DECLARATION OF DR. STEPHEN HEPPE IN SUPPORT OF INTER
`
`PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 8,013,732
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`Page 1
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 1 of 93
`
`
`
`PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 8,013,732
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`Page 1
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 1 of 93
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS ....................................................................... 3
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSITA) ............................................. 7
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................. 7
`
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART CONSIDERED ................................................................. 12
`
`ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS 13, 14, 16-21, and 23-35 ......................................................... 27
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`Page 2
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 2 of 93
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I am over 18 years of age. I have personal knowledge of the facts
`
`stated in this Declaration and could testify competently to them if asked to do so.
`
`2.
`
`I obtained a Bachelor’s of Science degree in electrical engineering and
`
`computer science at Princeton University in 1977, a Master’s of Science degree in
`
`electrical engineering (specializing in communications) from The George
`
`Washington University (GWU) in 1982, and a Doctor of Science in electrical
`
`engineering (specializing in communications, with minors in operations research
`
`and electrophysics) in 1989. I have worked in the fields of radio communication,
`
`computer and network communications, packet radio, and ad hoc packet radio
`
`networking since 1977. In the late 1980’s, I was the lead communications engineer
`
`on a project demonstrating differentially-corrected GPS-based precision approach
`
`for a military aircraft. This system relied on the AX.25 packet radio specification
`
`for air/ground communications. From 1995 through 2002, I worked on standards
`
`as well as hardware and software for an ad hoc (distributed) airborne packet radio
`
`system that could exchange GPS position reports and data between aircraft and
`
`ground stations. This included augmentations that provided routing and
`
`transmission of user data through the airborne stations, allowing transfer of data
`
`between aircraft and distant ground stations connected to the Internet or other wide
`
`area networks. My detailed CV is provided as Exhibit 1011 to the Petition.
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`Page 3
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 3 of 93
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked by the Petitioner, Emerson, to provide my opinions
`
`about the technical issues addressed below. I am being compensated for my time
`
`spent on this matter at my standard hourly compensation rate. I have no financial
`
`interest in the outcome of this or any related proceeding. My compensation is not
`
`dependent upon the opinions that I am providing in this declaration.
`
`4.
`
`I have reviewed U.S. Patent 8,013,732 (“the ‘732 patent”), its file
`
`history, and the prior art citations noted in my analysis and opinions.
`
`5.
`
`The ‘732 patent, awarded to Petite and Huff, claims a priority date of
`
`October 14, 1998 based on application No. 09/172,554. According to the Abstract,
`
`it is directed to a system for monitoring a variety of environmental and/or other
`
`conditions within a defined remotely located region, such as, e.g., utility meters in
`
`a defined area. The system is implemented using transmitters integrated into
`
`sensors (each) adapted to monitor a particular data input, transceivers dispersed
`
`throughout a region, and a gateway to translate and transfer information from the
`
`transmitters to a dedicated computer on a network. The system further includes
`
`means for identifying and applying an appropriate control signal at a designated
`
`actuator.
`
`6.
`
`Figure 2 of the ‘732 patent, shown below, illustrates a few of the key
`
`elements as described in the Abstract. Note that sensors and actuators can both be
`
`integrated with a transceiver.
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`Page 4
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 4 of 93
`
`
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 5 of 93
`
`
`
`7.
`
`FIG. 2 illustrates a control system 200 described by the ‘732 patent.
`
`One or more sensor/actuators are integrated with transceivers to transmit an RF
`
`signal comprising sensed data as well as a transmitter identification code or
`
`address. ‘732 at 5:65-6:3; 9:46-50; 15:19-25; FIGs 11, 12. The ‘732 provides
`
`examples of sensors and actuators such as a smoke detector, thermostat, or a
`
`security system (6:11-14), as well as carbon monoxide and door position sensors
`
`(9:55-57). A plurality of stand-alone radio-frequency (RF) transceivers are also
`
`dispersed geographically at defined locations and are configured to receive RF
`
`transmissions (comprising e.g. sensed data and a transmitter identification
`
`code/address), from a remote transceiver, and transmit an outgoing signal
`
`comprising the received data and the stand-alone transceiver’s own identification
`
`code/address. 3:26-31; 6:15-31; 7:15-20; 10:54-56; FIG 2. While the RF signals
`
`can be low-power (6:2-3), they could also be higher-power (6:20-21). A local
`
`gateway(s) is (are) configured to receive data transmissions from the various stand-
`
`alone or integrated transceivers (i.e., containing sensed data and a transmitter
`
`identification address), convert (translate) the transmissions to TCP/IP format, and
`
`provide the data to a computer over a WAN. 6:32-47. The computer collects,
`
`compiles and stores the data for retrieval upon client demand, and can also identify
`
`an appropriate control signal (i.e., for applying at a designated actuator). ‘732
`
`patent, Abstract.
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`Page 6
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 6 of 93
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSITA)
`
`8.
`
`The subject matter of the ‘732 patent relates to radio communication,
`
`computer communication over local and wide-area networks, protocols for packet
`
`data communication and routing, and error control. In my experience, these
`
`subjects are normally taught at the graduate level in electrical engineering degree
`
`programs, and would consume roughly one year of focused study. It is also
`
`certainly possible for diligent engineers to learn these subjects “on the job”,
`
`although the competing demands of a typical work environment would generally
`
`slow the pace of learning in these specific fields (while possibly offering a more
`
`diverse learning experience in a wider variety of specialties). Accordingly, it is my
`
`opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ‘732 patent has,
`
`through formal education or practical experience, the equivalent of a Bachelor’s
`
`Degree in Electrical Engineering and 2-3 years of experience in the development
`
`and design, or technical marketing, of radio communications or computer network
`
`systems.
`
`9. My analysis and interpretation of the ‘732 patent and the prior art is
`
`from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art circa 1998.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`10.
`
`I have been informed that a claim in inter partes review is given the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification. In the
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`Page 7
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 7 of 93
`
`
`
`subsections below, I offer my opinions on some of the terms used in the claims at
`
`issue in this inter partes review (IPR). The constructions set forth below are
`
`provided for the purposes of this IPR only, and may be different than constructions
`
`I would propose in litigation forums using a different standard.
`
`A.
`
`“sensor” (‘732; claims 13, 20, 26, 31, 35)
`
`11. The specification teaches a variety of analog and digital sensors with
`
`continuous (analog) or binary (digital) outputs. See, e.g., 9:27-38; 10:7-13. The
`
`scope of “sensor” does not appear to be limited by the specification, which
`
`provides a very broad context for the term: “The system comprises one or more
`
`sensors to be read and/or actuators to be controlled remotely.” (3:6-8; emphasis
`
`added). The specification provides examples of sensors including those for a
`
`thermostat temperature set value, an ambient temperature, and other parameters
`
`such as system on/off and operating mode. Id., 10:10:7-16. The specification also
`
`teaches sensors for alarm status (9:29-31; 9:46-50) and utility meter operational
`
`status and usage (12:40-46). The specification also teaches that a data interface,
`
`sensor and actuator can be replaced with a GPS receiver which inputs a data signal
`
`containing latitude and longitude coordinates to a data controller (11:1-7). A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions (“POSITA”) would
`
`interpret this as a teaching that the sensor can be a GPS receiver, and a sensor
`
`value or output can be a latitude and longitude. Accordingly, I believe the BRI for
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`Page 8
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 8 of 93
`
`
`
`“sensor” should be an 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. Parameters and conditions
`
`falling within the scope of the term should be understood to include heat, chemical
`
`detections, position, location, and operating parameters and conditions including
`
`user-generated inputs or data.
`
`B.
`
`“actuator” (‘732; claims 14, 19, 21, 25, 30, 31)
`
`12.
`
`This term appears initially in the Abstract as a point at which a control
`
`signal may be applied. See also, ‘732 at 1:54-61; 3:6-8. For example, the
`
`specification teaches an actuator that can apply control signals to a manual
`
`temperature control for a temperature set point, a climate mode control switch, and
`
`a system on/off switch (‘732 at 10:19-25), or a water supply valve (13:28-33). The
`
`specification does not appear to limit the scope of the term “actuator” relative to its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning as would be understood by a POSITA circa 1998.
`
`Given the related nature of actuators to monitored parameters (10:63-65), it is my
`
`opinion that the BRI for actuator should be an equipment, program, or device
`
`that controls or affects the state or status of a parameter or condition.
`
`C.
`
`“function code” (732; claims 16, 17, 18, 24, 28, 29, 35)
`
`13.
`
`The ‘732 patent describes the “function code” as a code corresponding
`
`to an event that occurred, or a condition, or a function to be performed by a device
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`Page 9
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 9 of 93
`
`
`
`or controller receiving the code. For example, the ‘732 patent states that a
`
`“[u]nique transmitter identification code 326 coupled with a function code for a
`
`smoke alarm on condition is formatted by data controller 324 for transformation
`
`into a RF signal ….” Id., 9:46-50. In a similar vein, in the originating
`
`transmitter/transceiver, the ‘732 patent explains that “[l]ookup table 325 may be
`
`provided to assign a given and unique function code for each button pressed.” ‘732
`
`at 9:11-13. The ‘732 goes on to teach, in relation to FIG. 3A, that “additional
`
`codes may be provided as necessary to accommodate additional functions or
`
`features of a given transmitter 320. Thus, in operation, a user may depress the
`
`emergency button 329, which is detected by the data formatter 324. The data
`
`formatter 324 may then use the information pertaining to the emergency button
`
`329 to access a look up table 325 to retrieve a code that is uniquely assigned to
`
`emergency button 329.” ‘732 at 9:13-23. FIG. 3A does not actually illustrate a
`
`look up table 325, but a look up table 325 is shown in FIG. 3D related to a home
`
`heating system addressed at 9:65 – 10:67. It illustrates look up table 325 as having
`
`four “function codes”, numbered 1 through 4, associated with “Temperature Set”,
`
`“On/Off”, “Actual Temperature”, and “Air/Heat”.1
`
`
`1 The illustrated table contains ellipses indicating that other codes may exist; however, the ‘732
`patent does not appear to teach the transmission (transfer) of any parameter values associated
`with these function codes -- e.g., the value of the actual or desired temperature, or the status of
`the on/off or air/heat switches. Thus, the teachings of the ‘732 specification appear to be
`incomplete.
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`Page 10
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 10 of 93
`
`
`
`14. The ‘732 patent also explains that, at the gateway, “[a]nother look up
`
`table may be used to associate function codes with the interpretation thereof. For
`
`example, a unique code may be associated by a look up table to identify functions
`
`such as test, temperature, smoke alarm active, security system breach, etc.” Id.,
`
`11:47-51. The look-up tables are stored in memory. Id., 11:42-44.
`
`15.
`
`In addition to function codes corresponding to a condition or an event
`
`that occurred at the originating transmitter/transceiver, the look-up tables may also
`
`store code segments which largely control the operation of a computer. Id., 11:51-
`
`54. “Consistent with the invention, additional, fewer, or different code segments
`
`may be provided to carryout different functional operations and data signal
`
`transfers throughout the transceiver network.” Id., 11:64-67, emphasis added.
`
`Claims 16 and 18 also describe “function codes” as corresponding to functions that
`
`a data controller can implement. Thus, a function code can be used to indicate a
`
`condition sensed or a function performed at the originating end, or it may be used
`
`to perform (implement) certain functions.
`
`16.
`
`In light of these considerations, and the realization that “events” can
`
`also be considered to fall within the scope of “conditions”, “function code” should
`
`be construed as a code corresponding to a function or condition.
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`Page 11
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 11 of 93
`
`
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART CONSIDERED
`
`17. Kahn, et. al., “Advances in Packet Radio Technology” [Kahn], was
`
`published in The Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 66, No. 11. The Proceedings of
`
`the IEEE is a compendium of articles that are physically bound together and
`
`mailed to the IEEE members that subscribe to the “Proceedings.” The Kahn article
`
`is dated November 1978. I have been a member of IEEE for many years, and have
`
`read IEEE articles and publications throughout my professional career. In my
`
`experience, the publication dates listed on articles like Kahn accurately reflect the
`
`date that the article was published to the relevant public.
`
`18. Kahn provides an overview of the basic concepts of packet radio,
`
`including a then-current (1978) description of a particular packet radio network
`
`(“PRNET”), a multi-hop, multi-access packet radio network sponsored by the
`
`Advanced Research Projects Agency (“ARPA”). Kahn, pp. 1468-69. While the
`
`original purpose of the packet radio development effort was for military computer
`
`communications, Kahn explains that the concept of a packet radio network is
`
`applicable to an extremely wide range of communications applications (1469, col.
`
`1). The individual nodes in the network – the packet radios (“PRs”) – comprise a
`
`radio unit and a digital unit. The radio unit is a transmitter and receiver. The
`
`digital unit comprises a micro-processor and memory for control of the packet
`
`radio, buffering of data packets, and storage of software. For example, the
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`Page 12
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 12 of 93
`
`
`
`microprocessor selects the transmission frequency, data rate, transmit power, and
`
`time of transmission. The microprocessor also performs packet processing to route
`
`the packet through the network (Kahn, p. 1477), and can be connected to a terminal
`
`or “station” that provides additional functionality. See, e.g., Kahn, Fig. 13 and Fig.
`
`14. Data received from an attached device (e.g., a terminal) is detected by the
`
`digital section, which adds some network routing and control information and
`
`passes the packet to the radio section for transmission. Id., p. 1477. The unit of
`
`transmission in the network is a packet that includes a number of data bits that
`
`include “all the addressing and control information necessary to correctly route it
`
`to its destination.” Id., p. 1468, pp. 1478-79.
`
`19. The PRNET was normally connected to the ARPANET. Id., p. 1494
`
`(the ARPANET later became known as the internet). The connection to the
`
`ARPANET was accomplished through a gateway process co-located with the
`
`station. Id.
`
`20. According to Kahn, “[a] primary objective of a packet radio network
`
`is to support real-time interactive communications between computer resources
`
`(hosts) connected to the network and user terminals (e.g., terminal-host, host-host,
`
`and terminal-terminal interactions).” Kahn, p. 1469, col. 2 and Fig. 9 (see below).
`
`While this figure appears to distinguish radio nodes that are “terminals” from
`
`“repeaters”, Kahn teaches that there is no such distinction in at least some
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`Page 13
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 13 of 93
`
`
`
`applications: “For military operation, where a separate backbone network might
`
`be infeasible to deploy, each user’s radio might be equipped to support not only his
`
`own traffic but that of other designated users… In this case, we do not identify a
`
`separate backbone repeater network per se, since it would be indistinguishable
`
`from the network of user packet radios.” Id., p. 1477, col. 1. Thus, the “repeaters”
`
`in Fig. 9 can also represent nodes associated with a baseband terminal that
`
`represent a source or destination of data traffic.
`
`
`
`21. Burchfiel, et. al., “Functions and Structure of a Packet Radio
`
`Station,” [Burchfiel] was published as part of the National Computer Conference,
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`Page 14
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 14 of 93
`
`
`
`1975. It is referenced in Kahn (p. 1477, col. 1 [note 24]), and provides additional
`
`information on the function of Kahn’s stations, repeaters and terminals – each of
`
`which comprises a packet radio. The three general functions of a packet radio,
`
`identified by Burchfiel, are control, debugging and measurement. Burchfiel, p.
`
`247, col. 1. As illustrated in Fig. 1 (reproduced below), Burchfiel teaches that a
`
`common packet radio unit forms the basis of each station, repeater, and terminal.
`
`The basic packet radio unit acts as a repeater. Id., p. 245, col. 2. The “addition of
`
`the station interface hardware and software options converts it to a station.” Id.
`
`The “addition of the terminal interface hardware and software option converts it to
`
`a terminal.” Id., pp. 245-46.
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 15 of 93
`
`
`
`22. Burchfiel also explains that the communication protocol used between
`
`packet radios is based on a layered protocol which includes source and destination
`
`addresses and a “function field” in addition to embedded data. Burchfiel, p. 247,
`
`col. 1 and Fig. 3 (reproduced below). The code in the function field is an address
`
`that, within a receiving packet radio, “selects the control process, the debugging
`
`process, or the measurement process.” Id. Thus, the function code causes the
`
`receiving packet radio to implement one of three different processes – control,
`
`debugging, or measurement.
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 16 of 93
`
`
`
`23. Cerf and Kirstein, “Issues in Packet-Network Interconnection”
`
`[Cerf], was published in Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 66, No. 11, November
`
`1978 (the same issue as Kahn). Cerf describes early ideas of internetworking -
`
`communicating across more than one network - when the two ends of the
`
`connection are on different provider’s networks. Cerf p. 1387, col. 1; p. 1388, col.
`
`2. Networks included Xerox ETHERNET, LCSNET, packet radios, etc. Id., p.
`
`1338, col. 2. Cerf, which Kahn explicitly identified in his paper in relation to the
`
`“gateway process” between Kahn’s PRNET and the ARPANET (Kahn at 1494,
`
`col. 2, note [34]), describes four different options for creating an “internetwork.”
`
`Cerf, pp. 1393 – 99. Each of these options uses a gateway between the networks,
`
`but the role of the gateway in each option differs. According to Cerf’s Option 3,
`
`“The basic model of network interconnection for the datagram host gateway is that
`
`internetwork datagrams will be carried to and from hosts and gateways and
`
`between gateways by encapsulation of the datagrams in local network packets.
`
`Pouzin describes this process generically as ‘wrapping’ [37].” Id., p. 1397, col. 2.
`
`24. Cerf’s Option 4 provides for translating protocols of the networks
`
`coupled by the gateway. Cerf at pp. 1398 - 1399. Rather than encapsulating a
`
`universal internetworking protocol inside each underlying network’s native
`
`protocol (a simple form of protocol translation), this option is one in which the
`
`protocols are semantically translated at the same layer. Id. The complexity of the
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`Page 17
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 17 of 93
`
`
`
`translation depends on the “commonality of concept between the protocols to be
`
`translated.” Id., p. 1399, col. 1.
`
`25. Fisher General Catalog 501. (“Fisher Catalog”). The Fisher
`
`Catalog describes several product lines from Fisher Controls International,
`
`oriented generally toward process control systems. Fisher Catalog, pp. 2-1 to
`
`2-4, summarizes the key elements needed for field automation including remote
`
`units, master computers, measurement and control elements, and communications;
`
`The Fisher Catalog, at pp. 4-9 and 4-10, and also at pp. 4-26 and 4-27, details
`
`several temperature controllers providing on/off control based on temperature – in
`
`other words, “thermostats”. Fisher describes a temperature controller as a device
`
`that “senses the temperature of liquids or gases, compares the temperature with a
`
`desired value (set point), and produces a pneumatic signal that can operate an
`
`actuator and control valve. By operating an actuator and valve, the controller
`
`maintains temperature at a value around set point.” Fisher, p. 4-9. While the on/off
`
`temperature controllers produce a pneumatic output signal instead of an electrical
`
`output signal, they still satisfy the definition of a “thermostat”. The on/off
`
`controller within the 4196 series is available with a remote set point option. Fisher
`
`Catalog, p. 4-27, footnote ‘1’ in table.
`
`26. HART Specification Documents. The HART Data Link Specifica-
`
`tion (“HART Data Link”), printed on March 28, 1988, and HART Universal
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`Page 18
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 18 of 93
`
`
`
`Command Specification (“HART Command”), publicly released on November 3,
`
`1990, describe the HART Communications Protocol. Each document was
`
`formally approved in December 1993. Neither of these documents were cited
`
`during prosecution of the ‘732 patent.
`
`27. HART Data Link shows the overall structure of the message format
`
`used in the HART Communications Protocol. In the Master-to-Slave message, the
`
`ADDR field contains the unique address (ID) of a field instrument (a slave device)
`
`in its lower four bits, and the CMD field tells the field instrument what it is
`
`supposed to do. The length of the data field depends on the command being used.
`
`HART Data Link, pp. 2, 3. In the Slave-to-Master message, the ADDR and CMD
`
`fields are echoed from the Master-to-Slave message. The response code can be
`
`used to describe how the field instrument dealt with the command, as well as the
`
`status of the instrument, and the data field depends on the nature of the command.
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 19 of 93
`
`
`
`28. Admitted Prior Art (“APA”). In the ‘732 patent, the applicants
`
`admitted that it was known to use sensors and actuators to monitor and
`
`automatically respond to system parameters
`
`to reach desired results. The applicants give
`
`examples of automated control systems
`
`including manufacturing processes,
`
`inventory systems, emergency control
`
`systems, heating, ventilation, and air
`
`conditioning systems, and fire reporting and
`
`damage control systems. ‘732 at 1:54-65;
`
`2:27-29. For example, Figure 1 of the ‘732
`
`patent shows a prior art system for
`
`monitoring and control. The prior art control system (100) includes a plurality of
`
`sensor/actuator pairs 111-117 coupled to local controller 110. Local controller 110
`
`formats and applies data signals from the sensors to process control functions. It
`
`also returns control signals from the process control functions to the actuators to
`
`effectuate changes in the control system. Id., 5:32-41. The control system 100 can
`
`also be integrated to a central controller 130 using a network such as the public
`
`switched telephone network (“PSTN”). Id., 5:42-44.
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`Page 20
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 20 of 93
`
`
`
`29. Motivation to Combine. There are several reasons why a POSITA
`
`would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the various references
`
`introduced above. A few of these are introduced here. Further analysis is provided
`
`in relation to my analysis of the claims.
`
`30. A first combination is Kahn with the admitted prior art (APA).
`
`The applicants note that a problem with expanding the use of control systems
`
`technology to distributed systems “are the costs associated with the sensor-
`
`actuator infrastructure required to monitor and control functions within such
`
`systems.” ‘732 at 2:34-37. The applicants note, in the context of a local
`
`network of hard-wired sensors and actuators, the expense of connecting the
`
`sensors and actuators with a local controller. Id., 2:37-43; 5:48-61. The
`
`applicants’ response to this perceived problem, at least in part, is to propose
`
`an RF network for the exchange of data. An RF network does not require the
`
`installation of physical wires and cables to connect the sensors/actuators with
`
`the local controller. The applicants also recognize that an RF system is easily
`
`expanded (see, e.g., 13:11-17; 13:50-55). The applicants also note the benefit
`
`of an RF network in the context of an automotive diagnostics monitoring
`
`system (Id., 12:53 – 13:6) where a sensor is associated with a mobile user.
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`Page 21
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 21 of 93
`
`
`
`31. Kahn combined with the APA solves the same problems noted by
`
`the applicants. The combination avoids the expense associated with
`
`installation of wiring between the sensors/actuators and the local controller,
`
`provides for expansion of the network, and supports mobile users. Kahn
`
`specifically notes the use of packet radio in the mobile environment (Kahn,
`
`1468 - 1469), and the advantage of broadcast radio technology (such as the
`
`PRNET discussed in the article) in terms of network deployment flexibility
`
`and reconfiguration, as compared with most fixed plant installations. Id.,
`
`1469, col. 1. Kahn expected to see “a considerable increase in the usage of
`
`civilian terminals and microcomputers ‘on the move’ during the early 1980’s
`
`but, in contrast to the military environment, these applications are expected to
`
`involve relatively simple equipment, reduced capabilities and lower costs.”
`
`Id. Thus, Kahn also recognized that cost is a factor for civilian applications.
`
`See also Kahn, p. 1477, col. 1 (routes are assigned by the station to minimize
`
`PR cost and complexity). Kahn also teaches that deployment of the packet
`
`radio net “should be rapid and convenient, requiring little more than
`
`mounting the equipment at the desired location… Once installed, the system
`
`should be self-initializing and self-organizing.” Id., 1470, col. 2. This aligns
`
`with the applicants’ awareness that an RF network does not require the
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`Page 22
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 22 of 93
`
`
`
`installation of physical wires and cables to connect the sensors/actuators with
`
`the local controller, and that an RF system is easily expanded. Kahn
`
`concludes with a projection that low cost radios would emerge within the
`
`next five to ten years (referenced to Kahn’s timeframe of 1978), and that “it
`
`seems likely that packet radio will play a significant future role in computer
`
`communications and the local distribution of information.” Id., 1495, col. 2.
`
`Thus, a POSITA in 1998 would have been motivated to combine the
`
`teachings of Kahn with the APA in order to provide for the “local distribution
`
`of information” in the context of a network of sensors and actuators along
`
`with a local controller. Kahn’s discussion of the advantages of broadcast
`
`packet radio networks (e.g., rapid deployment, support for mobile users, the
`
`avoidance of wiring, and the potential for low cost) offers motivation to
`
`combine. Furthermore, a POSITA could have achieved the combination
`
`without undue experimentation and with predictable results. Prior art sensors
`
`and actuators, intended for “third-party” integration into control systems such
`
`as those disclosed in the APA of the ‘732 patent, have well-defined behaviors
`
`and interface specifications to enable such integration with relative ease (i.e.,
`
`without undue experimentation), and with predictable results.
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`Page 23
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 23 of 93
`
`
`
`32. A POSITA would have also been motivated to combine the
`
`teachings of Kahn (with or without those of the APA) with the teachings of
`
`Burchfiel. Kahn expressly directs a reader to Burchfiel for additional
`
`information about the functions of a packet radio, and how a packet radio can
`
`be augmented to support the additional functions of a station (which performs
`
`centralized routing) and a terminal (which can act as a source or destination
`
`of user traffic). See, e.g., Kahn at 1477, col. 1 [note 24] and discussion above
`
`in relation to Kahn and the APA. A POSITA would also recognize that the
`
`teachings of Burchfiel, in relation to the layered communication protocol and
`
`a function code (Burchfiel, p. 247 and Fig. 3) are useful to maintain a well-
`
`organized protocol stack (and the associated software), and provide for
`
`commands of remote devices (i.e., through the function codes for control,
`
`debugging, and measurement). Burchfiel teaches that the station maintains
`
`connections with each repeater that it controls for the indicated functions of
`
`control, debugging and measurement. Id., p. 247, col. 1. For example, the
`
`station can send commands to trigger connectivity measurements which
`
`request answerback from stations and repeaters within earshot. Id., p. 250,
`
`col. 2. This is similar to the command/response functionality described by
`
`the ‘732 patent. Based on the motivation to combine discussed above in
`
`Heppe Decl. RE: U.S. Patent 8,000,314
`
`
`Page 24
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1004
`Page 24 of 93
`
`
`
`relation to Kahn and the APA, along with the specific reference in Kahn to
`
`Burchfiel, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Kahn (with or
`
`without the APA) and Burchfiel in order to more completely understand the
`
`packet radio network disclosed by Kahn, its various military and civilian
`
`applications (including benefits of flexibility and cost), and how packet
`
`radios could be used to support remote measurements and commands.
`
`33. A POSITA would have also been motivated to combine the
`
`teachings of Kahn (with or without the APA) with those of Cerf. Kahn refers
`
`to Cerf for a description of the gateway process used to interconnect with the
`
`ARPANET. Kahn, p. 1494, col. 2 ([34]). Kahn describes specific operations
`
`involving e.g. remote debugging from the ARPANET, and remote loading of
`
`software, which involve the gateway. Since the ARPANET does not support
`
`the
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
