded” to identify irrigation equipment status;
`
`Claim 13 requires the color-coding change to reflect a change in status. Scott
`
`discloses graphics shaped to identify operating irrigation patterns for specific
`
`irrigation equipment, as well as changing the shape of the GUIs and/or the color or
`
`shading thereof in response to a change in the status of the irrigation equipment.
`
`For example, Scott discloses GUIs shaped to identify operating irrigation patterns
`
`for specific irrigation equipment as in claim 10 by displaying coverage radius
`
`graphics with a circular coverage pattern. (Ex. 1004, pg. 28, ll. 22-27). Scott also
`
`discloses that the animation graphics 436 of the pump, and thus GUI shape,
`
`depends on if it is off or on. (Ex. 1004, pg. 38, ll. 1-19, Figs. 28-29). Furthermore,
`
`the display may show an animation of water being discharged from a discharge
`
`pipe and the actual level of the reservoir may be depicted graphically. (Ex. 1004,
`
`pg. 34, ll. 4-29). The animation of water being discharged through the pipe and the
`
`raising and lowering of the reservoir changes the shape of the graphic (or GUI)
`
`depending on its status, and therefore discloses changing the shape of the GUIs in
`
`response to a change in the status of the irrigation equipment (e.g., pump on/off,
`
`reservoir high/low), as in claim 11.
`
`
`
`Furthermore, Scott also discloses color-coding GUIs to identify specific
`
`irrigation equipment status information and changing the color in response to a
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`change in the status, as in claims 12 and 13. Specifically, Scott discloses irrigation
`
`head icons that are a different color or shading when they are disabled, and disks
`
`that are different colors or shades to indicate if water, biologic, or fertilizer is
`
`applied therewith. (Ex. 1004, pg. 25, ll. 18-22 and pg. 31, ll. 20-22). Scott also
`
`discloses irrigation head icons within a sub-group boundary graphic that indicate
`
`their state by the use of color or shading. (Ex. 1004, pg. 26, ll. 22-24). (Ex. 1009,
`
`¶¶ 50-52).
`
`Claim 14
`
`
`
`Claim 14 requires the software to “execute one or more programs
`
`comprising a plurality of user defined irrigation control commands.” Scott
`
`discloses software on the processor to execute programs comprising user defined
`
`irrigation control commands. Specifically, the user can modify and save
`
`application programming for generating
`
`the appropriate
`
`irrigation system
`
`commands at appropriate times. (Ex. 1004, pg. 32, ll. 14-24). (Ex. 1009, ¶ 53).
`
`Claim 16
`
`
`
`Independent claim 16 differs from claim 1 in that rather than reciting
`
`software operating on a processor that performs the claimed functions, it requires
`
`two additional means plus function limitations that perform the functions identified
`
`in claim 1. In claim 16, the limitation “means for displaying data . . . as a plurality
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`of GUIs that are shaped to identify the types of irrigation equipment and the
`
`operational characteristics” is met by Scott, which discloses clicking On/Off
`
`selector graphics of a well pump graphic 434, to select whether the pump is to be
`
`turned on or off. This changes the appearance of the GUI to portray specific
`
`operational characteristics of the irrigation equipment represented by the GUI,
`
`because the pump animation graphics 436 of the well pump graphic 434 animates
`
`water moving through the pump when it is on. (Ex. 1004, pg. 38, ll. 1-19, Figs. 28-
`
`29). Scott also discloses the “means for directly controlling the irrigation
`
`equipment in accordance with commands received from a user.” Specifically, Scott
`
`discloses it has a processor and software that provide “Saving the application
`
`programming causes application processor 84 (Fig. 2) to respond by generating the
`
`appropriate irrigation system commands at the appropriate times to start and stop
`
`the application events in accordance with programming. The commands are
`
`transmitted via communications interfaces 12 and 13 directly to the zones or to the
`
`zones via satellite stations. The commands may be in any suitable digital format as
`
`specified by the manufacturer of the valve, pump, product injector or other
`
`irrigation system element.” (Ex. 1004, pg. 32, ll. 15-22, Emphasis added). (Ex.
`
`1009, ¶ 54).
`
`Claim 18
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`Independent claim 18 is narrower than claim 1 in that it requires the GUIs to
`
`be shaped to identify particular types of irrigation equipment as in claim 6 and that
`
`the GUIs “change appearance” to “portray specific operational characteristics of
`
`the irrigation equipment” as in claim 16. Thus, Scott anticipates claim 18 for the
`
`same reasons as discussed in claims 1, 6, and 16 above. (Ex. 1009, ¶ 55).
`
`2. Detailed Application of the Prior Art to the Claims.
`
`’357 patent claims
`1. A remote user
`interface for reading
`the status of and
`controlling
`irrigation
`equipment,
`comprising
`a hand-held display;
`
`Prior Art Disclosure
`“A computer-controlled irrigation system, computer
`program product, and computer-implemented method of
`operation includes a site map-based graphical user interface
`(GUI). The GUI includes…elements that allow a user
`to…zoom in on an irrigation system element or water
`resource element and adjust its programming parameters or
`monitor its operation...” (Scott, Abstract).
`“Computer 10 is illustrated in Fig. 2 as programmed in
`accordance with the present invention. Computer 10
`includes…a video display 50… These elements of computer
`10 may be of any suitable type commonly included in
`personal computer systems or in minicomputer systems.
`Computer 10 may be a desktop or even a laptop style.” (Scott,
`pg. 14, ll. 16-22, Fig. 2).
`“… computer 10 further includes central processing logic
`54, which may include a suitable microprocessor central
`processing unit such as an INTEL PENTIUM and any
`suitable associated logic, cache memory, interface or support
`components commonly included in personal computers.”
`(Scott, pg. 14, ll. 30-34, Fig. 2).
`“…computer 10 may control the flow of water… by
`issuing the appropriate commands. The commands are
`encoded in any suitable digital or analog format known in the
`art and transmitted by communications interface 12 by wires
`or by radio link to valve controller 28.” (Scott, pg. 11, ll. 35-
`
`17
`
`a processor;
`
`wireless telemetry
`means for
`transmitting signals
`and data between
`the remote user
`
`
`
`

`
`interface and the
`irrigation
`equipment; and
`software operable
`on said processor
`for:
`
`(a) displaying data
`received from the
`irrigation equipment
`as a plurality of
`GUIs that are
`configured to
`present said data as
`status information
`on said display;
`
`(b) receiving a
`user’s commands to
`control the irrigation
`equipment, through
`said user’s
`manipulation of said
`
`
`
`36, pg. 12, ll. 1-3).
`
`“Computer 10 includes, in addition to the hardware and
`software indicated by the dashed line as being internal or at
`least integrally associated with the computer…” (Scott, p