IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Dumas, et al.
`In re Patent of:
`9,057,210 Attorney Docket No.: 42746-0006IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`June 16, 2015
`
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 13/734,671
`
`Filing Date:
`January 4, 2013
`
`Title:
`WIRELESS ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM AND
`RELATED METHODS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 9,057,210 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V. 
`
`I.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ....................... 1 
`A.  Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................ 1 
`B.  Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ......................................... 1 
`C.  Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..................... 2 
`D.  Service Information .................................................................................. 2 
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................ 2 
`II. 
`III.  REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ....................... 2 
`A.  Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)................................. 2 
`B.  Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief ................................. 3 
`IV.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3) .............. 4 
`A.  Construction of the term “communication rate” ....................................... 5 
`SUMMARY OF THE’210 PATENT ........................................................... 6 
`A.  A Brief Description ................................................................................... 6 
`B.  The Claimed Subject Matter ..................................................................... 8 
`C.  The Prosecution History ........................................................................... 9 
`VI.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................... 10 
`VII.  MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM
`FOR WHICH AN IPR IS REQUESTED, THUS ESTABLISHING A
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF
`THE ’210 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .............................................. 11 
`A.  HOWARTER .......................................................................................... 11 
`B.  [GROUND 1] – Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, 18 and 20 are
`obvious over Howarter in view of Willats under 35 U.S.C. § 103......... 13 
`C.  [GROUND 2] – Claim 2 is obvious over Howarter in view of Willats
`and Hassan under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................................... 38 
`D.  [GROUND 3] – Claims 5, 7, 16 and 18 are obvious over Howarter in
`view of Willats and Luebke under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................... 40 
`E.  [GROUND 4] – Claims 21 and 22 are obvious over Howarter in view of
`Willats and McLintock under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................... 43 
`[GROUND 5] – Claims 23, 24, 26 and 27 are obvious in view of
`Howarter under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................ 50 
`G.  [GROUND 6] – Claims 23, 24, 28, 29 and 31 are obvious over
`Howarter in view of Popelard under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................ 52 
`
`F. 
`
`i
`
`

`
`I. 
`
`J. 
`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`H.  [GROUND 7] – Claims 25 and 27 are obvious over Howarter in view of
`Luebke under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................... 57 
`[GROUND 8] – Claims 33, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44 and 45 are obvious
`over Howarter in view of McLintock under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................ 58 
`[GROUND 9] – Claim 34 is obvious in view of Howarter in view of
`McLintock and Hassan under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................... 59 
`K.  [GROUND 10] – Claim 37 is obvious in view of Howarter in view of
`McLintock and Willats under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................... 59 
`L.  [GROUND 11] – Claims 40 and 42 are obvious in view of Howarter in
`view of McLintock and Luebke under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................... 59 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 59 
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`ASSA-1001
`
`ASSA-1002
`
`ASSA-1003
`
`ASSA-1004
`
`ASSA-1005
`
`ASSA-1006
`
`ASSA-1007
`
`ASSA-1008
`
`ASSA-1009
`
`ASSA-1010
`
`ASSA-1011
`
`ASSA-1012
`
`ASSA-1013
`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210 to Dumas, et al. (“the ’210
`Patent”)
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’210 Patent
`(“the Prosecution History”)
`
`Provisional Appl. No. 61/453,737 to Dumas, et al.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Richard T. Mihran
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0075656 to Howarter, et
`al. (“Howarter”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0008675 to Willats, et al.
`(“Willats”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0171642 to Hassan, et al.
`(“Hassan”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,034,617 to Luebke, et al. (“Luebke”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0099945 to McLintock,
`et al. (“McLintock”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0181387 to (“Popelard”)
`
`Webopedia Computer Dictionary, What is clock speed?,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20080105061159/http:
`//www.webopedia.com/TERM/C/clock_speed.html
`(archived via Wayback Machine Internet Archive January
`5, 2008, retrieved February 23, 2016)
`
`Excerpt From Embedded Systems: Architecture,
`Programming and Design, Raj Kamal, p.18 (Tata
`McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Ltd. 12th reprint 2007)
`(2003)
`
`Excerpt from Embedded Systems: Architecture,
`Programming and Design, Raj Kamal, p.109 (Tata
`McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Ltd. 12th reprint 2007)
`
`iii
`
`

`
`ASSA-1014
`
`ASSA-1015
`
`ASSA-1016
`
`ASSA-1017
`
`ASSA-1018
`
`ASSA-1019
`
`ASSA-1020
`
`ASSA-1021
`
`ASSA-1022
`
`ASSA-1023
`
`ASSA-1024
`
`ASSA-1025
`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`(2003)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0148921 to Bliding, et
`al. (“Bliding”)
`
`Intel, Research In Motion Collaborate on Next Generation
`BlackBerry Devices, https://web.archive.org/web/
`20070322153255/http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/
`releases/20050927corp_a.htm (archived via Wayback
`Machine Internet Archive March 22, 2007, retrieved
`February 23, 2016)
`
`BlackBerry Curve 8300 Review, http://www.brighthand.
`com/phonereview/blackberry-curve-8300-review/,
`(archived via Wayback Machine Internet Archive June 26,
`2007, retrieved February 25, 2016)
`
`ARM and Intel Battle over the Mobile Chip’s Future,
`Technology News, Brad Smith, IEEE Computer Society,
`May 2008, at 15-18
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,907,768 to Faith, et al. (“Faith”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0242923 to Pearson, et
`al. (“Pearson”)
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/424,501 to Talty, et
`al. (“Talty”) (published June 21, 2012 on the record of
`U.S. Publication No. 2012/0158244 to Talty, et al.)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,236,333 to King (“King”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0145811 to Nantz, et al.
`(“Nantz”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0284345 to Ghabra, et al.
`(“Ghabra”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0043524 to Takata
`(“Takata”)
`Curriculum vitae of Dr. Richard T. Mihran
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`ASSA-1026
`
`Cover Pages and Bibliographic Data For Embedded
`Systems: Architecture, Programming and Design, Raj
`Kamal (Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Ltd. 12th reprint
`2007) (2003)
`
`v
`
`

`
`ASSA ABLOY AB (“Petitioner” or “ASSA ABLOY”) petitions for Inter
`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`Partes Review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims
`
`1-7, 9, 10, 12-18, 20-29, 31, 33-35, 37-42, 44 and 45 (“the Challenged Claims”) of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210 (“the ’210 Patent”). As explained in this Petition, there
`
`exists a reasonable likelihood that ASSA ABLOY will prevail with respect to at
`
`least one of the Challenged Claims.
`
`The Challenged Claims are unpatentable based on teachings set forth in at
`
`least the references presented in this petition. ASSA ABLOY respectfully submits
`
`that an IPR should be instituted, and that the Challenged Claims should be
`
`canceled as unpatentable.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Petitioner, ASSA ABLOY AB, is the real party-in-interest.
`
`
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`Petitioner is not aware of any disclaimers, reexamination certificates or
`
`petitions for inter partes review associated with the ’210 Patent. The ’210 Patent
`
`was previously the subject of Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-986-Orl-28 GJK, filed June
`
`16, 2015 in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, which was
`
`dismissed without prejudice on August 18, 2015.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`ASSA ABLOY provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`Lead Counsel
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`Backup Counsel
`Thomas A. Rozylowicz, Reg. No. 50,620
`Kenneth Wayne Darby, Jr., Reg. No. 65,068
`
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`Please address all correspondence and service to the address listed above.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at IPR42746-0006IP1@fr.com
`
`(referencing No. 42746-0006IP1 and cc’ing PTABInbound@fr.com,
`
`renner@fr.com, rozylowicz@fr.com, and kdarby@fr.com).
`
`II. PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`ASSA ABLOY authorizes the Patent and Trademark Office to charge
`
`Deposit Acc. No. 06-1050 for 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) fees for this Petition and
`
`further authorizes payment for additional fees to be charged to this Account.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`ASSA ABLOY certifies that the ’210 Patent is available for IPR.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`ASSA ABLOY requests an IPR of the Challenged Claims on grounds set
`
`forth in the table shown below, and requests that each of the Challenged Claims be
`
`found unpatentable. An explanation of how these claims are unpatentable under
`
`the statutory grounds identified below is provided in the form of detailed
`
`description and claim charts that follow, indicating where each element can be
`
`found in the cited prior art, and the relevance of that prior art. Additional
`
`explanation and support for each ground of rejection is set forth in Exhibit ASSA-
`
`1004, the Declaration of Dr. Richard T. Mihran, referenced herein.
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`
`
`
`Basis for Rejection
`103: Howarter and Willats
`
`’210 Patent Claims
`1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, 18
`and 20
`2
`103: Howarter, Willats, and Hassan
`5, 7, 16 and 18
`103: Howarter, Willats, and Luebke
`21 and 22
`103: Howarter, Willats, and McLintock
`23, 24, 26 and 27
`103: Howarter
`23, 24, 28, 29 and 31
`103: Howarter and Popelard
`25 and 27
`103: Howarter and Luebke
`33, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44 and 45 103: Howarter and McLintock
`34
`103: Howarter, McLintock, and Hassan
`37
`103: Howarter, McLintock, and Willats
`40 and 42
`103: Howarter, McLintock, and Luebke
`
`3
`
`

`
`Howarter (ASSA-1005), published March 25, 2010, and Hassan (ASSA-
`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`1007), published July 8, 2010, each qualify as prior art under at least § 102(a).
`
`Popelard (ASSA-1010), filed October 9, 2009, qualifies as prior art under at least §
`
`102(e). Willats (ASSA-1006), published January 9, 2003, Luebke (ASSA-1008),
`
`patented March 7, 2000, and McLintock (ASSA-1009), published July 25, 2002,
`
`each qualify as prior art under § 102(b).
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), claims in an unexpired patent are
`
`given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which it appears. Thus, the broadest reasonable construction is applied to
`
`all terms herein, and further details of how the claims are being interpreted are
`
`discussed in the relevant sections below.
`
`Petitioner expressly reserves the right to advance different constructions in
`
`any future matter where the applicable claim construction standard for that
`
`proceeding (e.g., “ordinary and customary meaning”) is different than the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) standard applied in IPR. Further, due to the
`
`different claim construction standards in the proceedings, Petitioner identifying
`
`any feature in the cited references as teaching a claim term of the ’210 Patent is not
`
`an admission by Petitioner that that claim term is met by any feature for
`
`4
`
`

`
`infringement purposes, or that the claim term is enabled or meets the requirements
`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`for written description.
`
`A. Construction of the term “communication rate”
`The term “communication rate” appears only in the claims of the ’210
`
`Patent, and is not used in the supporting written description; nor was the meaning
`
`of the term substantively discussed on the record during prosecution. The
`
`specification of the ’210 Patent does, however, provide several recitations that at
`
`least partially inform a proper interpretation of the term. For example, the ’210
`
`Patent states that “the lock 11 may be advertising or listening (sending or sampling
`
`signals) at a low frequency rate in order to conserve battery power.” ASSA-1001
`
`at 4:35-40; see also Ex. ASSA-1004 at ¶¶ 18-20. The ’210 Patent further states
`
`that “one may want the radio 22 to be broadcasting or listening at a faster rate to
`
`eliminate any delay in operation of locking or unlocking the door.” ASSA-1001 at
`
`12:10-12; see also 5:60-62 (“At the same time, system 10 powers up and controller
`
`[21] increases its broadcast and listening rate.”); see also Figure 6a at step 103
`
`(“Listen for broadcasts from Fob and increase broadcast rate to as fast as
`
`possible.”); see also Ex. ASSA-1004 at ¶¶ 18-20. As Dr. Mihran explains, based
`
`on the written description of the ’210 Patent, a POSITA (see Section VI, infra)
`
`would interpret the communication rate to include selectively increasing or
`
`decreasing the rate or “frequency” of communication events, which may include
`
`5
`
`

`
`either transmission or receiving events. See Ex. ASSA-1004 at ¶¶ 18-20.
`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`Therefore, any reasonable interpretation of the term “communication rate” in light
`
`of the specification must at least include how frequently communication events
`
`occur. See id. at ¶20.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE’210 PATENT
`A. A Brief Description
`The ’210 Patent was filed January 4, 2013, as Appl. No. 13/734,671,
`
`claiming the benefit of Provisional Appl. No. 61/453,737 filed March 17, 2011 and
`
`Non-Provisional Appl. No. 13/415,365 (now published as Pub. No. 2012/0234058)
`
`filed March 8, 2012 as a continuation-in-part. The provisional application provides
`
`just three of the fifteen drawing sheets included in the ’210 Patent, and lacks much
`
`of the ’210 Patent’s written disclosure. Importantly, the provisional and non-
`
`provisional applications do not clearly show or describe at least issuance by a
`
`remote user access device of an unlock command “based upon a sensed
`
`acceleration [of the user access device],” as is required by independent claims 1,
`
`14, 23 and 33. Indeed, the provisional application only discloses an accelerometer
`
`that is associated with the door lock for the purpose of tracking door opening
`
`events, not for unlocking the door. See Ex. ASSA-1003 at [0033] and [0034]; see
`
`also Fig. 1. The provisional and non-provisional applications also fail to clearly
`
`show or describe functionality where the lock controller “wirelessly communicates
`
`6
`
`

`
`at a higher communication rate” based upon the detected presence of a user (as
`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`required by claim 1) or geographical location data (as required by claims 9, 14 and
`
`37). As such, Petitioner submits that the Challenged Claims are not entitled to the
`
`priority filing date of the provisional application, and therefore Howarter and
`
`Hassan qualify as prior art under § 102(b).
`
`Generally, the ’210 Patent describes wireless access control systems for door
`
`locks. See Ex. ASSA-1001 at 1:14-16; see also Abstract. In particular, the ’210
`
`Patent is directed to passive keyless entry (PKE) systems that allow users to access
`
`a secure area “without having to find, insert, and turn a traditional key.” Id. at
`
`1:20-34. The inventors of the ’210 Patent do not purport to have invented PKE
`
`technology, and, in fact, unambiguously admit that PKE systems were well known
`
`to those of skill in the art with respect to both automotive and residential
`
`applications. See id. at 1:27-51. For example, in its detailed BACKGROUND, the
`
`’210 Patent states that “[a] PKE system is currently used in an automotive
`
`application and may offer increased convenience.” Id. at 27-28. The
`
`BACKGROUND of the ’210 Patent goes on to mention various “technical
`
`challenges” that have been encountered as PKE systems were engineered for use in
`
`with residential locks. See id. at 1:35-51.
`
`In view of the applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) set forth in the
`
`BACKGROUND, the ’210 Patent purports merely to improve upon the known and
`
`7
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`“desired basic perceived behavior of the PKE system,” specifically, with respect to
`
`“authentication speed, proximity measurement, location determination, decrease[d]
`
`power consumption, and increase[d] convenience.” Id. at 1:52-60. As
`
`demonstrated in the following discussion, these areas of desired improvement
`
`were, in fact, well known in the prior art, and the solutions set forth in the
`
`Challenged Claims are not unique. On the contrary, the wireless access systems
`
`and lock assemblies recited in each of the presently Challenged Claims amount to
`
`no more than the predictable results of routine combinations of elements that were
`
`previously well known in the field.
`
`The Claimed Subject Matter
`
`B.
`Claims 1 and 33 are directed to wireless access control systems for a door
`
`including a lock assembly carried by the door and a remote user access device.
`
`Similarly, claims 14 and 23 are directed to lock assemblies for use with a remote
`
`user access device. The respective features of each of these claims are addressed
`
`in the following discussion. However, as an initial matter, Petitioner notes that
`
`while certain embodiments set forth in the written description of the ’210 Patent
`
`are directed to PKE systems in a residential context, the specification
`
`unambiguously notes that the content of the disclosure is widely applicable and not
`
`limited to any particular implementation. See ASSA-1001 at 8:49-58 (“. . . the
`
`wireless access system may be used for access control or protection of, but not
`
`8
`
`

`
`limited to, appliances, a safe, heavy machinery, factory equipment . . . etc., for
`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`example.”). Similarly, the claimed invention of the ’210 Patent, as set forth in the
`
`Challenged Claims, is also not limited to any particular context or application. At
`
`most, certain Challenged Claims require a “door” that carries the lock assembly
`
`and a “power source” coupled to the lock. However, the Challenged Claims do not
`
`recite any limiting features related to the physical structure of the lock assembly,
`
`the door, or the power source. Instead, the recited claim features are directed to
`
`various functional capabilities of the lock assembly and user access device, which
`
`have been known in the automotive industry for years. See Section VII, infra.
`
`Indeed, the unreasonably broad scope of the Challenged Claims was Patent
`
`Owner’s choice, and it must be held to its choice when assessing the validity of the
`
`Challenged Claims in this review.
`
`C. The Prosecution History
`The Office’s justifications for allowing the Challenged Claims over the cited
`
`prior art references are clearly established on the record. See Ex. ASSA-1002 at
`
`pp. 6-19. Indeed, the Office noted (1) that the claims “need[ed] some
`
`amendment[s] . . . in order to overcome the cited prior arts”; and (2) that the claims
`
`would be allowable if a proposed Examiner’s Amendment was authorized. See id.
`
`at p. 20. Patent Owner’s authorization on January 2, 2015 by telephone is a clear
`
`signal of its acquiescence to the Office’s reasoning that these amendments were
`
`9
`
`

`
`“need[ed] to overcome the cited prior arts.” See id. The Office would not have
`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`issued a Notice of Allowance had the record reflected that the features added by
`
`the Examiner’s Amendment were well known in the prior art, as demonstrated in
`
`this Petition.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter a “POSITA”) as of the
`
`alleged date of invention, which is represented on the face of the ’210 Patent to be
`
`as early as 2011, but which is actually 2013 (see Section V(A)), would have had a
`
`Bachelor’s Degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical
`
`engineering, computer engineering, or computer science and having two or more
`
`years of experience in wireless communication and networking systems. See Ex.
`
`ASSA-1004 at ¶ 12. Additional education in a relevant field, such as electrical
`
`engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or industry experience may
`
`compensate for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated
`
`above. Id. Throughout this Petition, references to what would have been known or
`
`understood by a POSITA refer to the knowledge of a POSITA as of 2011, or
`
`before. Id. Petitioner further submits that the analysis set forth in this Petition
`
`holds true for a relevant date as late as 2013. Id.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`VII. MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY
`CLAIM FOR WHICH AN IPR IS REQUESTED, THUS ESTABLISHING A
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE
`’210 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`As detailed below, this Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`Petitioner will prevail with respect to the Challenged Claims of the ’210 Patent.
`
`A. HOWARTER
`The Howarter reference was not of record during prosecution of the ’210
`
`Patent. Howarter is the primary reference asserted in each of the grounds set forth
`
`in this Petition. Thus, the patentability of the Challenged Claims has not been
`
`substantively considered in view of the disclosure of Howarter alone, or in
`
`combination with Willats, Hassan, Luebke, McLintock, and/or Popelard. Further,
`
`as discussed in detail infra, Howarter alone, or in combination with these other
`
`prior art references, discloses each of the features the Patent Office and Patent
`
`Owner believed to justify allowance, as well as all other features of the Challenged
`
`Claims. As such, this Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail on each and every one of the Challenged Claims of the ’210 Patent.
`
`Generally, Howarter is directed to “a system and method for unlocking a
`
`vehicle with a cell phone.” Ex. ASSA-1005 at [0003]; see also e.g., Abstract,
`
`[0003]-[0005], [0014], and claim 1. Howarter expresses aspects of its disclosed
`
`technique as follows (id. at [0003]): (1) Wireless signals may be monitored from a
`
`11
`
`

`
`cell phone; (2) A signal may be received from the cell phone; (3) A distance
`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`between the cell phone and the vehicle may be determined; and (4) Doors of the
`
`vehicle may be unlocked in response to the cell phone nearing the vehicle.
`
`Howarter’s Figure 1 (provided below) offers “a pictorial representation of a
`
`wireless environment 100 . . . includ[ing] a user 102, a cell phone 104, and a
`
`vehicle 106.” Id. at [0015]. “The cell phone 104 and the vehicle 106 may
`
`communicate through long range or short range cellular, data, or packet signals.”
`
`Id. at [0017]. For example, the cell phone 104 and the vehicle 106 may be in direct
`
`communication with one another via Bluetooth signals. See id. at [0020]. To
`
`establish such communications, “[t]he communication system of the vehicle 106
`
`may be configured to automatically poll, monitor, or search for a wireless signal
`
`from the cell phone 104.” Id. at [0020].
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`According to Howarter, “the distance between the cell phone 104 and the
`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`vehicle 106 may be determined based on the signal strength of the link or
`
`communications between the two devices.” Id. at [0021]. Then, at some threshold
`
`distance, the vehicle 106 is configured to unlock the doors, or perform various
`
`other functions to prepare the vehicle for use by the user 102. See id. Howarter
`
`goes on to teach that the vehicle 106 may “prepare to receive an additional user
`
`selection or user input from the cell phone 104” based on detecting the presence of
`
`the cell phone 104 within a distance threshold. Id. at [0023]. Thus, “the vehicle
`
`106 may enter an active listening mode in which a voice command, tactile input, or
`
`button sequence may be received as a user input through the cell phone 104.” Id.
`
`(emphasis added). For example, “a tactile response of tapping the cell phone 104
`
`twice may be read by accelerometers within the cell phone 104 which may
`
`generate a signal to unlock the doors of the vehicle 106.” Id. at [0024].
`
`These and various other teachings from Howarter, in combination with the
`
`teachings of certain additional prior art references, are applied to the Challenged
`
`Claims in the eleven grounds discussed below.
`
`B.
`[GROUND 1] – Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, 18 and
`20 are obvious over Howarter in view of Willats under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claim 1 - [1.0]: A wireless access control system for a door, the wireless access
`control system comprising:
`
`13
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`The preamble of a claim is typically not considered a substantive limitation.
`
`However, to the extent that the preamble of claim 1 is considered limiting,
`
`Howarter teaches the claimed wireless access control system. Indeed, Howarter
`
`describes “a system and method for unlocking a vehicle with a cell phone.” Ex.
`
`ASSA-1005 at [0003]. As noted above, Howarter’s basic technique is expressed as
`
`follows: “Wireless signals may be monitored from a cell phone . . . Doors of the
`
`vehicle may be unlocked in response to the cell phone nearing the vehicle . . . [and]
`
`may be locked in response to the cell phone being further separated from the
`
`vehicle.” Id. at [0003]; see also [0014]-[0016], [0018], [0040]-[0048], [0060] and
`
`[0065]; see also Figures 3, 6 and 7. Accordingly, Howarter teaches “[a] wireless
`
`access control system for a door,” as claimed.
`
`[1.1]: a lock assembly carried by the door and comprising
`As previously discussed (see Ground 1, [1.0], supra), Howarter teaches that
`
`the “[d]oors of the vehicle may be unlocked in response to the cell phone nearing
`
`the vehicle.” Ex. ASSA-1005 at [0003]. Howarter goes on to describe “a vehicle
`
`system for controlling functions of a vehicle.” Id. at [0004]. Such functions, of
`
`course, include locking and unlocking the doors of the vehicle. See e.g., id. at
`
`[0003], [0004], and [0014]. In particular, Howarter’s Figure 2 (provided below)
`
`14
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`illustrates a vehicle system 200
`
`including “a processor 202, a
`
`memory 204, a control logic 206, a
`
`user interface 208, a scanner 210, and
`
`a transceiver 212.” Id. at [0027]; see
`
`also [0036], [0038] and [0052].
`
`These and other associated
`
`components of the vehicle system
`
`200 correspond to the claimed “lock
`
`assembly.” See Ex. ASSA-1004 at ¶
`
`29. Howarter further teaches that the
`
`vehicle system 200 includes components of the vehicle 106 (see Figure 1), which
`
`may be “integrated” and “imbedded . . . within the driver’s side door.” See Ex.
`
`ASSA-1005 at [0027] and [0037]. Accordingly, Howarter teaches “a lock
`
`assembly carried by the door,” as claimed.
`
`[1.1a]: a lock,
`
`As previously discussed (see Ground 1, [1.0] and [1.1], supra), Howarter
`
`describes a vehicle system 200 for locking and unlocking the doors of a vehicle.
`
`Ex. ASSA-1005 at [0003]; see also [0014]-[0016], [0018], [0036], [0038] and
`
`[0052]. Indeed, Howarter expressly states that a centralized system of the vehicle
`
`15
`
`

`
`“may control any number of vehicle systems including locks, lights, temperature
`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`controls, engine start and stop control, alarm systems, entertainment systems, trunk
`
`controls . . . and any number of other public or proprietary systems, elements, or
`
`devices.” Id. at [0019] (emphasis added); see also [0002], [0022], [0025] and
`
`[0033]. The locks on the vehicle doors or the trunk correspond to the claimed
`
`“lock.” See Ex. ASSA-1004 at ¶ 29. Accordingly, Howarter teaches “a lock,” as
`
`claimed.
`
`[1.1b]: wireless communications circuitry,
`
`As previously discussed (see Ground 1, [1.0] and [1.1], supra), Howarter
`
`describes a vehicle system 200 for locking and unlocking the doors of a vehicle
`
`that includes a scanner 210 and a transceiver 212. See Ex. ASSA-1005 at [0027];
`
`see also [0004], [0016], [0027], [0037], and [0038]. The transceiver is “operable
`
`to wirelessly communicate with a cell phone.” Id. at [0004]. Indeed, the
`
`transceiver allows the cell phone to communicate with the vehicle “utilizing any
`
`number of transmission signals, protocols, or standards . . . [such as,] Bluetooth®,
`
`WiFi™, TDMA, CDMA, GSM, WiMAX, analog signals, or any number of other
`
`communications standards.” Id. at [0016]; see also [0038]. The scanner 210 is
`
`“configured to read information, data, or a signal from the cell phone 214. Id. at
`
`[0037]. In a particular example, “the scanner [210] is a radio frequency
`
`identification tag scanner that reads an RFID tag embedded in the cell phone 214.
`
`16
`
`

`
`Id. Taken together (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 below), or separately, the
`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`scanner 210 and transceiver 212 correspond to the claimed wireless
`
`communications circuitry. See Ex. ASSA-1004 at ¶ 31. Accordingly, Howarter
`
`teaches “wireless communications circuitry,” as claimed.
`
`
`[1.1c]: a lock controller coupled to said lock and said wireless communications
`circuitry, and configured to switch the lock between a locked position and an
`unlocked position, and
`As previously discussed (see Ground 1, [1.0] and [1.1], supra), Howarter
`
`describes a vehicle system 200 for locking and unlocking the doors of a vehicle
`
`that includes a processor 202, memory 204 and control logic 206. See Ex. ASSA-
`
`1005 at [0027]; see also [0004], [0028]-[0030], [0032] and [0033]. As explained
`
`by Howarter, “the vehicle system 200, and particularly, the processor 202 may
`
`17
`
`

`
`execute a set of instructions stored in the memory 204 in order to implement the
`
`Attorney Docket No. 42746-0006IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,057,210
`
`
`[described] features and methods.” Id. at [0030]. Howarter further states that “the
`
`control logic 206 may include hardware or software settings that perform an
`
`illustrative embodiment.” Id. Taken together (e.g., as a functional unit or
`
`physically integrated as described Howarter at [0029]), the processor 202, memory
`
`204 and control logic 206 correspond to the claimed “lock controller.” See Ex.
`
`ASSA-1004 at ¶ 30. Howarter’s Figure 2 (annotated and shown at Ground 1
`
`[1.1b], supra), illustrates how the “lock controller” is coupl