`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`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: Unassigned
`____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD BENNETT IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,397,363
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80 & 42.100-.123
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 1
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`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
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363 (“the ‘363 Patent”)
`
`EX-1003
`
`EX-1008
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Richard Bennett
`
`Goldberg, K., et. al., “Beyond the Web: manipulating
`
`the real world,” published by NH Elsevier in
`
`Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 28 (1995) at
`
`209-219 (“Goldberg”)
`
`EX-1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,461,372 to Busak et al., (“Busak”),
`
`issued on October 24, 1995
`
`EX-1012
`
`Sheng, Samuel, et al., “A Portable Multimedia
`
`Terminal: Successful personal communications
`
`terminals will depend upon the smooth integration of
`
`computation and communications facilities in a
`
`lightweight unit,” published in IEEE Communications
`
`Magazine (December 1992) at 64-75 (“Sheng”)
`
`
`
`1
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 2
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`Zuech, Nello, “The EDC-1000 Electric Imaging
`System,” published in I.A.P.P.P. Communications No.
`39 (March 1990) at 1-2.
`
`EX-1013
`
`EX-1017
`
`EX-1018
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,866,164 to Peterson (“Peterson”),
`issued on February 11, 1975
`
`Goldberg et al., “Desktop Teleoperation via the World
`Wide Web,” published in IEEE International
`Conference on Robotics and Automation (1995) at
`654.
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`I, Richard Bennett, declare as follows:
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`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. 7,397,363 (“the ‘363 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 1, 3-4, 5,
`
`8, 13-17, and 20 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ‘363 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 ‘363 patent:
`
`• The article titled “Beyond the Web: manipulating the real world,” by Ken
`
`Goldberg et. al. in Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 28 (1995) at 209-
`
`219 (“Goldberg,” provided as Ex-1008).
`
`• The article titled “A Portable Multimedia Terminal: Successful personal
`
`communications terminals will depend upon the smooth integration of
`
`computation and communications facilities in a lightweight unit,” by Samuel
`
`Sheng in IEEE Communications Magazine (December 1992) at 64-75
`
`(“Sheng,” provided as Ex-1012).
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,461,372 to Busak (“Busak,” provided as Ex-1010).
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 4
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`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
`
`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 vita 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
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 5
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 6
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`12. At the time of the invention in question, I was a software developer working
`
`on a video-on-demand server at Hewlett-Packard.
`
`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
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 7
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`the prior art. I understand this consideration should not be rigidly applied, but that
`
`the consideration can be important to avoid such hindsight.
`
`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
`
`‘363 Patent is July 18, 1996.
`
`18.
`
`I believe a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the
`
`‘363 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 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 ‘363 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 IV of the Petition to the Challenged Claims of
`
`the ‘363 Patent.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 8
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`V. THE STATE OF THE ART AT THE TIME OF THE INVENTION
`
`22.
`
`I believe those of ordinary skill in the art in 1996 would at least be aware of
`
`the general history of programmable logic devices, automation, and remote control
`
`systems. The highlights of this body of work include the following:
`
`a. The demonstration of a radio controlled toy boat by Nikola Tesla 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;
`
`f. The invention of home security alarm systems incorporating video,
`
`wireless communication, and remote door locks and actuators in
`
`1966;6
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 9
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`g. The nature of programmable logic controllers (PLCs) and their use in
`
`automobiles since the 1969 General Motors Hydramatic
`
`transmission;7
`
`h. The multi-step remote control elements of computer networks such as
`
`ARPANET, the Internet, and the World Wide Web such as congestion
`
`control,8 email read requests,9 and web browsing;10
`
`i. The Trojan Room Coffee Camera at Cambridge University that
`
`enabled coffee drinkers to detect freshly brewed coffee in 1991.11
`
`j. The existence of multi-step, video-on-demand remote control systems
`
`from the mid-90s.12
`
`
`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 Allison Dunn, “The Father of Invention: Dick Morley Looks Back on the 40th
`Anniversary of the PLC,” Manufacturing Automation, September 12, 2008,
`http://www.automationmag.com/features/the-father-of-invention-dick-morley-
`looks-back-on-the-40th-anniversary-of-the-plc.html.
`8 Van Jacobson, “Congestion Avoidance and Control,” Computer Communication
`Review, ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication, 25, no. 1 (1995):
`157.
`9 David Crocker, “RFC 822 - Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
`Messages,” August 13, 1982, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc822.
`10 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.
`11 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.
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 10
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`k. The formation of the Abnormal Situation Management Consortium in
`
`1992 to deal with problems of human error and excessive reporting in
`
`remote monitoring of buildings, plants and factories utilizing
`
`Distributed Control Systems.13
`
`23. Hence, those of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware that the field
`
`of invention around remotely operated 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.
`
`A. Goldberg
`
`25. Goldberg describes remotely-controlled robot arm fitted with a CCD camera
`
`and a pneumatic system. Ex. 1008 at Abstract. The robot arm can be monitored
`
`and operated remotely by users who have access to a website associated with the
`
`robot arm. Id. The remote control allows operators to “excavate” and then view
`
`the dry earth surface environment in which the robot is located. Id.
`
`26. The system used to remotely control the robot arm and the monitor the
`
`“excavation” site is shown in Figure 2 of Goldberg:
`
`
`12 “Video on Demand,” accessed June 19, 2015,
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_on_demand#History.
`13 “Abnormal Situation Management,” My Control Room, accessed June 21, 2015,
`http://mycontrolroom.com/company/abnormal-situations-management.
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 11
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`27. As illustrated in Figure 2, the camera and robot are connected to PC Robot
`
`Server C. PC Robot Server C is connected via the Internet to Unix Server A which
`
`contains a HTTP server (a web server) and a data server B. Web clients (WWW
`
`Clients) are then connected via the Internet to the web server.
`
`28. The web server is a standard Mosaic server running on a Sun SPARCserver
`
`1000 (Unix Server A). Ex. 1008 at § 5. Server C runs on a Pentium based PC with
`
`custom code written in Borland C. Id. at § 6.5. One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have considered PC Robot Server C and Unix Server A to be processing
`
`devices because servers contain CPUs which are processing component.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 12
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`29. Goldberg describes two types of users, operators and observers. Id. at § 4.
`
`To operate the robot users must complete a level-1 clearance test and get a
`
`password. Id. Operator users located at various web clients around the world can
`
`access the web server at Server A by entering the user’s password. Data server B at
`
`Server A contains a database of registered user and can obviously be used to check
`
`if the operator is a registered user and if the user’s entered password is correct. Id.
`
`at § 5. Goldberg discloses that Servers A and B operate on the same machine. Id.
`
`A POSITA would understand that the first signal being generated/transmitted in
`
`response to the second signal as recited by the claims of the ‘363 Patent is not
`
`precluded by the authentication step of Goldberg.
`
`30. After gaining access to the system, an operator can move the robot-arm
`
`mounted camera by entering ISMAP X and Y mouse coordinates into the
`
`operator’s web client, by clicking on an ISMAP control panel. Id. at §§ Abstract, 5
`
`and 6.4. A remote user may access the “WWW site” that displays the current
`
`location and operation of the robot. Id. at Fig. 1. The WWW site displays an
`
`image captured by the camera, as well as a schematic of the robot within the
`
`workspace, so that a user may effectively monitor the movement of the robot arm.
`
`Id. Using these images, the user may enter controls to direct the movement of the
`
`camera. Id. at § 3.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 13
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`31.
`
`In another article drafted by the Goldberg authors about their system,
`
`entitled “Desktop Teleoperation via the World Wide Web,” presented at the IEEE
`
`International Conference on Robotics and Automation in 1995, (provided as Ex.
`
`1018) depicts a sample WWW browser screen, depicting the image captured by the
`
`camera aside a graphically presented schematic of the robot arm within the
`
`premises. This image is shown below.
`
`
`
`32. The ISMAP coordinates are sent from the web client and are received by the
`
`web server at Server A whereupon Sever A “decodes” the ISMAP mouse
`
`coordinates into a “command consisting of thirty bytes which encodes the (XY)
`
`coordinates.” Id. at §§ 5 and 6.4. This command is then sent from Server A to PC
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 14
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`Robot Server C, where a custom program decodes the coordinates into a robot
`
`command and verifies that the command is legal. Id. at § 5. Server A performs all
`
`these functions automatically, that is without human intervention. Server A
`
`receives the ISMAP coordinates from the web client automatically. Server A
`
`decodes the coordinates automatically. And Server A sends the decoded
`
`coordinates to Server C automatically.
`
`33. After Server C receives the coordinates from Server A, Server C decodes the
`
`coordinates into a robot command and sends that command the robot over a serial
`
`line. Id. at §§ 5 and 6.5. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`PC Robot Server C is located in the proximity of the robot because server C and
`
`the robot are connected by a serial line.
`
`34. Upon receiving a proper command, the robot, an IBM SR5427 SCARA arm,
`
`activates and moves the camera to the specified XY coordinates. Id. at §§ 5, 6.5
`
`and 6.6.
`
`35. After the camera has been moved to the correct location, the camera captures
`
`an image of the workspace which is sent to server C and digitized. Id. at §§ 6.5, 6.6
`
`and Figure 2. The image is then compressed by server C, and server C sends the
`
`image to server A. Id. at §§ 5 and 6.4. Server A updates its most recent image and
`
`returns the image to the operator’s web client. Id. at § 5. Goldberg teaches, Server
`
`C has the ability to detect errors with the robot as well as transmit video imagery of
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 15
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`the robot to Server A which in turn transmits such imagery to the WWW client via
`
`the Internet. Id. at §§ 6.6-6.7. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to include an express error message to be similarly transmitted to the
`
`client in the event of a robot malfunction or error.
`
`36. Goldberg uses an EDC 1000 digital CCD camera to capture still images to
`
`be displayed. Id. at § 6.6. However, Goldberg explains that this is simply to allow
`
`for compatibility with a maximum amount of users. Id. at § 3. Goldberg explains
`
`that “the initial idea of a live video feed form the camera was dropped in order to
`
`maintain compatibility with all visual clients on the Web.” Id. The camera
`
`described in Goldberg, the EDC-1000, is capable of continuously acquiring images
`
`at up to 30 frames per second, as is explained in Zuech (Ex. 1013). Goldberg
`
`further explains that if a group of users is known, that a live video feed may be
`
`appropriate. Ex. 1008 at § 3 and fn. 1. For example, Goldberg discloses that to
`
`provide a live feed video, one could release specially modified web clients to set
`
`up two-way communications or one could write a separate program to run on client
`
`workstations. Id. at n. 1. A POSITA would have understood that the use of live
`
`video feed rather than still images would have been a mere design choice, and a
`
`substitution of one type of known imaging technique for another, for its intended
`
`purpose.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 16
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`37. The camera robot system disclosed in Goldberg was a “feasibility study for a
`
`
`
`broad range of WWW applications.” Id. at Abstract. One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood that although Goldberg discloses controlling a robot arm,
`
`the web remote control system of Goldberg can be applied to almost any control
`
`system that will accept commands. At its core, Goldberg demonstrates the
`
`feasibility of sending commands over the Internet using a web interface to a remote
`
`control system. Goldberg discloses that his system could be used to permit remote
`
`inspection and manipulation of objects. Id. at § 8. In addition, the robot could be
`
`placed out in the field, in a remote anthropological site or on the moon. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Sheng
`
`38. Sheng describes a handheld device that merges the functions of a traditional
`
`cell phone with the function of a traditional portable “notebook” computer. Ex.
`
`1012 at 64. Sheng describes this portable terminal as a part of a personal
`
`communication system (PCS). Id. The portable terminal is able to access various
`
`services available on networked servers, such as news, traffic data, voice mail, and
`
`other sources of information available on online databases. Id. While Sheng
`
`describes the portable terminal as a personal communication system, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that equivalent labels could be used to
`
`describe the terminal such as personal digital assistant, personal communications
`
`services device, or a smartphone.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 17
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`39. Sheng’s portable terminal includes an RF transceiver that communicates
`
`wirelessly on a cellular network. Id. at 66, 71-74 and Figures 2 and 3 (Sheng calls
`
`his network a picocell network which is a small cell cellular network). This
`
`network is able to support “full-motion digital video” by the use of image
`
`compression and other optimizations. Ex. 1012 at 66.
`
`C. Busak
`
`40. 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. 1010 at 2:19-27. Busak discloses an access code transmitted
`
`from a telecommunications device 34 (second processing device) to the principal
`
`control system 16 (first processing device) containing a processor 50. An encoded
`
`data stream utilizing a code can be transmitted to one of several control systems,
`
`such as the thermostat system 22 (third processing device) which may be located at
`
`the premises and controls the thermostat (premises device).
`
`41. 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.
`
`42.
`
`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
`
`
`
`17
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 18
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`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.”
`
`43. Busak also discloses the remote control of a thermostat via thermostat
`
`system 22. Id. at 6:14-43.
`
`44. 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
`
`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.
`
`45. 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
`
`
`
`18
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 19
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`as armed, disarmed, and on-watch . . . for either individual control points, or
`
`groups of control points.” Id. at 5:9-19.
`
`46. 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. For instance, security systems can be monitored
`
`remotely by a remote operator, or numerous security systems can be monitored
`
`remotely by a single central system. 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.
`
`47.
`
`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. 1017 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.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 20
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`48. 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. 1010 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.
`
`49. 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
`
`alarm, “dialing a remote alarm monitoring station through a telecommunications
`
`interface.” Id. at 1:31-35.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 21
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`50.
`
`
`
`D. Combinations
`
`1. Goldberg and Sheng
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`51. Goldberg discloses a desire to “reach as large a user base as possible” and to
`
`make the system “a truly global system.” Ex. 1008 at § 3. In line with that desire,
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow access to the Goldberg
`
`system to as large a user base as possible. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would be motivated to allow access via the portable notebook computer discussed
`
`in Sheng. Ex. 1012 at 64. One would understand that a portable notebook computer
`
`generally has an option to connect to the Internet via a wireless connection. There
`
`would be no reason why a portable notebook computer could not connect to a web
`
`server as described by Goldberg since Mosaic web client browser are available for
`
`free download.
`
`52.
`
`In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow
`
`access to the Goldberg system via the portable multimedia terminal disclosed in
`
`Sheng. Since the portable multimedia terminal disclosed in Sheng integrates the
`
`functions of a portable notebook computer and since the terminal is capable of
`
`handling video download, there would be no technical reason why the portable
`
`multimedia terminal could not be used to control the robot disclosed in Goldberg
`
`and view images or video generated by the camera mounted on the robot. Further,
`
`
`
`21
`
`Petitioners - Exhibit 1002 Page 22
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`since the portable multimedia terminal functions in a manner similar to a
`
`traditional desktop computer, the portable terminal should be able to browse web
`
`content. For instance, Sheng discloses that the portable terminal can access “on-
`
`line” information databases. Ex. 1012 at 64.
`
`2. Goldberg and Busak
`
`53. As discussed above, the goal of Goldberg’s article and project was a
`
`“feasibility study for a broad range of WWW applications.” Ex. 1008 at Abstract.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that although Goldberg
`
`discloses controlling a robot arm, the web remote control system of Goldberg can
`
`be applied to almost any control system that will accept commands. At its core,
`
`Goldberg demonstrates the feasibility of sending commands over the Internet using
`
`a web interface to a remote control system. Goldberg