UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALLURE ENERGY, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-___
`Patent No. 8,509,954
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT NO. 1001
`
`
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALLURE ENERGY, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-___
`Patent No. 8,509,954
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT NO. 1001
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALLURE ENERGY, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-___
`Patent No. 8,509,954
`
`DECLARATION OF GEOFF WILLIAMSON
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS........................................................................................1
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS...................................................................................5
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED ..........................................................................10
`
`IV. ANALYSIS OF GALVIN IN VIEW OF KANSAL AND TRUNDLE .......15
`
`V.
`
`ANALYSIS OF EHLERS IN VIEW OF IVANG AND NAGEL................47
`
`VI. ADDITIONAL REMARKS..........................................................................70
`
`i
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 2
`
`
`
`I, Geoff Williamson, declare:
`
`I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge and what was
`
`known by one skilled in the art prior to early 2009. If called upon to testify as to
`
`the truth of the facts set forth in this declaration, I could and would do so
`
`competently. I have been retained by Honeywell International Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner” or “Honeywell”) to provide this declaration relating to a petition
`
`by Honeywell for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,509,954 (“the ‘954
`
`patent”), owned by Allure Energy, Inc.
`
`I. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`[001] A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached at the end of this
`
`declaration. I have 30+ years of experience working in the areas of energy,
`
`efficiency, control systems, alternative energy generation, and the Smart Grid. I
`
`studied Mechanical Engineering with an emphasis on Heating, Ventilation, and
`
`Cooling (HVAC) at Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (now called “RMIT
`
`University”) in 1981. Prior to this I received trade qualifications in the field of
`
`HVAC and refrigeration.
`
`[002] I initially worked for about 15 years in Australia as a sales engineer
`
`and business unit manager for Email Limited (Australia), Johnson Controls
`
`Australia Limited, and Honeywell Australia Limited. During that time, I became
`
`familiar with control systems, including temperature control systems for buildings,
`
`1
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 3
`
`
`
`and the needs of customers for such systems. Such systems included thermostat-
`
`mediated control as a primary interface between the users and the systems.
`
`[003] After having moved to the United States, I joined CellNet Data
`
`Systems in California. At CellNet Data Systems, I worked in business development
`
`and network application, where I was the principal manager involved in what has
`
`generally been described as the first wireless 2-way deployment of Internet
`
`connected thermostats by a utility into residential locations for demand
`
`management and price of supply driven usage management in North America. I
`
`then worked in business development for Sage Systems, which was a start-up
`
`company focused on leveraging residential demand side energy capacity for use by
`
`the electricity distribution market. That work generally related to efforts to
`
`communicate the benefits of Sage’s technology, which permitted over-the-Internet
`
`and wireless control of thermostats. I then became vice-president of business
`
`development for an incubator group within Invensys PLC, which was developing
`
`advanced energy demand response systems and services for the energy distribution
`
`and supply markets of North America and Europe. In that role, I worked with
`
`partners to push the adoption of smart home technology for energy use. That work
`
`launched a precursor to the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), now Smart
`
`Grid with the California Public Utilities Commission. This work gave me further
`
`2
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 4
`
`
`
`experience in understanding the needs of both energy producers and energy users,
`
`and the capabilities of technologies for meeting those needs.
`
`[004] In 2005, I started a consulting firm that helped evaluate the
`
`commercial viability of new technologies, focused on communications systems
`
`and their applications to energy, efficiency, and the environment. My clients
`
`during this time included Nivis, Control4, Energate, and Trilliant, which are
`
`wireless network and premises control companies. I ultimately left to work for one
`
`client, Trilliant Inc., which developed a smart energy distribution platform to help
`
`energy producing and distributing companies obtain information about energy
`
`usage by their customers, essentially at the middle of the so-called Smart Grid.
`
`[005] In early 2009 I returned to consulting, with a focus on clean tech and
`
`the Smart Grid. In that role, I helped a number of companies understand consumer
`
`needs and viability of products in the areas of home automation, demand response,
`
`distributed controls networks, thermostat operation and usage, and other related
`
`technologies. Of note was the engagements I had with Energate, a smart thermostat
`
`company based in Ontario, Canada and active across all of North America
`
`primarily with regards to energy utilities and their demand response and dynamic
`
`pricing programs, and with Control4, and their progression from home automation
`
`into demand response and energy management. More recently, I have worked for a
`
`company developing extremely low resistance materials to increase the efficiency
`
`3
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 5
`
`
`
`of generation, distribution, and use of electricity. I am also the founding CEO of a
`
`company developing a solid state “turbine on a chip” as a disruptive new way to
`
`generate electricity. I currently serve on the advisory board for a company called
`
`CandiControls, which focuses on enabling the “internet of things” as applicable to
`
`premises control and management.
`
`[006] Presently I am a member of Innovation Australia, a government-
`
`funded network of technical and business experts that mentors Australian start-up
`
`companies. Expert Mentors like myself are matched based on our background and
`
`experience, and we invest time on a voluntary basis to share know-how, insights,
`
`experience, and business connections with Australian businesses and researchers
`
`seeking to commercialize novel intellectual property.
`
`[007] During my years with Sage and Invensys, I was active with the
`
`Internet Home Alliance and with an organization that is now called the Zigbee
`
`Alliance. I was the Sage company representative for the Internet Home Alliance at
`
`the time of its creation, and I worked with it to demonstrate the connectivity of
`
`devices such as thermostats to the Internet and to other thermostats over wireless
`
`networks.
`
`[008] Based upon my knowledge and experience with energy control
`
`systems, I am aware of the needs and the challenges faced in producing automation
`
`products that are well-liked by users and that can be employed to reduce energy
`
`4
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 6
`
`
`
`usage, particularly by early 2009. I routinely discussed the needs of energy users
`
`and energy producers with those parties, and the manners in which new
`
`technologies could be used to meet those needs. I also worked with others who
`
`were architecting and developing systems to meet those needs, and had detailed
`
`conversations with these individuals about their work on those systems. I am also
`
`very familiar with the terminology of energy generation, distribution, and control,
`
`and of home automation at the time.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`[009] In preparing my analysis, I have applied the legal standards described
`
`below, which were provided to me by counsel for Honeywell.
`
`[010] Proper Viewpoint: I understand that generally, the technical issues in
`
`this proceeding are to be viewed from the perspective of a person having an
`
`ordinary level of skill in the art at the time the invention was made (around late
`
`2009). I understand the district court in the litigation between Allure and Nest1
`
`generally determined (and the parties to the litigation agreed), at least
`
`preliminarily, that such a person would have: a bachelor’s of science degree in
`
`mechanical or electrical engineering and at least two years of experience in the
`
`field of electronic and mechanical systems related to energy management and
`
`1 Allure Energy, Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc. et al, Case no. 9:13-cv-102 in the Eastern District of
`Texas.
`
`5
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 7
`
`
`
`control systems. I do not disagree with this definition, but note that in-home
`
`automation is a type of control system. Additional education might substitute for
`
`some of the experience, and substantial experience might substitute for some of the
`
`educational background. I personally possess at least the level of skill of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the relevant art, and I can speak from the perspective of an
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan. I have formulated my analysis on this matter based on
`
`personal experience and what was considered standard by one skilled in the art
`
`prior to late 2009.
`
`[011] Construing Claim Terms: I understand that Honeywell bears the
`
`burden of proving unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence in a Patent
`
`Office proceeding. I understand that a validity determination involves first
`
`construing the claims to determine the meaning they would have had to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, and then applying them to the so-called prior art. I
`
`understand the applicable claim construction standard in these proceedings requires
`
`terms be given their “broadest reasonable interpretation” in light of the
`
`specification, as they would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. I
`
`understand that under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must
`
`be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the
`
`specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary
`
`6
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 8
`
`
`
`meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`[012] General Prior Art Invalidity: It is my understanding that a patent
`
`claim is invalid (a) if the claimed invention was known or used by others in the
`
`United States, or patented or described in a printed publication anywhere, before
`
`the invention date; or (b) if the claimed invention was in public use or on sale in
`
`the United States, or patented or described in a printed publication anywhere, more
`
`than one year prior to the earliest priority date. For purposes of the current
`
`proceeding, I understand that “prior art” in the form of printed publications and
`
`patents or patent applications may be considered, but prior art in the form of public
`
`knowledge and use, and sales may not be considered. I also understand that prior
`
`art can take the form of a patent application filed prior to the priority date of the
`
`‘954 patent. If the patent application was granted, then the original filing must
`
`support at least one claim in the granted patent. For the purposes of my opinions
`
`here, I assume that the ’954 patent is entitled to its earliest claimed priority date,
`
`August 21, 2009.
`
`[013] Anticipation Invalidity: It is my understanding that a claimed
`
`invention is invalid as “anticipated” if each and every element of the claim has
`
`been disclosed in a single prior art reference. It is my understanding that prior art is
`
`defined by the patent statutes, and includes various categories of information. It is
`
`7
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 9
`
`
`
`my understanding that a printed publication is prior art with regard to a claimed
`
`device or method if it was published more than one year prior to the earliest
`
`priority date of the patent in question, or if it was published before the date of
`
`invention of the device or method.
`
`[014] Obviousness Invalidity: It is my understanding that a patent claim is
`
`invalid as “obvious” if the differences between the patented subject matter and the
`
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
`
`time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. I
`
`understand the ultimate conclusion of whether a claim is obvious should be based
`
`upon several factual considerations. First, I must consider the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the field that someone would have had at the time the claimed invention
`
`was made. Second, I must consider the scope and content of the prior art. Third, I
`
`must consider what difference, if any, existed between the claimed invention and
`
`the prior art. Importantly, I understand that I must be careful not to determine
`
`obviousness using the benefit of hindsight and that many true inventions might
`
`seem obvious after the fact.
`
`[015] I understand that a patent claim composed of several elements is not
`
`proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was
`
`independently known in the prior art. In evaluating whether such a claim would
`
`have been obvious, I may consider whether I find a reason that would have
`
`8
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 10
`
`
`
`prompted a person of ordinary skill in the field to combine the elements or
`
`concepts from the prior art in the same way as in the claimed invention. I
`
`understand there is no single way to define the line between true inventiveness on
`
`one hand (which is patentable) and the application of common sense and ordinary
`
`skill to solve a problem on the other hand (which is not patentable). As one helpful
`
`example, a combination of familiar elements operating according to known
`
`methods is likely to be obvious when it yields predictable results. Also, if a person
`
`of ordinary skill can implement a “predictable variation” in a prior art device, and
`
`would see the benefit from doing so, such a variation is obvious. And, I may also
`
`consider whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimed in the patents-in-suit. Moreover,
`
`market forces or other design incentives may be what produced a change, rather
`
`than true inventiveness. It is my understanding that I may consider whether the
`
`change was merely the predictable result of using prior art elements according to
`
`their known functions, or whether it was the result of true inventiveness. I
`
`additionally should consider whether the innovation applies a known technique
`
`that had been used to improve a similar device or method in a similar way. I may
`
`also consider whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to try,
`
`meaning that the claimed innovation was one of a relatively small number of
`
`9
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 11
`
`
`
`possible approaches to the problem with a reasonable expectation of success by
`
`those skilled in the art.
`
`[016] I further understand that the “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” test
`
`(i.e., asking whether the prior art includes a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation”
`
`to combine the prior art so as to achieve the claimed invention) is a useful guide in
`
`establishing a rationale for combining elements of the prior art, though a claimed
`
`invention can be obvious without it.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`[017] In forming my opinions, I reviewed U.S. Patent 8,509,954 to Imes et
`
`al. (“the ‘954 patent”), relevant portions of its prosecution history and the
`
`prosecution histories of related patents, and the following prior art references: (1)
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0250590 to Galvin (“Galvin”), (2) U.S. Patent No. 7,953,518
`
`to Kansal et al. (“Kansal”), (3) U.S. Patent No. 8,350,697 to Trundle et al.
`
`(“Trundle”), (4) U.S. Patent Appl. No. 10/628,644 to Ehlers et al. (“Ehlers”), (5)
`
`WIPO Patent Appl. No. 2009/036764 to Ivang et al. (“Ivang”), and (6) U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,406,933 to Nagel et al. (“Nagel”). I also have reviewed U.S. Prov. Appl. No.
`
`61/179,224 to Trundle et al. (“the ‘224 Provisional”) and U.S. Prov. Appl. No.
`
`61/234,963 to Nagel (“the ‘963 Provisional”), the sections cited below of the
`
`Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
`
`10
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 12
`
`
`
`and Grayson C. Heffner and Charles A. Goldman, Demand Responsive Programs
`
`– An Emerging Resource for Competitive Electricity Markets?.
`
`[018] Based upon my knowledge and experience in this art and my review
`
`of these documents, I understand what the ‘954 patent would have described and
`
`enabled to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of the alleged
`
`priority date of the ‘954 patent (hereinafter “one skilled in the art” and similar
`
`phrases). My findings, explained below, are based on my education, experience,
`
`and background in energy control systems, and my study of the above documents.
`
`[019] The claims of the ‘954 patent are directed to a “demand response
`
`system.” Demand response systems are designed to identify energy capacity, and
`
`compensate energy users for reducing appliance power usage during a given time
`
`period. Demand response systems are used because electrical energy cannot easily
`
`be stored on a large scale, and utility companies therefore try to balance supply and
`
`demand in real time. Rather than simply add more generation capacity to meet
`
`high energy demand, utility companies use demand response systems to control the
`
`demand side and incentivize energy users to consume less energy.
`
`[020] The focus of this declaration are claims 8–14 of the ‘954 patent. I
`
`previously submitted a declaration in connection with a petition for inter partes
`
`review of claims 2–7 and 15 of the ‘954 patent. Claims 2–7 and 15 are directed to
`
`the management of the “demand response system.” Claims 8–14 are directed to
`
`11
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 13
`
`
`
`the elements of the “demand response system.” Despite the difference in focus,
`
`each of these claims essentially describe the same demand response system.
`
`[021] Claims 8–14 of the ‘954 patent include a number of elements that are
`
`described as “modules.” Based on my review of the claims, the specification and
`
`the prosecution history, I understand that these “modules” are hardware, software,
`
`firmware, middleware, or another component of a computing system described at a
`
`high level. According to the specification:
`
`Embodiments [in the ‘954 patent’s specification] describe, in part,
`distributed computing solutions that manage all or part of a
`communicative interaction between network elements.
`.
`.
`. The
`communicative interaction between the network elements is not
`necessarily limited to only one specific form. A network element may
`be a node, a piece of hardware, software, firmware, middleware,
`another component of a computing system, or any combination thereof.
`. . . .
`[A]n energy management system can include memory, one or more
`processing resources or controllers such as a central processing unit
`(CPU) or hardware or software control logic. Additional components
`of the energy management system can include one or more storage
`devices, one or more wireless, wired or any combination thereof of
`communications ports to communicate with external devices as well as
`various input and output (I/O) devices, such as a keyboard, a mouse,
`pointers, controllers, and display devices. The energy management
`system can also include one or more buses operable to transmit
`
`12
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 14
`
`
`
`communications between the various hardware components, and can
`communicate using wireline communication data buses, wireless
`network communication, or any combination thereof.
`
`Nothing in this paragraph nor in the rest of the ‘954 patent’s specification indicates
`
`where in the system each “module” resides. So, as described at various points in
`
`this declaration, I interpret the “modules” in the system as hardware, software,
`
`firmware, middleware, or another component of a computing system that is
`
`capable of performing the function recited in the claim.
`
`[022] The energy industry has utilized demand response systems for
`
`decades for both industrial and residential purposes. More recently, but well
`
`before the ‘954 patent, demand response was combined with “smart grid”
`
`technologies to provide flexible and real-time participation by energy users. Both
`
`of these known concepts were later addressed in United States legislation in the
`
`mid-2000s. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed into law by President
`
`George W. Bush in August 2005, and sought to quantify the benefits of demand
`
`response. Energy Policy Act, Section 1252, Smart Metering. The Energy
`
`Independence and Security Act of 2007 was signed in to law by President George W.
`
`Bush in December 2007, listing many attributes of existing “smart grids,” including
`
`“[d]evelopment and incorporation of demand response, demand-side resources,
`
`and energy-efficiency resources”; “[d]eployment of ‘smart’ technologies (real-
`
`time, automated, interactive technologies that optimize the physical operation of
`13
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 15
`
`
`
`appliances and consumer devices) for metering, communications concerning grid
`
`operations and status, and distribution automation. (6) Integration of ‘smart’
`
`appliances and consumer devices. (7) Deployment and integration of advanced
`
`electricity storage and peak-shaving technologies . . . ”; and “(8) Provision to
`
`consumers of timely information and control options. (9) Development of
`
`standards for communication and interoperability of appliances and equipment
`
`connected to the electric grid, including the infrastructure serving the grid.” The
`
`Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Title XIII, Smart Grid. At this
`
`same time, I was developing smart grid products at Invensys that were responsive
`
`to demand response events, and that based user participation on preferences,
`
`including the location of the user. The energy industry has utilized demand
`
`response systems for decades for both industrial and residential purposes. More
`
`recently, but well before the ‘954 patent, demand response was combined with
`
`“smart grid” technologies to provide flexible and real-time participation by energy
`
`users. Examples of this can be found in a 2001 article by Dr. Grayson C. Heffner
`
`and Charles A. Goldman. See Exhibit 1012.
`
`[023] The Galvin, Kansal, Trundle, Ehlers, Nagel, and Ivang references
`
`each describe systems that are used for demand response. The primary
`
`references—Galvin and Ehlers—describe in detail robust demand response
`
`systems, and how those systems depend on the preferences and location of a user
`
`14
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 16
`
`
`
`to determine whether a particular site will participate in a demand response event.
`
`Likewise, Kansal and Nagel also describe demand response systems. Trundle and
`
`Ivang also describe elements of demand response systems, but provide additional
`
`detail how such systems can be used with the location-based applications of mobile
`
`devices, such as smart phones.
`
`IV. ANALYSIS OF GALVIN IN VIEW OF KANSAL AND TRUNDLE
`
`[024] Galvin. Galvin discloses a system for managing electric power
`
`demand among a large number of small users. Galvin discloses that “consumers
`
`and small businesses participate voluntarily in supply (generation and storage) or
`
`demand (consumption) management programs by establishing preferences.”
`
`Exhibit 1004, at ¶ 20. Galvin’s “digital exchange receives preferences from a
`
`plurality of exchange participants, and these preferences are used at least in part to
`
`create response profiles relevant to the participants, and at least some of the
`
`response profiles are aggregated into response packages with defined statistical
`
`properties.” Id. at ¶ 14. Because Galvin’s system manages demand programs by
`
`creating response packages with defined statistical properties, Galvin’s system is a
`
`“demand response system,” as I understand the term using the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation.
`
`[025] In order to create statistical properties for exchange participants,
`
`Galvin has “consumers make their preferences concerning their willingness to
`
`15
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 17
`
`
`
`participate in energy management actions (that is, load reductions or provision of
`
`power from generators or storage systems) on demand.” Id. at ¶ 23. Based on those
`
`preferences, “all of the end users that make up the response package are sent
`
`signals directing them to take the appropriate actions which they previously
`
`volunteered to take.” Id.
`
`[026] Based on my review of Galvin, one having ordinary skill in the art
`
`reading Galvin would understand that Galvin’s “Away” and “Home” profiles are
`
`intended to be used based on whether a user is home or not. Galvin notes that
`
`“preferences can be stated according to away or at home profiles, which can be
`
`inferred or directly declared as is done with home security systems when a user
`
`clicks ‘Away’ to tell the system he is leaving the house.” Id. at ¶ 45. When a user
`
`is away, the user’s mobile phone—which is also away—can be used to change the
`
`active, location based profile. See id. at ¶¶ 25, 35, 45. One having ordinary skill
`
`would understand that Galvin included this feature as a location based service: the
`
`user could change the active profile to reflect whether she is home or not. With
`
`regard to inferring whether the user has left the house, Galvin discusses that “one
`
`might be able to infer that a user is at home based on dynamic behavior of power
`
`usage.” Id. Similarly, Galvin discusses that “if there has been usage of at least X
`
`kwh in the two hours prior to the period of interest, then the user is likely at home”
`
`and that a user may be “away, as inferred by lack of use in the earlier period.” Id.
`
`16
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 18
`
`
`
`at ¶ 19. Thus, based on my review of Galvin, one having ordinary skill in the art
`
`reading Galvin would understand that Galvin’s “Away” and “Home” profiles are
`
`intended to be used based on whether a user is home or not.
`
`[027] Kansal. Kansal also discloses a system and method for managing
`
`energy consumption in order to reduce energy costs. Kansal employs an “energy
`
`manager” that “uses information such as energy price variation (e.g., demand
`
`response pricing), weather changes, and user’s presence/absence at home to control
`
`the energy expenditure in a manner such that the desired comfort levels are
`
`achieved with minimum cost.” Exhibit 1005, at 1:59–63. “The proposed system
`
`thus helps reduce energy bills, helps utilities to reduce peak provisioning costs, and
`
`helps protect the environment by reducing energy usage and production.” Id. at
`
`5:40–43. Significantly, this demand response system can incorporate smart
`
`phones. Id. at 4: 62–67.
`
`[028] Trundle. Trundle describes a mobile application that can reduce
`
`home or business energy consumption by controlling network-connected
`
`appliances. See Exhibit 1006, at 6:30–39. Trundle also discloses that the mobile
`
`device application can “receive information related to utility company rates from
`
`the monitoring application server 260, from another source on the Internet, or from
`
`a user entering information related to utility company rates (e.g., a user entering
`
`monthly billing statements).” Id. at 13:42–45. This information can be presented
`
`17
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 19
`
`
`
`to a user so that she can make a decision about activating or deactivating
`
`appliances. Id. at 13:45–63.
`
`[029] Trundle also teaches control of appliances based on location
`
`information gathered by a smart phone. According to Trundle,
`
`[T]he method may include monitoring geographic location data of one
`or more users associated with the one or more monitored properties and
`inferring future occupancy status of the one or more users in the one or
`more monitored properties based on the monitored geographic location
`data. In these examples, the method may include determining an
`operation related to controlling the one or more energy consuming
`devices in the one or more monitored properties based on the inferred
`future occupancy status of the one or more users in the one or more
`monitored properties, and performing the determined operation related
`to controlling the one or more energy consuming devices.
`
`Id. at 2:60–3:4. Trundle goes on to explain that a system can monitor a user’s
`
`location data by means of a native application on the user’s mobile phone. The
`
`native application can “track[] the mobile device’s physical location using GPS or
`
`other location protocols built into device.” Id. at 13:20–22.
`
`[030] Trundle’s effective § 102(e) date. Based on my review of the ‘224
`
`Provisional, to which Trundle claims priority, one having ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that the ‘224 Provisional’s specification discloses the subject
`
`matter claimed in at least claim 1 of Trundle, which appears below.
`
`18
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 20
`
`
`
`Claim 1: A method for performing an operation related to
`controlling one or more energy consuming devices,
`the method
`comprising:
`monitoring sensor data captured by one or more sensors that sense
`attributes relevant to user presence at one or more monitored properties;
`monitoring status of one or more energy consuming devices
`associated with the one or more monitored properties;
`monitoring geographic location data of one or more users associated
`with the one or more monitored properties;
`inferring future occupancy status of the one or more users in the one
`or more monitored properties based on the monitored geographic
`location data and the monitored sensor data;
`determining an operation related to controlling the one or more
`energy consuming devices in the one or more monitored properties
`based on the inferred future occupancy status of the one or more users
`in the one or more monitored properties and the monitored status of the
`one or more energy consuming devices; and
`performing, using at least one processor, the determined operation
`related to controlling the one or more energy consuming devices.
`
`The ‘224 Provisional’s specification discloses an operation related to controlling
`
`an energy consuming device: turning on the lights in a home. Exhibit 1007, at 8.
`
`The ‘224 Provisional’s specification also discloses monitoring sensor data captured
`
`by one or more sensors that sense attributes relevant to user presence (using RFID
`
`or cameras to sense when a person is in the home), id. at 3; monitoring status of an
`
`energy consuming device (checking whether “lights remain on” before turning
`19
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 21
`
`
`
`them off), id. at 8; monitoring geographic location data (checking the location of a
`
`mobile device periodically), id.; inferring future occupancy status based on the
`
`monitored geographic location data and the monitored sensor data (detecting
`
`whether the user is moving toward the home), id.; determining an operation related
`
`to controlling the energy consuming device based on the inferred future occupancy
`
`status and the monitored status of the energy consuming device (checking whether
`
`the user has predetermined a function for returning to an unoccupied home), id. at
`
`8–9; and performing the determined operation (turning on the lights). Id.
`
`[031] Combining Galvin and Kansal. Both Galvin and Kansal are
`
`engaged in the same field of endeavor, namely the controlling of energy
`
`consuming appliances in order to maintain user preferences while reducing energy
`
`use during periods of high demand. One having ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`found reasons to combine the teachings of Galvin and Kansal as discussed below
`
`in order to provide a more efficient and responsive system because the energy
`
`management information would be received immediately from a utility (the one
`
`entity that most naturally has access to such information) and would thus be
`
`verified information.
`
`[032] In addition, the detection of a location of a mobile device using global
`
`positioning service (GPS) was traditionally used in prior art demand response
`
`systems, as illustrated by Kansal. Exhibit 1005, at 4:46–5:9. A skilled artisan
`
`20
`
`Honeywell 1001, Page 22
`
`
`
`reading Kansal would appreciate that Kansal’s GPS device is mobile device that
`
`has a location determined by GPS technology. One having ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have found reason to modify Galvin’s energy management system to use a
`
`mobile GPS device, as illustrated by Kansal, or one or more of Kansal’s other
`
`methods of detecting a user being disposed away from the site, in order to improve
`
`the accuracy of Galvin’s determination of whether a user is home or away.
`
`Moreover, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found reason to modify
`
`Galvin’s teachings to include a location determination using a mobile GPS device
`
`in order to alleviate a user from needing to click “hom
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
