Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________________
`
`TERREMARK NORTH AMERICA LLC, VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK
`SERVICES INC., VERIZON SERVICES CORP., TIME WARNER CABLE
`INC., ICONTROL NETWORKS, INC., AND COXCOM, LLC,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`CASE IPR: 2015-01478
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD BENNETT IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,542,076
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80 & 42.100-.123
`
`Page 1 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________________
`
`TERREMARK NORTH AMERICA LLC, VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK
`SERVICES INC., VERIZON SERVICES CORP., TIME WARNER CABLE
`INC., ICONTROL NETWORKS, INC., AND COXCOM, LLC,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`CASE IPR: 2015-01478
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD BENNETT IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,542,076
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80 & 42.100-.123
`
`Page 1 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`The following is a list of exhibits that I understand have been attached to the
`
`accompanying petition for Inter Partes Review that I have cited below in this
`
`Declaration:
`
`EX-1001
`
`EX-1003
`
`EX-1005
`
`EX-1006
`
`EX-1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076 (“the ‘076 Patent”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Richard Bennett
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,461,372 to Busak et al., (“Busak”),
`issued on October 24, 1995
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,061,916 to French et al., (“French”),
`issued on October 29, 1991
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,866,164 to Peterson (“Peterson”),
`issued on February 11, 1975
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`I, Richard Bennett, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained to provide my opinions for the above-captioned Inter
`
`Partes review proceeding. I understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,542,076 (“the ‘076 Patent”). I am being compensated for my time in
`
`preparing this declaration, but my compensation is not tied to the outcome of this
`
`matter, and my compensation is not based on the substance of the opinions
`
`rendered here.
`
`2.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the specification and claims 31, 40,
`
`48, 143, 183, 185, 188, 206, 216, and 217 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ‘076
`
`Patent.
`
`3.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the following prior art, which I
`
`understand is used in the petition for Inter Partes Review of the ‘076 patent:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,461,372 to Busak et al., (“Busak,” provided as Ex-1005);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,061, 916 to French, et al. (“French,” provided as Ex-
`
`1006).
`
`4.
`
`My opinions are based on my years of education, research and experience,
`
`as well as my investigation and study of the Exhibits in the above List of Exhibits.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to rebut arguments
`
`raised by Patent Owner. I reserve the right to revise, supplement, and/or amend
`
`1
`
`Page 3 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`my opinions stated herein based on new information and on my continuing
`
`analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`I.
`
`5.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, career
`
`history, network standards activities, and other relevant qualifications. My full
`
`curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Ex. 1003.
`
`6.
`
`I earned the Bachelor of Arts degree at the University of Texas (Austin) in
`
`1975 with a major in Philosophy, and subsequently took courses in computer
`
`science and electrical engineering.
`
`7.
`
`I worked as a computer programmer, network engineer, and system architect
`
`from 1977 until 2009 with a number of computer networking firms, including
`
`those that produced tele-video systems such as Hewlett-Packard, Sharp Labs,
`
`Compression Labs, Sony Electronics Laboratory, Starlight Networks, Fourth
`
`Network, 3Com, Intel, and Cisco. In the course of my professional career, I
`
`developed network protocols and applications, video servers, television remote
`
`control systems, ad insertion equipment for TV broadcasters, and Quality of
`
`Service mechanisms for networks that enabled high-quality video streaming and
`
`remote control of video streaming.
`
`2
`
`Page 4 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`8.
`
`I was the vice-chairman of the IEEE 802.3 1BASE-5 Task Group in 1984-
`
`85. This group wrote the initial standard that moved Ethernet from a shared coaxial
`
`cable system to its present architecture in which twisted copper pair or fiber optic
`
`cables emanate from a shared hub or switch. I also contributed mechanisms to the
`
`IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi™) and 802.15.3a (Ultra-Wideband) standards.
`
`9.
`
`As an invited witness, I have provided technical expert testimony on
`
`networking subjects to the Federal Communications Commission, the United
`
`States House of Representatives, and the Infocomm Development Authority of the
`
`Republic of Singapore, where I am currently analyzing net neutrality policies for
`
`their potential impact on real-time applications such as video conferencing, video
`
`streaming, and gaming over the Internet.
`
`10.
`
`I am currently a Visiting Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute where I
`
`research the intersection of emerging network technologies and public policy. My
`
`work address is 1150 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.
`
`11.
`
`I am an inventor or co-inventor of four issued patents which cover aspects of
`
`video streaming across networks, security and setup in Local Area Networks
`
`(LAN), and Quality of Service on LANs.
`
`12. At the time of the invention in question, I was a software developer working
`
`on a video-on-demand server at Hewlett-Packard.
`
`3
`
`Page 5 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`II. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`
`13.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable as anticipated if all of the elements
`
`of the claim are described or disclosed in a single prior art reference.
`
`14.
`
`It is my understanding also that a patent claim is unpatentable if the claimed
`
`invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention, in view of the prior art in the field
`
`and analogous fields. I understand that a patent claim can be found unpatentable as
`
`obvious where the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant field. I understand that an obviousness analysis involves a consideration
`
`of (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`
`field; and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that when considering the obviousness of a patent claim, one
`
`should consider whether a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the
`
`references exists so as to avoid impermissibly applying hindsight when considering
`
`the prior art. I understand this consideration should not be rigidly applied, but that
`
`the consideration can be important to avoid such hindsight.
`
`4
`
`Page 6 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`16.
`
`In addition, it is my understanding that one must consider whether or not
`
`there is objective evidence of non-obviousness, which is also referred to as the
`
`“secondary considerations of non-obviousness.”
`
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`17.
`
`I have been told to assume that the date of invention for the claims of the
`
`‘076 Patent is no earlier than July 18, 1996.
`
`18.
`
`I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of
`
`the ‘077 patent in July 1996 would have had a bachelor’s degree in engineering or
`
`equivalent coursework and at least two years of experience in networked systems.
`
`19.
`
`I believe that I would qualify as a POSITA, and I have a sufficient level of
`
`knowledge, experience, and education to provide an expert opinion in the field of
`
`the ‘076 Patent.
`
`20. My opinions below are based on the perspective of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the assumed invention date.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`21. As part of my analysis of the prior art, I have adopted the claim
`
`constructions described in Section VI of the Petition to the challenged claims of the
`
`‘076 Patent.
`
`5
`
`Page 7 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`V.
`
`22.
`
`STATE OF THE ART
`
`I believe that those of ordinary skill in the art in 1996 would at least be
`
`aware of the general history of programmable logic devices, automation, software
`
`agents, and remote control systems. The highlights of this body of work include the
`
`following:
`
`a. The demonstration of a radio controlled toy boat in 18981 and the
`
`demonstration of a radio-controlled robot in 1903;2
`
`b. The invention of the car alarm in 1913;3
`
`c. The use of remotely controlled missiles in World War II;4
`
`d. The use of television remote controls using a variety of
`
`communication means since the 1930s;5
`
`e. The use of multi-step, remotely controlled electronic switching
`
`systems in the public switched telephone network since 1965;
`
`1 “Remote Control - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia,” Wikipedia, accessed June
`19, 2015, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_control.
`2 Ibid.
`3 “Prisoner Devises Stolen Car Alarm,” Popular Mechanics, April 1913,
`https://books.google.com/books?id=890DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA509#v=onepage&
`q&f=false.
`4 “Remote Control - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.”
`5 Ibid.
`
`6
`
`Page 8 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`f. The invention of home security alarm systems incorporating video,
`
`wireless communication, and remote door locks and actuators in
`
`1966;6
`
`g. The nature of programmable logic controllers (PLCs) and their use in
`
`automobiles since the 1969 General Motors Hydramatic transmission;
`
`h. The multi-step remote control elements of computer networks from
`
`1969 onward such as ARPANET, the Internet, and the World Wide
`
`Web such as congestion control,7 email read requests,8 and web
`
`browsing;9
`
`i. The widely publicized Trojan Room Coffee Camera at Cambridge
`
`University that enabled coffee drinkers to detect freshly brewed coffee
`
`in 1991 over the World Wide Web.10
`
`6 Albert L. Brown and Marie Van Brittan Brown, “Home Security Systems
`Utilizing Video Surveillance,” December 2, 1969,
`https://www.google.com/patents/US3482037.
`7 Van Jacobson, “Congestion Avoidance and Control,” Computer Communication
`Review, ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication, 25, no. 1 (1995):
`157.
`8 David Crocker, “RFC 822 - Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
`Messages,” August 13, 1982, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc822.
`9 T Berners-Lee, R Fielding, and H Frystyk, “RFC 1945 - Hypertext Transfer
`Protocol -- HTTP/1.0” (Network Working Group, May 1996),
`http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1945.
`10 Quentin Stafford-Fraser, “The Life and Times of the First Web Cam: When
`Convenience Was the Mother of Invention,” July 2001,
`http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/coffee/qsf/cacm200107.html.
`7
`
`Page 9 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`j. The existence of multi-step, video-on-demand, network-based remote
`
`control systems from the mid-90s.11
`
`k. The formation of the Abnormal Situation Management Consortium in
`
`1992 to deal with problems of human error and excessive reports in
`
`remote monitoring of buildings, plants and factories utilizing
`
`Distributed Control Systems.12
`
`l. The widespread use of software “agents” such as the Microsoft Office
`
`Assistant introduced in 1996.13
`
`23. Hence, those of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware that the field
`
`of invention around remotely operated security and control systems was well tilled
`
`by 1996.
`
`VI. THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`24.
`
`I have been asked to assume that all of the references discussed below
`
`qualify as prior art to the Challenged Claims.
`
`11 “Video on Demand,” accessed June 19, 2015,
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_on_demand#History.
`12 “Abnormal Situation Management,” My Control Room, accessed June 21, 2015,
`http://mycontrolroom.com/company/abnormal-situations-management.
`13 “Office Assistant,” Wikipedia, accessed June 19, 2015,
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Assistant.
`8
`
`Page 10 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`A.
`
`Busak
`
`25. Busak discloses a building or home security system for controlling a number
`
`of systems within the premises that can be “operated via a plurality of input
`
`devices . . . .” Ex. 1005 at 2:19-27. The system of Busak allows for a user to
`
`control home systems at a home, like door and window sensors 1025, a thermostat
`
`22, and lighting systems 18.
`
`26.
`
`In reference to the lighting system 18, this system includes an internal
`
`control 14 that can send a “powerline carrier based signal to automatically switch
`
`power on or off to control modules, which can be used in conjunction with lights
`
`and other electrical appliances and devices.” Id. at 5:29-45. Thus, the lighting
`
`system may turn lights throughout a house on and off, in addition to “control[ling]
`
`appliances such as a coffee maker, electric heater, or other devices which can be
`
`operated by on/off switching of AC power.”
`
`27. Busak discloses that the control points 84 may be used as part of the security
`
`system to monitor and control motion, window, and door sensors 1025. These
`
`control points 84 were well-known to POSITA at the time of the invention; control
`
`points where known to be used to arm and disarm, and monitor the status of
`
`motion, window, and door sensors 1025 as part of a security and surveillance
`
`system. For instance, Busak explains that surveillance systems like the Honeywell
`
`9
`
`Page 11 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`System 6000 series security systems utilize control points 84 that are connected to
`
`a monitoring device for reporting a sensor being triggered. Id. at 4:63-5:18.
`
`28.
`
`Further, Busak explains that control points 84 could be hardwire or wireless
`
`devices that could communicate with the security system 16 via either a hardwire
`
`or a RF connection. Id. at Fig. 2. A POSITA would have understood that the RF
`
`control points 84 could also communicate with the motion, window, and door
`
`sensors 1025 wirelessly. This would allow for a control point to control multiple
`
`sensors, and for sensors to be placed in more locations.
`
`29. Busak discloses that both the lighting system 18 and control points 84 may
`
`respond to a signal from the security system 16. For instance, a signal from the
`
`security system 16 may send a “control signal” to the lighting system 18 to make
`
`any changes in the lighting system. Id. at 5:39-41; Figs. 1, 8. Similarly, the
`
`control points may be connected to the security system 16 via either a wireless RF
`
`connection or a hardwire connection. Id. at Fig. 2. The security system 16
`
`(through control point processor 54) may set modes for the control point 84, “such
`
`as armed, disarmed, and on-watch . . . for either individual control points, or
`
`groups of control points.” Id. at 5:9-19. A POSITA would have understood that
`
`the wireless and hardwire communication lines between the security system 16 and
`
`the varying devices would be received automatically via the device, as these
`
`10
`
`Page 12 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`signals sent via hardwire or RF are automatically received by a receiver on the
`
`device.
`
`30. Busak explains that “a control system 14 [] could be remote from security
`
`system 16.” A POSITA would have understood that based on the capabilities of
`
`communication systems at the time of the invention, the security system 16 could
`
`be located remote from the home. Network and wireless connections between
`
`control devices were well-known in 1996. It was also known that security systems
`
`could be monitored remotely by a remote operator, or numerous security systems
`
`could be monitored remotely by a single central system via a remote monitoring
`
`station. A POSITA would have understood that central control module 20 could
`
`be located in a remote security office, so that the home automation control system
`
`may be monitored by a security operator, and multiple home automation control
`
`system may be monitored at the same time by a single security operator.
`
`31.
`
`Indeed, remote security monitoring systems were well-known in the art at
`
`the time of the invention. For instance, U.S. Patent No. 3,866,164 to Peterson
`
`(“Peterson”) discloses a security system that includes a door lock and an alarm A
`
`to signal when a door D is ajar, where “[t]he alarm A is located in a security office
`
`or at some other place remote from the door D.” Ex. 1007 at Abstract; 2:30-42.
`
`Peterson explains that an alarm A that is located remote from the door D is capable
`
`of being monitored in a remote security office. Id.
`
`11
`
`Page 13 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`32. Busak further explains that control signals may be sent by a remote user via
`
`a telecommunications device 34. Busak explains that the telecommunications
`
`device 34 could be a telephone located within the home, a telephone remote from
`
`the home, or a cellular phone remote from the home. Ex. 1005 at 5:56-61. It was
`
`well known to POSITA in 1996 that telecommunications devices could include a
`
`number of different devices, including wired telephones, cordless telephones, and
`
`mobile telephones. The user may use the telecommunications devices 34 to
`
`“operate [the] security system 16 remotely, by selecting the same modes that are
`
`available to the operator through” the home control panel. Id. at 5:46-61. It was
`
`also well-known to POSITAs that telephone signals are received automatically by
`
`a receiver within a device like security system 16.
`
`33. Busak further explains that, in addition to the remote control system, the
`
`security system disclosed may operate much like those systems that were well-
`
`known in the art at the time of the invention. In the background section of the
`
`specification, Busak explains that “a plurality of sensors, such as motion sensors,
`
`door sensors, window sensors, and other sensors are connected to a processor to
`
`provide the processor with an alarm indication, such as movement or the opening
`
`of a door or window.” Id. at 1:27-31. Busak further explains that it was well-
`
`known that a processor would then be “preprogrammed to initiate certain actions
`
`upon the receipt of an alarm indication,” which includes sounding an internal
`
`12
`
`Page 14 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`alarm, “dialing a remote alarm monitoring station through a telecommunications
`
`interface.” Id. at 1:31-35.
`
`B.
`
`French
`
`34.
`
`French discloses a “system and method for reporting of alarms (or other
`
`conditions) to a remote location, in a building automation system.” Ex. 1006 at
`
`Abstract. This system monitors building equipment for alarm conditions and
`
`generates a graphical report, which is sent via facsimile to a remote location
`
`associated with the building alarm. Id.
`
`35.
`
`French discloses a system that includes a series of devices to monitor
`
`equipment and send reports. First, a local control module 38a monitors building
`
`equipment and systems 40-46. Should an alarm condition arise, the local control
`
`module 38a communicates with a global control module 30a, which then generates
`
`a graphical report that is transmitted to a user via facsimile to the terminals 25a-
`
`25n. Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`36.
`
`Specifically, French discloses that local control modules 38a-38n monitor
`
`for a status of a premises equipment for “triggering event[s], such as a failed chiller
`
`unit,” or “mechanical breakdown.” Id. at 5:1-5; 8:32-34. These triggering events
`
`can be previously input by a user. Id. at 8:32-34.
`
`37.
`
`French discloses that the system “report[s] status of the monitored
`
`equipment to a central location.” Id. at 4:43-44. Specifically, French explains that
`
`13
`
`Page 15 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`the control modules are connected to the central control via “dial-up lines,
`
`telecommunications, or other data transmission media.” Id. at 5:12-25.
`
`38.
`
`The central control system 20 processes the alarm signals sent from the
`
`control modules and creates a graphical report, like that shown in Fig. 4. Id. at
`
`11:67-12:2.
`
`14
`
`Page 16 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`C.
`
`Combinations
`
`1.
`
`Busak and French
`
`39. Claim 40 of the ‘076 patent recites that the system includes a device for
`
`detecting a wear or a state of disrepair of the device, and generates and transmits a
`
`signal regarding the wear or state of disrepair to a first control device. The first
`
`control device generates a signal and transmits it to a second control device, which
`
`generates and transmits a signal regarding the wear or state of disrepair to a third
`
`control device.
`
`40. As I discussed in ¶¶ 25-33, above, Busak discloses that the system includes
`
`both a control and monitoring component of the security system 16. Busak
`
`explains that when an intrusion is detected, signals may be sent from a sensor to a
`
`central processor, and then to a telecommunications device. Therefore, Busak
`
`discloses the generation and transmission of a signal from a sensor to a first control
`
`device (control point) based on an alarm condition, the generation and transmission
`
`of a signal from the first control device to a second control device (processor), and
`
`the generation and transmission of a signal about the alarm condition from the
`
`second control device to a third control device (telecommunications device).
`
`41. Busak discloses detection of a theft, but does not specifically disclose a
`
`device that detects a wear or state of disrepair of a device. French discloses
`
`remotely monitoring building equipment for a wear or state of disrepair. As I
`
`15
`
`Page 17 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`discussed in ¶¶ 34-38, above, French discloses a remote reporting structure from
`
`building equipment 40-46 to local control modules 38a-n, to central control
`
`module 22, and to facsimile receivers 25a-n. A POSITA would have understood
`
`that this system is functionally identical to that disclosed in Busak.
`
`42.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would have understood that the system disclosed
`
`in Busak could be used to detect a wear or state of disrepair in equipment in a
`
`home. Both references disclose monitoring systems of alarm conditions within a
`
`premises and seek to address problems regarding remote alerts to a user. The
`
`references describe functionally identical remote reporting systems. Busak
`
`discloses the remote control and monitoring of home devices including lighting,
`
`heating and cooling, and other electrical devices like an iron. French discloses
`
`remote control and monitoring of building systems like temperature control
`
`systems. Ex. 1006 at 6:3-16. A POSITA would have understood that the
`
`monitoring of building equipment for a wear or state of disrepair could have been
`
`applied to the lighting, heating and cooling, and other electrical devices located
`
`within the home of Busak.
`
`43.
`
`French discloses a comprehensive monitoring system of a building that
`
`detects both security alarms and alarms for a wear or state of disrepair. A POSITA
`
`would have understood that the system of Busak, which detects security alarms,
`
`would have been improved if it also detected a wear or state of disrepair. For
`
`16
`
`Page 18 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`instance, French explains that its graphical reporting system allows for specific
`
`equipment failures to be reported to the correct personnel; for instance “chiller
`
`failure might be reported to a service organization engaged to repair the building
`
`equipment.” Ex. 1006 at 9:5-8. French also explains that pertinent measured
`
`system information can be reported as well – like the floor plan of the building
`
`with measured temperatures in each area to localize the area effected, measured
`
`outside temperature to determine the urgency of a report, a specific action that is
`
`necessary, and any other monitored parameters. Id. at 12:11-28. Thus, a POSITA
`
`would have understood that it would be beneficial for the system of Busak to also
`
`report failures in equipment, because the system of Busak is capable of providing a
`
`remote user, or associated service personnel, with other pertinent information when
`
`the failure occurs.
`
`44.
`
`The system of Busak, as modified by a POSITA in view of French, would be
`
`structured like the schematic below:
`
`Chiller
`unit
`monitor
`
`Chiller
`controller /
`thermostat
`
`Security
`system 16
`
`Telecommunications
`device 34
`
`45.
`
`17
`
`Page 19 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`The chiller controller 40-46 would monitor the operating parameters of the chiller
`
`unit, in order to detect a failure. This failure is reported via a signal to the security
`
`system 16, just as control points 84 report to security system 16 in Busak. Security
`
`system 16 then notifies the operator via a telephone, just as it did as disclosed in
`
`Busak. A POSITA would have understood that the monitoring of building
`
`equipment for a wear or state of disrepair could have been applied to the lighting,
`
`heating and cooling, and other electrical devices located within the home of Busak
`
`in this manner.
`
`18
`
`Page 20 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,542,076
`
`I, Richard Bennett, do hereby declare and state that all statements made
`
`herein are of my own knowledge, are true and that all statements made on
`
`information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements
`
`were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made
`
`are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of
`
`the United States Code.
`
`Date: June 23, 2015
`
`Richard Bennett
`
`19
`
`Page 21 of 21
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1002
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
