Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________________
`
`COXCOM, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`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. 6,549,130
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80 & 42.100-.123
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________________
`
`COXCOM, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`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. 6,549,130
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80 & 42.100-.123
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 1
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`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. 6,549,130
`
`EX-1003
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Richard Bennett
`
`EX-1004
`
`March 1996 Application
`
`EX-1005
`EX-1006
`
`
`
`File History Excerpts from the ‘130 Patent
`Excerpt from Merriam-Webster Dictionary (10th ed.
`
`1995)
`
`EX-1007
`
`Excerpt from Concise Dictionary of Engineering: A
`
`Guide to the Language of Engineering (2014)EX-
`
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 5,875,430 to Koether et al.,
`
`(“Koether”)
`
`EX-1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,805,442 to Crater et al., (“Crater”)
`
`
`
`i
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 2
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`I, Richard Bennett, declare as follows:
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by CoxCom LLC to provide my opinions in an inter
`
`partes review proceeding that involves U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130 (“the ‘130
`
`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, 8, 10,
`
`12, 15, 17, 98, 124, 145, and 149 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ‘130 Patent.
`
`3.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the following prior art, which I
`
`understand is used in the petition of the ‘363 patent:
`
`• The Koether patent (Ex. 1008 – U.S. Patent 5,875,430)
`
`• The Crater patent (Ex. 1009 – U.S. Patent 5,805,442)
`
`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.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`I.
`
`5.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 4
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`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.
`
`II. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`
`13.
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 5
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`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.
`
`14.
`
`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.
`
`15.
`
`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
`
`16.
`
`I have been told to assume that the date of invention for the claims of the
`
`‘130 patent is July 18, 1996.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 6
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`17.
`
`I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of
`
`the ‘130 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.
`
`18.
`
`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 ‘130 Patent. In July 1996, I would have considered myself to be a POSITA
`
`and my review of the ‘130 Patent and related prior art confirms that belief.
`
`19. 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
`
`20. 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
`
`‘130 Patent.
`
`V. THE STATE OF THE ART AT THE TIME OF THE INVENTION
`
`21.
`
`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, and
`
`remote control systems. The highlights of this body of work include the following:
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 7
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`a. The demonstration of a radio controlled toy boat by Nikola Tesla in
`
`1898;1
`
`b. The demonstration of a radio-controlled robot in 1903;2
`
`c. The use of remotely controlled missiles in World War II;3
`
`d. The use of television remote controls using a variety of
`
`communication means since the 1930s;4
`
`e. The use of multi-step, remotely controlled electronic switching
`
`systems in the public switched telephone network since 1965;
`
`f. The nature of programmable logic controllers (PLCs) and their use in
`
`automobiles since the 1969 General Motors Hydramatic
`
`transmission;5
`
`g. The multi-step remote control elements of computer networks such as
`
`ARPANET, the Internet, and the World Wide Web such as congestion
`
`control, email read requests, and web browsing;678
`
`
`1 “Remote Control - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia,” Wikipedia, accessed June
`19, 2015, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_control.
`2 Id.
`3 Id.
`4 Id.
`5 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.
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 8
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`h. The Trojan Room Coffee Camera at Cambridge University that
`
`enabled coffee drinkers to detect freshly brewed coffee in 1991.9
`
`i. The existence of multi-step, video-on-demand remote control systems
`
`from the mid-90s.10
`
`j. The use of wireless data networks such as CDPD, ARDIS, and RAM
`
`Mobile Data for repair person dispatch from the 1980s onward. 1112
`
`22. 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.
`
`
`6 Van Jacobson, “Congestion Avoidance and Control,” Computer Communication
`Review, ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication, 25, no. 1 (1995):
`157.
`7 David Crocker, “RFC 822 - Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
`Messages,” August 13, 1982, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc822.
`8 T Berners-Lee, R Fielding, and H Frystyk, “RFC 1945 - Hypertext Transfer
`Protocol -- HTTP/1.0” (Network Working Group), accessed June 19, 2015,
`http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1945.
`9 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.
`10 “Video on Demand,” accessed June 19, 2015,
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_on_demand#History.
`11 Peter Rysavy, “Wide-Area Wireless Computing,” Network Computing:
`Network Design Manual, accessed August 18, 2015,
`http://www.networkcomputing.com/netdesign/wireless6.html.
`12 Bart Ziegler, “IBM, Motorola Announce Nationwide Radio-Based Computer
`Network,” Associated Press Archive, January 30, 1990,
`http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1990/IBM-Motorola-Annouce-Nationwide-Radio-
`Based-Computer-Network/id-e3627934c3617735305d2f4e812bb7c3.
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 9
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`VI. THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`23.
`
`I have been asked to assume that all of the references discussed below
`
`qualify as prior art to the Challenged Claims.
`
`A. Koether – Petition Exhibit No. 1008
`
`24. The Koether patent was applied for on May 2, 1996. I am informed that this
`
`filing date, as it is before the date I have presumed is the earliest effective date for
`
`the Challenged Claims, makes Koether prior art to the Challenged Claims.
`
`25. The Koether patent is titled “Smart Commercial Kitchen Network” and
`
`describes “a bi-directional communication network which provides real-time
`
`computer –aided diagnostics . . . maintenance records and energy management.”
`
`(Abstract.) Koether graphically depicts how such a network would look in Figures
`
`1 and 8:
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 10
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 11
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`
`
`26. As Koether details, “the system monitors and tracks the maintenance and
`
`repair of kitchen appliances by means of information transmitted to and received
`
`from those appliances over the data network.” (Col. 2, ll. 13-16.) Koether also
`
`explains that “The control center may, if desired, control in real-time the normal
`
`operation for some or all of the kitchen or restaurant appliances.” (Col. 3, ll. 5-7.)
`
`27. As the figures and description of Koether make clear, there are three critical
`
`devices that make up the system. First, a microprocessor controller 140 that is a
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 12
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`part of, or connected to, a specific kitchen appliance. (Col. 4:26-27; 4:37-51
`
`(which makes reference to U.S. Patent No. 5,875,430 and describes an oven
`
`controller for multiple oven appliances in Column 7 of that patent).) Second, the
`
`Koether system has a kitchen base station 150 which may be wirelessly connected
`
`to the microprocessor controller. (Col. 5, ll. 3-19.) Third, the Koether system has
`
`a control center 170 that monitors, processes, and responds to signals from the
`
`kitchen appliances and base stations. (Col. 5, ll. 37-49.)
`
`28.
`
`In Koether, communication between the kitchen appliances, the kitchen base
`
`stations, and the control center(s) is bi-directional and can be wireless using
`
`cellular communication channels. (Col. 5, ll. 20-35.) Koether specifically
`
`describes using data networks to communicate between the components of the
`
`system, such as an ISDN network or a network using data packets such as a
`
`TDMA technique. (Col. 5, ll. 37-45; Col. 6, ll. 34-37.)
`
`29. This communication system allows the control center of Koether to
`
`automatically control maintenance, repair, and function of a kitchen appliance
`
`from a separate, or remote, physical location. (Col. 2, ll. 23-36; Col. 5, ll. 55-59;
`
`8:56-9:2.)
`
`30.
`
`I will now explain how the Koether patent describes the same devices and
`
`signals as claimed in the Challenged Claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 13
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 8, 12, 15, 17, 98, and 145
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`31.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to July of 1996
`
`would recognize Koether as expressly teaching each element of claim 1, 8, 12, 15,
`
`17, 98, and 145, or at the very least, suggesting to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art every element of those claims based on the teachings of Koether and the
`
`knowledge of the skilled person.
`
`32. Koether teaches a microprocessor controller at a kitchen appliance that can,
`
`for example, regulate temperature or energy use. (Col. 4, ll. 26-27; Col. 4, ll. 30-
`
`32; Col. 4, ll. 37-59.) This microprocessor controller is the first control device of
`
`claim 1. The claim states that the first control device generates and transmits a
`
`first signal for the activation, deactivation, or re-enabling of, for example, a
`
`premises appliance. The microprocessor controller of Koether can activate and
`
`deactivate the kitchen appliance, for example, when needed for heating and cooling
`
`or temperature regulation. (Col. 2, ll. 25-27; Col. 2, ll. 37-59.)
`
`33. Koether also teaches the relaying of information about the status of the
`
`kitchen appliance to a kitchen base station. (Col. 5, ll. 3-8.) The Koether kitchen
`
`base station can be connected to the microprocessor controller of the appliance
`
`wirelessly. (Col. 5, ll. 3-8.) The kitchen base station is the second control device
`
`of claim 1. Claim 1 requires that first control device responds to a second signal,
`
`generated by the second control device. Koether makes clear that the kitchen base
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 14
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`station makes decisions based on information received from the microprocessor
`
`controller at the appliance and the control center 170. (Col. 7, ll. 54-59.) Figure 6
`
`of Koether also depicts the operations of the kitchen base station in the form of a
`
`flow diagram. This figure shows that the if the kitchen base station receives
`
`control data from the control center, it responds by transmitting the data to the
`
`kitchen appliance. (Col. 8, ll. 7-10). A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to
`
`July 1996, would have understood that the kitchen base station (the second control
`
`device) provided a signal to the appliance, which when received executes an
`
`operation. (Col. 5, ll. 20-35.) This is made express when the Koether patent
`
`describes the bidirectional communication cellular channel between the kitchen
`
`base station and the appliance. (Col. 5, ll. 20-35.)
`
`34. Claim 1 also requires that the second control device be remote from the
`
`premises. In Koether, this would mean the kitchen base station would be remote
`
`from kitchen appliance. Because Koether teaches the use of “cells” and “cellular”
`
`links between the various devices, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that the kitchen base station can be geographically remote from the
`
`kitchen appliance. This could be scaled anywhere from room size remoteness to
`
`multiple miles given the use of cellular link. Koether itself confirms this “[i]t
`
`should be clearly understood that these cells may be located within the same or
`
`different buildings.” (Col. 4, ll. 15-19.) Koether expressly teaches that the kitchen
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 15
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`base station is connected via a cellular connection. (Col. 5, ll. 20-35.) Koether
`
`also claims that each “base station is associated with a radio coverage area or cell,
`
`such that restaurant appliances located within the same cell communicate with the
`
`same base station.” (Col. 15, ll. 20-23). A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`reading the disclosure of Koether would understand that in situations where a cell
`
`is located in different buildings, and a single base station is associated with that
`
`cell, the base station is remote from the kitchen appliances located within the
`
`various buildings of the cell. Furthermore, Koether describes satellite
`
`communication as an option for transmitting information between the kitchen base
`
`station and the kitchen appliance. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that satellite communication is provided so that the kitchen base station
`
`and kitchen appliances can communicate over significant distances, such as when
`
`they are remotely located from one another. Given the disclosure of Koether
`
`regarding providing a control system covering a large geographical area, prior to
`
`July 1996 a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the Smart
`
`Commercial Kitchen could be deployed with a single kitchen base station within a
`
`cell that communicates with multiple remotely located restaurants containing
`
`kitchen appliances. This would take advantage of the cellular and satellite
`
`communication links described in Koether and would be more cost effective than
`
`providing a dedicated kitchen base station for each kitchen premises.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 16
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`35. Koether also teaches that each cell possess its own cellular radio channel for
`
`bidirectional communication between the appliances, kitchen base station, and
`
`control center. (Col. 5, ll. 55-59.) The control center of Koether is the third
`
`control device of claim 1.
`
`36. The Koether system was designed to allow for automatic monitoring and
`
`control. (Col. 2, 23-36.) This includes the automatic control of the system by the
`
`control center, which is claimed in the ‘130 patent claim 1, as the third control
`
`device, as well as the Koether patent’s kitchen base station. (Col. 5, ll. 60-67.)
`
`Even in Koether’s discussion of the network types for the data transmission, there
`
`is no discussion of human or user intervention in the access or receipt of the
`
`communications between various devices.
`
`37. The Koether patent details that the data communications that make the
`
`detailed monitoring and control possible is effectuated by packet-based data
`
`communication. (Col. 5, ll. 37-45; Col. 6, ll. 67 – col. 7, ll. 15.) A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in July 1996 would have understood that such packet-based
`
`transmission would include the Internet or World Wide Web. The Internet is, and
`
`was, the quintessential packet-based transmission network made possible by the
`
`Internet Protocol for packet routing. Moreover, Koether expressly describes using
`
`ISDN. (Col. 5, ll. 42-44.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`recognized the disclosure of ISDN to refer to an all-digital circuit-switched
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 17
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`network that provides access to packet switched networks and that ISDN is capable
`
`
`
`of transporting packets of information. Furthermore, prior to 1996, digital circuit-
`
`switcing had become the primary means of carriage for Internet packets.
`
`Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to July 1996 would have
`
`known to use the Internet as the network for transmitting signals from the kitchen
`
`base station to the control center, as ISDN and Internet services were commonly
`
`available and would have yielded a predictable result of successful signal
`
`transmission. Moreover, no discussion of human or user intervention, would
`
`confirm to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the
`
`generation and receipt of data between the devices of Koether was automatic.
`
`38.
`
`In claim 8 of the ‘130 patent, there is an element that states the first signal
`
`between the first control device and the premises appliance is via a wireless device.
`
`As Koether makes clear, the kitchen appliance can communicate through a
`
`wireless device and thus one of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have
`
`understood that the controller would communicate with the appliance though
`
`signals such as RF or wireless link. (Col 4, ll. 28-29.) Moreover, the Koether
`
`patent describes prior art controllers that could work with multiple appliances. See
`
`Paragraph 27 above. Combined with Koether’s discussion of using the cellular
`
`channel for all communications with the Koether system, a person of ordinary skill
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 18
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`in the art would have understood that the signal between the first control device
`
`and the appliance could advantageously be wireless. (Col. 7, ll. 46-49.)
`
`39.
`
`In claim 12 of the ‘130 patent, there is an element that recites that the
`
`premises appliance is a monitoring device for one of fuel supply, electrical
`
`generator, water usage, heat usage, air conditioning usage, electricity usage, and so
`
`on. The Koether patent makes clear that the microprocessor controller “may
`
`include built in intelligent sensing and diagnostic equipment, which coupled
`
`through an interface board, detect and identify various types of failures.” (Col. 4,
`
`ll. 60-67.) For example, Koether explains that the controller monitors and thus
`
`“regulates the percentage of time power is applied to the heating (or cooling)
`
`element in accordance with the cooking parameters selected by the user.” (Col. 4,
`
`ll. 52-54.) Koether also explains how the controller can pulse the power supply
`
`when needed. (Col. 4, ll. 55-59.) This includes operation in an on/off manner
`
`similar to a thermostat. Koether also teaches various forms of diagnostic
`
`information transmitted by the appliance, including statistical cooking data such as
`
`hours of operation. (C0l. 9, ll. 7-43.). Given the intelligent sensing and diagnostic
`
`capabilities of the kitchen appliance controllers, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that this diagnostic information is monitored and recorded by
`
`kitchen appliance controller. Based on this disclosure, it would have been obvious
`
`
`
`17
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 19
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`for a person of skill in the art to use the microprocessor controller of Koether to
`
`monitor for uses such as fuel, electricity, and heating and air.
`
`40. Claim 15 specifies a monitoring device that detects an occurrence that
`
`warrants providing notice to, for example, a user. The Koether patent teaches this
`
`when it describes the microprocessor controller using its intelligent sensing to
`
`identify types of failures, which would be a condition that warrants providing
`
`notice to a user. (Col. 4, ll. 60-67.) Accordingly, the kitchen appliances of
`
`Koether are monitoring devices that provide information that a user may need to
`
`know.
`
`41. Further, in claim 15, once the monitoring device detects an occurrence
`
`warranting notice, the apparatus as a whole provides information about the
`
`occurrence via one of a telephone call, a voice message, a pager message, an
`
`electronic mail message, or a fax transmission. There is no requirement of the
`
`destination of the information about the occurrence, only the medium for the
`
`transmission. Koether teaches providing notice of appliance failures through a
`
`telephone call in order to dispatch a repair person, who is authorized operator of
`
`the appliance. (Col. 9. ll. 61-67.) Examples of other persons for whom notice of
`
`an occurrence touching on an appliance may be the operator of the appliance,
`
`kitchen staff, management of the kitchen, or even the franchise owner. Each of
`
`these classes of persons may be users of the appliance and are likely to need to be
`
`
`
`18
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 20
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`informed of gross degradation as the Koether patent explains can be provided
`
`directly to the appliance. (Col. 8, ll. 61-67.) Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art in July, 1996 would have understood that providing such notice by phone or
`
`electronic mail message (as electronic message is expressly described at Column 8,
`
`lines 61-67) would be an obvious way of effecting the claimed notice, and would
`
`be beneficial in order to provide notice that a repair person has been dispatched
`
`and efforts to rectify the situation are under way.
`
`42. Claim 17 adds that a signal containing information about either confirmation
`
`or notification be generated by the first control device. Because of Koether’s
`
`discussion of, for example, the real-time control of the kitchen appliance by the
`
`remote control center 170, as well as the bidirectional communication between the
`
`kitchen appliance, kitchen base station, and control center, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in July, 1996, would have understood that the kitchen appliance
`
`(monitoring or first control device) needed to provide notification or confirmation
`
`signals that actions, or in actions, have taken place. This was commonly
`
`understood by a person of skill in the art prior to July 1996 because there is
`
`otherwise no way for any remote monitoring or control device to know if its
`
`instructions have been followed through.
`
`43. Furthermore, Koether expressly teaches that the kitchen appliance controller
`
`knows if the appliance is in an idle or cook mode, and that the kitchen base station
`
`
`
`19
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 21
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`informs the control center of actions such as placing an appliance in the off state.
`
`(Col. 13. ll. 2-8.). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Koether would
`
`understand that a confirmation signal is generated by the kitchen appliance upon
`
`receiving a control command from the kitchen base station to turn the appliance
`
`off. At the very least, given the disclosure of Koether, it would have been obvious
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to July 1996 to incorporate such a
`
`confirmation signal from the kitchen appliance controller upon such an occurrence
`
`given the express sensing and diagnostic capabilities of the controllers, as well as
`
`the stated benefits of controlling, in real-time, power demand of kitchen
`
`appliances. (Col. 4, ll. 60-63; Col. 12, ll. 5-8).
`
`B. Crater
`
`44. The Crater patent was applied for on May 30, 1996. I am informed that this
`
`filing date, as it is before the date I have presumed is the earliest effective date for
`
`the Challenged Claims, makes Crater prior art to the Challenged Claims.
`
`45. The Crater patent is titled “Distributed Interface Architecture for
`
`Programmable Industrial Control Systems.” The Crater patent describes a system
`
`where “an integrated control system comprises one or more controllers each
`
`equipped to perform a control function and to gather data (ordinarily from sensors)
`
`relevant to the control function.” (Col. 2, ll. 56-59.) “For example, a chemical
`
`synthesis process may be carried out at a temperature controlled to stay within an
`
`
`
`20
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 22
`
`
`
`Declaration of Richard Bennett
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130
`
`
`operating range, but the optimal temperature may depend on the output of a
`
`previous process feeding into the synthesis; in this case, the temperature of the
`
`synthesis process as well as the output of the previous process are relevant control
`
`parameters with respect to the synthesis process.” (Col. 2, ll. 65 – Col. 3, ll. 4.)
`
`46. As the Crater patent goes on to detail, this remote monitoring and control
`
`system “utilizes the capabilities of the Internet and, more particularly, the
`
`interactive capabilities made available by resources such as the World Wide Web
`
`to shift the burden of providing user interfaces for changing forms of data from
`
`monitoring computers to the controllers that actually gather and report the data.”
`
`(Col. 2, ll. 40-45.) An example of the interconnected controllers, monitors, and
`
`user interfaces is shown Figure 2 of the Crater patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`Petitioner ComCox, LLC - Exhibit 1002 Page 23
`
`
`
`Declaration
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
