Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`________________
`
`COXCOM, LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01762
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits For Oral Hearing
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2010
`
`1
`
`
`________________
`
`COXCOM, LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01762
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits For Oral Hearing
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2010
`
`1
`
`
`
`The ‘130 Patent is Entitled to a Priority Date of
`March 27, 1996
`
`Petitioner incorrectly asserts that:
`
`• the March 1996 Application “does not disclose a processing
`device located at a premises;”
`
`• the March 1996 Application “never mentions a premise;” and
`
`• “a premises is not a vehicle and a vehicle is not a premises.”
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at 16-17.
`Petition at 13.
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2010
`
`2
`
`
`
`The ‘130 Patent is Entitled to a Priority Date of
`March 27, 1996 – The Term “Premises”
`
`The Board construed the term “premises” as:
`
`“a building or structure and the grounds or parcel of land associated
`with the building or the structure, or a building or structure or a
`portion, room, or office, of or in the building or structure, or a home,
`mobile home, mobile building, mobile structure, residence,
`residential building, office, commercial building, commercial office,
`structure, equipment, facility, machine, rig, assembly line, or edifice.”
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at 11.
`Decision at 8-9.
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2010
`
`3
`
`
`
`The ‘130 Patent is Entitled to a Priority Date of
`March 27, 1996 – The March 1996 Application
`
`March 1996 Application (Fig. 11B)
`
`• Server computer 952 is located at a
`premises (“On-Line Service and/or
`Internet Processing Site”).
`
`• Computer 970 is located at a
`premises (“Central Security
`Office”).
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at 17-19.
`EX1004 at Fig. 11 and 94.
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2010
`
`4
`
`
`
`The ‘130 Patent is Entitled to a Priority Date of
`March 27, 1996 – Petitioner’s Expert
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at 21.
`EX2005 at 44-45.
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2010
`
`5
`
`
`
`The ‘130 Patent is Entitled to a Priority Date of
`March 27, 1996 – Petitioner’s Expert
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at 22.
`EX2005 at 52.
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2010
`
`6
`
`
`
`The ‘130 Patent is Entitled to a Priority Date of
`March 27, 1996 – Petitioner’s Expert
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at 23.
`EX2005 at 48-49.
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2010
`
`7
`
`
`
`The ‘130 Patent is Entitled to a Priority Date of
`March 27, 1996 – Petitioner’s Expert
`
`Mr. Bennett was forced to concede that
`one of ordinary skill in the art in 1996
`would have understood how to take a
`vehicle control system and modify it to
`provide premises control.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at 24.
`EX2005 at 53.
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2010
`
`8
`
`
`
`The Koether and Crater References are Not Prior
`Art to the Challenged Claims of the ‘130 Patent
`
`• Koether has a priority date of May 2, 1996.
`
`• Crater has a priority date of May 30, 1996.
`
`• Because the challenged claims are entitled to the priority
`date of the March 27, 1996 Application, Koether and Crater
`are not prior art with respect to the challenged claims.
`
`• Ground 2, which rely on Koether and Crater, is
`thus deficient.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at 13-25.
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2010
`
`9
`
`
`
`Independent Claims 1 and 84
`
`• Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, “wherein the first
`processing device is associated with a web site” and
`“wherein the second signal is transmitted to the first
`processing device via, on, or over, at least one of the
`Internet and the World Wide Web.”
`
`•Independent claim 84 recites, inter alia, wherein the second
`signal is transmitted to the communication device via, on,
`or over, at least one of the Internet and the World Wide
`Web.”
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at 44-45.
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2010
`
`10
`
`
`
`Koether Does not Disclose, Teach or Suggest the
`use of the Internet or World Wide Web
`
`• The Board concluded that Koether alone does not disclose,
`teach or suggest the use of the Internet or World Wide Web.
`
`•The Board stated: “Petitioner has not explained persuasively
`how the limited description of ISDN or TDMA in this
`context teaches or suggests how the second signal is
`communicated over the Internet or World Wide Web”
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at 45.
`Decision at 11.
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2010
`
`11
`
`
`
`The Network used by Koether was Considered
`More Secure than the Internet
`
`• Koether teaches the use of an ISDN network that utilizes
`the X.25 protocol for “facilitating the sending of message
`data between kitchen base stations 150 (B1-B6) and control
`center 170.”
`
`•According to Petitioner’s expert, an “ISDN system” is “a
`digital telephone networking technology” and the X.25
`protocol “is a network-layer protocol that is similar in
`function to TCP/IP.”
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at 45.
`EX1008 at 5:42-49.
`EX2005 at 136.
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2010
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert Regarding the Network used
`by Koether
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at 46-47.
`EX2005 at 151.
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2010
`
`13
`
`
`
`Conventional Wisdom at the Time of the ‘363
`Patent was that the Internet was not Secure
`
`“The Internet is an open and inherently non-secure public system that
`requires the application of practical security solutions to keep intruders
`from entering corporate networks via the Internet (firewalls), to keep
`information which may be intercepted indecipherable (encryption), to
`allow commercial transactions (encryption and identification), to grant
`access to corporate network resources judiciously (token security and
`user authentication) . . . [t]he Internet connects many resources together,
`but there are no inherent, built-in security protocols, and few ways to
`stop messages from being intercepted.”
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at 48.
`EX2008 (Morgan Stanley’s “Internet Report”) at 109.
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2010
`
`14
`
`
`
`No Articulated Reasoning with Some Rationale
`Underpinning to Combine Crater with Koether
`
`Petitioner has failed to articulate any reasoning with some
`rational underpinning as to why one would incorporate into
`Koether a communications protocol (the Internet) that is less
`secure than the communications protocol already disclosed
`in Koether when there is absolutely no need, either
`articulated or implied, in Koether as to why the kitchen base
`stations would need to communicate with the control center
`over the less secure Internet or World Wide Web.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at 49.
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2010
`
`15
`
`
`
`Koether and Crater Fail to Disclose, teach or
`Suggest Another Key Feature of Claim 1
`
`• Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “wherein the first processing device
`determines whether an action or an operation associated with
`information contained in the second signal, to at least one of activate,
`de-activate, disable, re-enable, and control an operation of [a premises
`system/device/component] . . . is an authorized or an allowed
`operation.”
`
`• This limitation involves determining whether a desired control
`operation sent by a user or owner is an authorized or an allowed control
`operation.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at 49-51.
`EX1001 at claim 1.
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2010
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reliance on Crater is Misplaced
`
`• Petitioner asserts that “Crater also describes having the
`monitoring computer determine is the machine’s use is
`authorized.”
`
`• The section of Crater that Petitioner cites (8:53-9:14) for
`this assertion simply describes the use of a password access
`feature to authenticate a user, rather than authenticating a
`control command sent by a user.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at 50-51.
`Petition at 45.
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2010
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert On the Difference Between
`Authorizing a User and Authorizing an Action
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at 51.
`EX2009 at 20.
`
`JCMS - EXHIBIT 2010
`
`18
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
