IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO,
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent 8,013,732
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC’S PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01901
`U.S. Patent No. 8,000,314
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Conventional Control and Monitoring Systems ............................................................6
`
`The ’732 Patent: Mr. Thomas D. Petite and Richard M. Huff Invent A New
`Type Of Distributed System For Remote Monitoring and Control. ..............................9
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR REVIEW ..........................................14
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................................15
`
`A.
`
`Sensor (claims 13, 20, 26 and 31). ...............................................................................16
`
`V. THE PRIOR ART ....................................................................................................................17
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Kahn (Ex. 1002) ...........................................................................................................17
`
`Admitted Prior Art (APA) ...........................................................................................18
`
`Burchfiel (Ex. 1003) ....................................................................................................19
`
`VI. THE PETITIONER CANNOT PREVAIL ON ANY OBVIOUSNESS GROUND
`AGAINST ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’732 PATENT ...................................20
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Combination Of Kahn, the APA, and Burchfiel Would Not Have Taught
`That A “data controller [of a wireless device] is configured to receive data
`packets comprising a function code, and in response to the function code,
`implement a function” As Recited In Claim 16 ...........................................................21
`
`The Combination Of Kahn, the APA, and Burchfiel Would Not Have Taught
`“wireless enabled thermostat device … comprising: a memory to store one or
`more function codes corresponding to the thermostat device, the function
`codes corresponding to a number of functions the data controller can
`implement” As Recited In Claim 18 And As Similarly Recited In Claims 17
`and 24 ...........................................................................................................................25
`
`The Combination Of Kahn, the APA, and Burchfiel Would Not Have Taught
`That A “transceiver [of a wireless communication device] has a plurality of
`distinct predetermined function codes for inclusion into a data packet, and
`wherein the predetermined function codes are unique to the transceiver” As
`Recited In Claim 28 And As Similarly Recited In Claim 29. ......................................26
`
`D.
`
`The Combination Of Kahn, the APA, and Burchfiel Would Not Have Taught
`That “a controller [of a wireless communication system] comprises a memory
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01901
`U.S. Patent No. 8,000,314
`
`containing a plurality of function codes specific to the sensor” As Recited In
`Claim 35. ......................................................................................................................30
`
`The Petitioner Failed To Show That It Would Have Been Obvious To Modify
`Kahn With the APA To Achieve A Device Having A Transceiver That Is
`Configured To Wirelessly Retransmit Select Information, Identification
`Information Of A Nearby Transceiver, and Its Own Identification Information
`And A Data Controller Coupled To The Transceiver and Sensor, As Required
`By Each Of The Challenged Independent Claims Of The ‘732 Patent. ......................31
`
`The Petitioner Failed To Show That It Would Have Been Obvious To
`Combine Kahn and Burchfiel and APA To Achieve The Invention Of Any Of
`Claims 16-18, 24, 28, 29 and 35 The ‘732 Patent........................................................40
`
`The Petitioner Failed To Show That It Would Have Been Obvious To
`Combine Kahn, APA and Cerf To Achieve The Invention Of Claim 32 Of The
`‘732 Patent. ..................................................................................................................41
`
`The Petitioner Failed To Show That It Would Have Been Obvious To
`Combine Kahn, APA and Fisher Catalog Achieve The Invention Of Claim 23
`Of The ‘732 Patent. ......................................................................................................44
`
`The Petitioner Failed To Show That It Would Have Been Obvious To
`Combine Kahn, the APA, Burchfiel, HART Data Link, and HART Command
`To Achieve The Invention Of Claims 27 and 34 Of The ‘732 Patent. ........................45
`
`The Prior Art Would Not Have Taught Or Suggested “a data controller
`operatively coupled to the transceiver and the sensor, the data controller
`configured to … receive data from the sensor,” As Recited in Independent
`Claim 13 And As Similarly Recited In Independent Claims 20, 26, and 31
`Would Not Have Been Obvious In View Of The Prior Art .........................................46
`
`The Prior Art Would Not Have Taught Or Suggested “an actuator configured
`to receive command data from the controller and in response implement the
`command,” As Recited in Claim 19, And As Similarly Recited In Claims 14,
`25 And 30. ....................................................................................................................50
`
`The Prior Art Would Not Have Taught Or Suggested A Controller Configured
`to “format some data packets by concatenating received data packets with data
`packets formatted by the controller enabling the controller to prepare data for
`transmission that includes repeated data and sensed data,” As Recited In
`Independent Claim 26. .................................................................................................52
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`M.
`
`The Petitioner Failed To Set Forth A Proper Obviousness Analysis ...........................55
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................58
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01901
`U.S. Patent No. 8,000,314
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) ................................................... 1, 19, 53
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................ 1, 53
`
`OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am Induction Techs., Inc.,
`701 F.3d 698 (Fed. Cir. 2012). ........................................................ 1, 19, 37
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007). ............................ 15
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................ 15
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University,
` IPR2013-00298, Paper No. 18 (P.T.A.B. November 15, 2103) ............. 1, 37
`
`Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty,
`CMB-2012-00003, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012) ...................... 1, 53
`
`Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty,
`CMB-2012-00003, Paper No. 8 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012) ...................... 4, 54
`
`MPEP § 2143 ............................................................................................. 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01901
`U.S. Patent No. 8,000,314
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Expert Report of Dr. Kevin Almeroth.
`Dr. Kevin Almeroth’s Curriculum Vitae
`K. Ramachandran, E. Belding, K. Almeroth, and M.
`Buddhikot, “Interference-Aware Channel Assignment in
`Multi-Radio Wireless Mesh Networks,” IEEE Infocom,
`Barcelona, SPAIN, April 2006.
`B. Greeves, “SCADA Uses Radio to Bridge the Gap,”
`Sensor Review, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 31-34, 1994.
`Bristol Babcock Network 3000 Communications Users
`Guide
`O. Gurewitz, V. Mancuso, J. Shi, and E. Knightly,
`“Measurement and Modeling of the Origins of Starvation
`in Congestion Controlled Mesh Networks,” IEEE/ACM
`Transactions on Networking, vol. 17, num. 6, Pgs. 1832-
`1845, December 2009.
`Open Bristol System Interface Utilities Manual
`A. Flowers and S. Zeadally, “Cyberwar: The What,
`When, Why, and How,” IEEE Technology and Society
`Magazine, vol. 3, num. 3, Pgs. 14-21, Fall 2014.
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Heppe
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`2002
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`2008
`
`2009
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board should not cancel any of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,013,732 (“the ’732 patent”) because the Petitioner did not show by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that any of the claims are obvious for three
`
`separate and independent reasons.
`
`First, one or more of the limitations required by each of the challenged
`
`claims would not have been taught or suggested by the prior art to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (infra, §§ VI.A, B, and C). For example, the
`
`combination of Kahn, the so-called Admitted Prior Art (APA), and Burchfiel
`
`would not have taught to one of ordinary skill in the art that a “data controller
`
`[of a wireless device] is configured to receive data packets comprising a
`
`function code, and in response to the function code, implement a function” as
`
`recited in claim 16 (Ex. 1001, the ‘732 patent, col. 20, ll. 32-35). Instead of
`
`teaching the “function code” required by claim 16 and several other claims, the
`
`prior art teaches an address to a process.
`
`Similarly, the prior art combination would also not have taught “a
`
`memory to store one or more function codes corresponding to the device, the
`
`function codes corresponding to a number of functions the data controller can
`
`implement,” as recited in claim 18 (Ex. 1001, the ‘732 patent, col. 20, ll. 21-
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`44). In addition, the prior art combination would not have taught a “wireless
`
`enabled thermostat device … comprising: a memory to store one or more
`
`function codes corresponding to the thermostat device, the function codes
`
`corresponding to a number of functions the data controller can implement” as
`
`recited in claim 24. The prior art combination would also not have taught that
`
`a “transceiver [of a wireless communication device] has a plurality of distinct
`
`predetermined function codes for inclusion into a data packet, and wherein the
`
`predetermined function codes are unique to the transceiver,” as recited in
`
`claim 28. The prior art combination would not have taught that a “transceiver
`
`[of a wireless communication device] has a plurality of distinct predetermined
`
`function codes that are different from function codes associated with another
`
`wireless communication device,” as recited in claim 29. The prior art
`
`combination would not have taught that “a controller [of a wireless
`
`communication system] comprises a memory containing a plurality of function
`
`codes specific to the sensor,” as recited in claim 35.
`
`Second, the Petitioner’s obviousness rejections are all predicated on the
`
`false assumption that a skilled artisan could have achieved a system for remote
`
`wireless communication comprising a device having a transceiver that is
`
`configured to wirelessly retransmit select information, identification
`
`information of a nearby transceiver, and its own identification information, or
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`a data controller operatively coupled to a transceiver and a sensor, as required
`
`by independent claims 13, 20, 26, and 31 of the ’732 patent, by combining the
`
`teachings of Kahn with the APA.1
`
`The Petitioner did not present any objective evidence as to why one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kahn with the APA to achieve
`
`the claimed system of the ‘732 patent with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success.2 Rather, much of the Petitioner’s argument is mere unsupported
`
`attorney argument. Similarly, the Petitioner’s expert’s declaration is
`
`conclusory and unsupported by the record evidence. All of the Petitioner’s
`
`obviousness positions are based on an erroneous description of the Admitted
`
`Prior Art (APA) from the Specification of the ‘732 patent. In particular, the
`
`Petitioner and its expert referenced several portions of the ‘732 patent as being
`
`prior art that are, in fact, directed to various aspects of the invention and not
`
`the prior art. Also, neither the Petitioner nor its expert took into consideration
`
`the delay, interference, and security problems resulting from modifying the
`
`APA to operate in a wireless environment.
`
`
`1 Petition, pp. 20-54.
`
`2 See id.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`
`
`The Board has consistently declined to cancel claims in IPR proceedings
`
`when the Petition fails to identify any objective evidence such as experimental
`
`data, tending to establish that two different structures can be combined.3 Here,
`
`the Petitioner did not set forth any such objective evidence.4 For this
`
`additional reason, none of the challenged claims of the ’732 patent should be
`
`cancelled.
`
`Third, the Petitioner neglected to follow the legal framework for an
`
`obviousness analysis set forth long ago by the Supreme Court.5 That
`
`framework requires consideration of the following factors: (1) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter
`
`
`3 Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University, IPR2013-00298, Decision Not To
`
`Institute, Paper No. 18 (P.T.A.B. November 15, 2103).
`
`4 See e.g., Petition, pp. 20-54.
`
`5 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); see
`
`also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 399 (2007) (“While the sequence
`
`of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham]
`
`factors define the controlling inquiry.”)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`and the prior art, and (3) the level of skill in the art. The Board has previously
`
`warned that failure to identify differences between the cited art and the claims
`
`is a basis for denying a petition:
`
`A petitioner who does not state the differences between
`
`a challenged claim and the prior art, and relies instead on the
`
`Patent Owner and the Board to determine those differences based
`
`on the rest of the submission in the petition risks having the
`
`corresponding ground of obviousness not included for trial for
`
`failing to adequately state a claim for relief. 6
`
`The Petitioner ignored the Board’s warning by failing to identify the
`
`differences between the challenged claim and the prior art. That is, the
`
`Petitioner failed to identify the claim limitations that it believed are missing
`
`from the primary reference (i.e., Kahn) and are instead taught by the secondary
`
`references (e.g., the APA, Burchfiel, the Fisher catalog, Cerf, HART Data
`
`Link, and HART Command.)7 Rather, Petitioner provided a description of
`
`each reference followed by a conclusory statement that the references taught
`
`certain claim limitations, leaving the Board to figure out whether the primary
`
`
`6 Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty, CMB-2012-00003, Paper No. 7 at 2 – 3.
`
`7 Petition, pp. 20-54.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`or secondary reference best teaches the claim limitation.8 Under this
`
`circumstance, it would be “inappropriate for the Board to take the side of the
`
`Petitioner to salvage an inadequately expressed ground …”9
`
`For the reasons mentioned above as explained more fully below, the
`
`Petitioner failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that any of
`
`the challenged claims of the ‘732 patent should be cancelled.
`
`
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`A. Conventional Control and Monitoring Systems
`
`“[C]ontrol systems utilize computers to process system inputs, model
`
`system responses, and control actuators to implement process corrections
`
`within the system.”10 Types of control and monitoring systems include
`
`“aperiodic or random, periodic, and real-time.”11 “Aperiodic monitoring
`
`
`8 Id.
`
`9 Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty, CMB-2012-00003, Paper No. 7 at 2 – 3;
`
`Paper No. 8 at 14-15.
`
`10 Ex. 1001, col. 1:59-61.
`
`11 Id. at col. 2:1-2.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`systems (those that do not operate on a predetermined cycle) are inherently
`
`inefficient as they require a service technician to physically traverse an area to
`
`record data, repair out of order equipment, add inventory to a vending
`
`machine, and the like.”12 Periodic control systems include “meter monitoring,
`
`recording, and client billing.”13 Utility providers cut expenses by “increasing
`
`the period at which manual monitoring and meter data recording was
`
`performed.”14 Nonetheless, “the utility provider retained the costs associated
`
`with less frequent meter readings and the processing costs associated with
`
`reconciling consumer accounts.”15 Exemplary real time control systems
`
`include “[h]eating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems, fire reporting and
`
`damage control systems, alarm systems, and access control systems.”16 Real
`
`
`12 Id. at col. 2:5-9.
`
`13 Id. at col. 2:12-13.
`
`14 Id. at col. 2:17-18.
`
`15 Id. at col. 2:22-25.
`
`16 Id. at col. 2:27-29.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`time control systems present the most challenging problems because they
`
`“require immediate feedback and control.”17
`
`Typically, control and monitoring systems were implemented in remote,
`
`distributed environments by installing “a local network of hard-wired sensors
`
`and actuators along with a local controller.”18 Problems associated with this
`
`typical approach included “the costs associated with the sensor-actuator
`
`infrastructure required to monitor and control functions within such
`
`systems.”19 Additional problems included the “added expense of connecting
`
`functional sensors and controllers with the local controller. Another
`
`prohibitive cost associated with applying control systems technology to
`
`distributed systems is the installation and operational expense associated with
`
`the local controller.”20
`
`
`17 Id. at col. 2:30-31.
`
`18 Id. at col. 2:38-40.
`
`19 Id. at col. 2:35-37.
`
`20 Id. at col. 2:42-46.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Accordingly, there existed a need to overcome the shortcomings of the
`
`prior art with “an alternative solution to applying monitoring and control
`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`system solutions to distributed systems.”21
`
`
`
`B. The ’732 Patent: Mr. Thomas D. Petite and Richard M. Huff Invent A
`New Type Of Distributed System For Remote Monitoring and Control.
`
`To solve the problems associated with the prior art systems, the
`
`inventors of the ’732 patent created a new “system for monitoring a variety of
`
`environmental and/or other conditions within a defined remotely located
`
`region.”22 FIG. 2 of the ‘732 patent, reproduced below, illustrates “a
`
`monitoring/control system of the present invention.”23
`
`
`21 Id. at col. 2:46-48.
`
`22 Id., Abstract.
`
`23 Id. at col. 4:42-43.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`
`
`The system disclosed and claimed in the ’732 patent includes
`
`“sensor/actuators 212, 214, 216, 222, and 224 each integrated with a
`
`transceiver.”24 The system further includes “a plurality of stand-alone
`
`transceivers 211, 213, 215, and 221. Each stand-alone transceiver 211, 213,
`
`
`24 Id. at col. 5:65-67.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`215, and 221 and each of the integrated transceivers 212, 214, 216, 222, and
`
`224 may be configured to receive an incoming RF transmission (transmitted by
`
`a remote transceiver) and to transmit an outgoing signal.”25 “Local gateways
`
`210 and 220 are configured and disposed to receive remote data transmissions
`
`from the various standalone transceivers 211, 213, 215, and 221 or integrated
`
`transceivers 212, 214, 216, 222, and 224 having an RF signal output level
`
`sufficient to adequately transmit a formatted data signal to the gateways. Local
`
`gateways 210 and 220 analyze the transmissions received, convert the
`
`transmissions into TCP/IP format and further communicate the remote data
`
`signal transmissions via WAN 230.”26 In particular, “local gateways 210 and
`
`220 may communicate information, service requests, control signals, etc. to
`
`remote sensor/actuator transceiver combinations 212, 214, 216, 222, and 224
`
`from server 260, laptop computer 240, and workstation 250 across WAN
`
`230.”27
`
`
`25 Id. at col. 6:15-20.
`
`26 Id. at col. 6:32-40.
`
`27 Id. at col. 6:41-45.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`The integrated transceivers “have a unique identification code (e.g.,
`
`transmitter identification number) 326, that uniquely identifies the transmitter
`
`to the functional blocks of control system 200 (see FIG. 2).”28 The integrated
`
`transceivers transmit to the standalone transceivers a data packet 330 including
`
`“a function code, as well as, a transmitter identification number.”29 A
`
`standalone transceiver receiving a data packet 330 from an integrated
`
`transceiver forms its own data packet “by concatenating received data packet
`
`330 with its own transceiver identification code 326.”30
`
`In addition, FIG. 3D shows “a block diagram further illustrating the
`
`transceiver of FIG. 3C in light of the home heating system” (Ex. 1001, ‘732
`
`patent, col. 10, ll. 45-47). FIG. 3D illustrates the storage of function codes in a
`
`memory of a transceiver:
`
`Specifically, transceiver 360 is shown with four specific parameters
`
`related to four specific function codes as illustrated in look up table
`
`325. In this regard, sensor(s) 310 (one sensor shown for simplicity)
`
`inputs a data signal to data interface 321. Data controller receives
`
`an input from data interface 321 that it associates with a specific
`
`function code as shown in look up table 325. CITE
`
`
`28 Id. at col. 8:44-47.
`
`29 Id. at col. 8:51-53.
`
`30 Id. at col. 11:8-9.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`In one embodiment, function codes are also used in a system to monitor
`
`parking spaces: “Parking spaces 940 may be configured with vehicle sensors.
`
`Sensor-transceiver assembly 932 may be configured to transmit a function code
`
`associated with the condition of parking spaces 1, 2, 3, and 4. (Ex. 1001, col.
`
`13, ll. 47-50). In another embodiment, control signals are translated to unique
`
`function codes:
`
`a system can be configured using the present invention to translate
`
`and transmit control signals from an existing local controller via
`
`the networked wireless transceivers. In this regard, the system of
`
`the present invention would require a data translator to tap into
`
`the data stream of an existing control system. Distinct control
`
`system signals may be mapped to function codes used by the
`
`present invention in order to provide customer access to control
`
`system data. In this way, the system of the present invention can
`
`be integrated with present data collection and system controllers
`
`inexpensively, as customers will only have to add a data translator
`
`and a wireless transmitter or transceiver as the application
`
`demands. By integrating the present invention with the data
`
`stream generated by present monitoring and control systems,
`
`potential customers enjoy the benefits of the present invention
`
`without the difficulties associated with integrating sensors and
`
`actuators to monitor individual system parameters. (Ex. 1001, col.
`
`4, ll. 16-30).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`Accordingly, the disclosed invention includes a system for remote
`
`wireless communication comprising a device having a transceiver that is
`
`configured to wirelessly retransmit select information, identification
`
`information of a nearby transceiver, and its own identification information; a
`
`sensor; and a data controller operatively coupled to the transceiver and the
`
`sensor.
`
`
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
`
`For the Board’s convenience below is a summary (as understood by
`
`Patent Owner) of the claim rejections instituted in this IPR proceeding:
`
`1.
`
`Claims 13, 14, 19-21, 25, 26, 30, 31 and 33 are alleged to be
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Kahn in view of the APA;
`
`2.
`
`Claims 16-18, 24, 28, 29 and 35 are alleged to be obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Kahn in view of APA, and Burchfiel;
`
`3.
`
`Claim 23 is alleged to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
`
`on Kahn in view of APA and the Fisher Catalog;
`
`4.
`
`Claim 32 is alleged to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
`
`on Kahn in view of APA, and Cerf; and
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`5.
`
`Claims 27 and 34 are alleged to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) based on Kahn in view of APA, Burchfiel, HART Data Link, and
`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`HART Command.
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Patent Owner opposes the Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions.
`
`The Petitioner’s proposed constructions generally ignore the context of the
`
`terms within the claim, and the Specification of the ‘732 patent.
`
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic
`
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Additionally, the
`
`“appropriate context” to read a claim term includes both the specification and
`
`the claim language itself. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010). If a term is “used differently by the inventor,” he may provide a
`
`special definition if he does so with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`A.
`
`Sensor (claims 13, 20, 26 and 31).
`
`The Petitioner used the same construction for “sensor” as previously set
`
`forth in the district court case SIPCO v. ABB31 to be “equipment, program, or
`
`device that monitors or measures the state or status of a parameter or condition and
`
`provides information concerning the parameter or condition”. However, that
`
`construction for “sensor” was overridden in a later district court case SIPCO v.
`
`Amazon32. The court in Amazon discussed the construction of the term “sensor”
`
`in ABB in detail and although substantially agreed with that construction, the
`
`court in Amazon determined that “equipment” and “program” should be
`
`omitted, as there was no support in the specification to include such terms in
`
`the construction. Therefore, as decided by the court in Amazon, “sensor”
`
`should be construed to mean “device that monitors or measures the state or
`
`status of a condition and provides information concerning the condition.”33
`
`This is the broadest reasonable construction of “sensor” in light of the
`
`specification and should be adopted in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`31 Ex. 1006, pp. 25-29.
`
`32 Ex. 1007, pp. 26-30.
`
`33 Id., p. 30.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`V. THE PRIOR ART
`
`A. Kahn (Ex. 1002)
`
`Kahn discusses “the basic concepts of packet radio … and present[s] the
`
`recent technology and system advances in this field. Various aspects of spread
`
`spectrum transmission in the network environment are identified and our
`
`experience with a testbed network in the San Francisco Bay area is discussed”
`
`(Ex. 1002, Abstract). Kahn explains that “[i]n a point-to-point routing
`
`procedure, a packet originating at one part of the network proceeds directly
`
`through a series of one or more repeaters until it reaches its final destination.
`
`The point-to-point route (which consists of an ordered set of selectors) is first
`
`determined by a station which is the only element in the net that knows the
`
`current overall system connectivity” (Id. at p. 1479).
`
`Significantly, Kahn does not teach a wireless communication system
`
`comprising a device having a transceiver that is configured to wirelessly
`
`retransmit i) select information, ii) identification information of a nearby
`
`transceiver, and iii) its own identification information, as required by each of
`
`challenged independent claims 13 and 20. Kahn also does not teach: i) a data
`
`controller operatively coupled to a transceiver and a sensor, ii) the data
`
`controller providing a control signal to an actuator for implementation of a
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`command, or iii) an actuator configured to receive command data from the
`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`controller and in response implement the command.
`
`B. Admitted Prior Art (APA)
`
`The ‘732 patent includes one and only one figure (i.e., FIG. 1) that is
`
`directed to “a prior art control system” (Ex. 1001, ‘732 patent, col. 4, l. 41).
`
`The beginning portion of the ‘732 patent discusses the prior art (id. at col. 1, l.
`
`32 – col. 2, l. 46 and col. 5, ll. 24-61). For example, the ‘732 patent describes a
`
`prior art system of sensors connected to a local controller that is connected to a
`
`central control via a Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN):
`
`prior art control system 100 includes a plurality of sensor actuators
`
`111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, and 117 electrically coupled to a
`
`local controller 110. In a manner well known in the art of control
`
`systems, local controller 110 provides power, formats and applies
`
`data signals from each of the sensors to predetermined process
`
`control functions, and returns control signals as appropriate to the
`
`system actuators. Often, prior art control systems are further
`
`integrated via the public switched telephone network (PSTN) 120
`
`to a central controller 130 (id. at col. 5, ll. 35-44).
`
`Significantly, Petitioner and its expert, Dr. Heppe, incorrectly identified
`
`as prior art passages about various applications of the invention of the ‘732
`
`patent near the end of the patent, far from the small portion that is directed to
`
`the prior art (see e.g., Ex. 1004, ¶ 30). As explained by Dr. Almeroth, Dr.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`Heppe incorrectly identified several cites of the ‘732 patent as prior art that are
`
`not, in fact, discussing the prior art:
`
` 2:34-37 (multiple times): not part of the APA
`
` 5:48-61: not part of the APA
`
` 13:11-17: not part of the APA
`
` 13:50-55: