Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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 remot
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
