IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO,
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent 8,013,732
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC’S PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Conventional Control and Monitoring Systems ............................................................5
`
`The ’732 Patent: Mr. Thomas D. Petite and Richard M. Huff Invent A New
`Type Of Distributed System For Remote Monitoring and Control. ..............................8
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR REVIEW ..........................................12
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................................12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Sensor (claims 1 and 2). ...............................................................................................13
`
`Actuator (claims 1, 2, 4, and 5). ...................................................................................14
`
`V. THE PRIOR ART ....................................................................................................................18
`
`A.
`
`Kahn (Ex. 1002) ...........................................................................................................18
`
`VI. THE PETITIONER CANNOT PREVAIL ON ANY OBVIOUSNESS GROUND
`AGAINST ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’732 PATENT ...................................20
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Claim Limitations Of A System Comprising A Gateway That Is
`Configured To Receive and Translate Select Information, Identification
`Information Of A Nearby Transceiver, and Identification Information Of
`Retransmitting Transceivers And To Transmit The Translated Information To
`A Computer Over A Wan Of Independent Claim 1 Would Have Been Taught
`Or Suggested By The Prior Art ....................................................................................21
`
`The Claim Limitations Of A System Comprising A Transceiver That Is
`Configured To Wirelessly Retransmit Select Information, Identification
`Information Of A Nearby Transceiver, and Its Own Identification Information
`Of Independent Claim 1 Would Have Been Taught Or Suggested By The
`Prior Art .......................................................................................................................30
`
`The Claim Limitation Of “a plurality of transceivers dispersed geographically
`at defined locations, each transceiver electrically interfaced with a sensor,” As
`Recited in Independent Claim 1 Would Not Have Been Taught Or Suggested
`By The Prior Art ..........................................................................................................33
`
`The Claim Limitation Of “at least one of said plurality of transceivers is also
`electrically interfaced with an actuator to control an actuated device,” As
`Recited in Claim 1 Would Not Have Been Taught Or Suggested By The Prior
`Art. ...............................................................................................................................39
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`E.
`
`The Petitioner Failed To Show That It Would Have Been Obvious To Modify
`Kahn With The Secondary References To Achieve A System Having A
`Plurality of Transceivers and A Gateway That Are Both Configured To
`Receive Select Information, Identification Information Of A Nearby
`Transceiver, and Identification Information Of Retransmitting Transceivers
`And A Gateway That Is Further Configured to Translate This Information
`And Transmit The Translated Information To A Computer Over A Wan As
`Required By All The Challenged Claims ....................................................................41
`
`F.
`
`The Petitioner Failed To Set Forth A Proper Obviousness Analysis ...........................48
`
`VII. THE PETITIONER FAILED TO IDENTIFY ANY COMPELLING RATIONALE
`FOR ADOPTING REDUNDANT GROUNDS OF REJECTION. .......................................51
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................53
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) ................................................. 19, 45, 46
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................ 45
`
`OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am Induction Techs., Inc.,
`701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2012). ..................................................... 19, 45
`
`
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University,
` IPR2013-00298, Paper No. 18 (P.T.A.B. November 15, 2103) ............ 44, 45
`
`Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty,
`CMB-2012-00003, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012) .......................... 46
`
`Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty,
`CMB-2012-00003, Paper No. 8 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012) .......................... 47
`
`MPEP § 2143 ............................................................................................. 19
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
` The principal inventor of U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732 (“the ’732 patent”),
`
`Thomas David Petite, is a Native American who has been honored extensively
`
`for his inventions and his contributions to technology.1 The United States
`
`Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a Collectible Card for Mr. Petite
`
`to honor him for his contributions as a Native American inventor.2 Mr. Petite
`
`was honored as a Native American inventor at the Native American
`
`Intellectual Property Enterprise Council Reception by the Director of the
`
`USPTO at that time, Mr. David Kappos.3 The USPTO director Michelle Lee
`
`issued a letter to Mr. Petite acknowledging him for helping to train patent
`
`examiners.4 The Georgia State Senate issued a resolution honoring Mr. David
`
`Petite as a Native American inventor.5
`
`
`1 Exhibit 2001, ¶¶ 3-6.
`
`2 Exhibit 2002.
`
`3 Exhibit 2004.
`
`4 Exhibit 2005.
`
`5 Exhibit 2003.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`The Petitioner is not reasonably likely to prevail on any of the challenged
`
`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`claims because it failed to provide any objective evidence that the claimed
`
`“gateway that receives and translates select information, identification
`
`information of a nearby transceiver and identification information of
`
`retransmitting transceivers and to transmit the translated information to a
`
`computer over a WAN” would have been obvious. Rather, the Petitioner
`
`provided mere attorney argument for this claim limitation:
`
`a POSITA would have recognized that it would be desirable to
`
`deliver sensor information to a computer over the WAN. The full
`
`set of selectors would include the claimed ‘the identification
`
`information associated with the nearby wireless transceiver, and
`
`transceiver identification information associated with one or more
`
`retransmitting transceiver.’6
`
`Noticeably absent from Petitioner’s argument quoted above are any citations
`
`to any supporting evidence such as expert testimony or prior art documents.7
`
`This Board has consistently refused to institute a proceeding when the
`
`Petitioner’s argument is based on mere attorney argument that is not supported
`
`by the record evidence. See e.g., In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Arendi
`
`S.A.R.L., Case IPR2014-00214, Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes
`
`
`6 Petition, pp. 41-42.
`
`7 Id.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`Review, Paper 12, p. 17 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)). It is a well-settled
`
`principle that the arguments of counsel at the patent office cannot take the
`
`place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ
`
`716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1997). Because the Petitioner’s position with respect to this important
`
`claim limitation (which is required by all of the challenged claims) is based
`
`only on unsupported attorney argument, the Petition should be denied.
`
`Moreover, the Petitioner did not present any objective evidence as to
`
`why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kahn (the principle
`
`reference relied upon by Petitioner) with the secondary prior art to achieve the
`
`claimed system of the ‘732 patent with a reasonable expectation of success.8
`
`Kahn instead discloses that the “[o]perating software in the PRU's, TIU's, and
`
`station performs the collection of measurement data and uses the system
`
`protocols for delivery of this data to a measurement file located at the
`
`station.”9 Because data about the performance of the PRNET is received,
`
`analyzed and stored at the station, there would have been no need or reason
`
`for one of ordinary skill in the art to translate and transmit at a gateway
`
`through a WAN extraneous data such as (i) select information, (ii)
`
`
`8 See id.
`
`9 Id.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`identification information associated with a nearby wireless transceiver, and
`
`(iii) transceiver identification information associated with one or more
`
`retransmitting transceivers, as required by the claims. Indeed, Kahn would
`
`have taught to a POSA that extraneous data should not be translated and
`
`transmitted through a WAN because a “design goal of the facilities is that the
`
`taking of measurements should have a minimal impact on PRNET
`
`performance.”10
`
`That is, the Petitioner did not show that a “skilled artisan would have
`
`been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve
`
`the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in doing so.”11 The Board has consistently declined to
`
`cancel claims in IPR proceedings when the Petition fails to identify any
`
`objective evidence such as experimental data, tending to establish that two
`
`
`10 Id.
`
`11 OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`different structures can be combined.12 Here, the Petitioner did not set forth
`
`any such objective evidence.13
`
`For these additional reasons as explained more fully below, the
`
`Petitioner failed to demonstrate that it is reasonably likely to prevail on any of
`
`the challenged claims of the ‘732 patent. Therefore, the Petition should be
`
`denied.
`
`
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`A. Conventional Control and Monitoring Systems
`
`“[C]ontrol systems utilize computers to process system inputs, model
`
`system responses, and control actuators to implement process corrections
`
`within the system.”14 Types of control and monitoring systems include
`
`“aperiodic or random, periodic, and real-time.”15 “Aperiodic monitoring
`
`systems (those that do not operate on a predetermined cycle) are inherently
`
`
`12 Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University, IPR2013-00298, Decision Not To
`
`Institute, Paper No. 18 (P.T.A.B. November 15, 2103).
`
`13 See e.g., Petition, pp. 20-54.
`
`14 Exhibit 1001, col. 1:59-61.
`
`15 Id. at col. 2:1-2.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`inefficient as they require a service technician to physically traverse an area to
`
`record data, repair out of order equipment, add inventory to a vending
`
`machine, and the like.”16 Periodic control systems include “meter monitoring,
`
`recording, and client billing.”17 Utility providers cut expenses by “increasing
`
`the period at which manual monitoring and meter data recording was
`
`performed.”18 Nonetheless, “the utility provider retained the costs associated
`
`with less frequent meter readings and the processing costs associated with
`
`reconciling consumer accounts.”19 Exemplary real time control systems
`
`include “[h]eating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems, fire reporting and
`
`damage control systems, alarm systems, and access control systems.”20 Real
`
`time control systems present the most challenging problems because they
`
`“require immediate feedback and control.”21
`
`
`16 Id. at col. 2:5-9.
`
`17 Id. at col. 2:12-13.
`
`18 Id. at col. 2:17-18.
`
`19 Id. at col. 2:22-25.
`
`20 Id. at col. 2:27-29.
`
`21 Id. at col. 2:30-31.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`Typically, control and monitoring systems were implemented in remote,
`
`distributed environments by installing “a local network of hard-wired sensors
`
`and actuators along with a local controller.”22 Problems associated with this
`
`typical approach included “the costs associated with the sensor-actuator
`
`infrastructure required to monitor and control functions within such
`
`systems.”23 Additional problems included the “added expense of connecting
`
`functional sensors and controllers with the local controller. Another
`
`prohibitive cost associated with applying control systems technology to
`
`distributed systems is the installation and operational expense associated with
`
`the local controller.”24
`
`Accordingly, there existed a need to overcome the shortcomings of the
`
`prior art with “an alternative solution to applying monitoring and control
`
`system solutions to distributed systems.”25
`
`
`
`
`22 Id. at col. 2:38-40.
`
`23 Id. at col. 2:35-37.
`
`24 Id. at col. 2:42-46.
`
`25 Id. at col. 2:46-48.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`B. The ’732 Patent: Mr. Thomas D. Petite and Richard M. Huff Invent A
`New Type Of Distributed System For Remote Monitoring and Control.
`
`To solve the problems associated with the prior art systems, the
`
`inventors of the ’732 patent created a new “system for monitoring a variety of
`
`environmental and/or other conditions within a defined remotely located
`
`region.”26 FIG. 2 of the ‘732 patent, reproduced below, illustrates “a
`
`monitoring/control system of the present invention.”27
`
`
`
`
`26 Id., Abstract.
`
`27 Id. at col. 4:42-43.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`The system disclosed and claimed in the ’732 patent includes
`
`“sensor/actuators 212, 214, 216, 222, and 224 each integrated with a
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`transceiver.”28 The system further includes “a plurality of stand-alone
`
`transceivers 211, 213, 215, and 221. Each stand-alone transceiver 211, 213,
`
`215, and 221 and each of the integrated transceivers 212, 214, 216, 222, and
`
`224 may be configured to receive an incoming RF transmission (transmitted by
`
`a remote transceiver) and to transmit an outgoing signal.”29 “Local gateways
`
`210 and 220 are configured and disposed to receive remote data transmissions
`
`from the various standalone transceivers 211, 213, 215, and 221 or integrated
`
`transceivers 212, 214, 216, 222, and 224 having an RF signal output level
`
`sufficient to adequately transmit a formatted data signal to the gateways. Local
`
`gateways 210 and 220 analyze the transmissions received, convert the
`
`transmissions into TCP/IP format and further communicate the remote data
`
`signal transmissions via WAN 230.”30 In particular, “local gateways 210 and
`
`220 may communicate information, service requests, control signals, etc. to
`
`remote sensor/actuator transceiver combinations 212, 214, 216, 222, and 224
`
`
`28 Id. at col. 5:65-67.
`
`29 Id. at col. 6:15-20.
`
`30 Id. at col. 6:32-40.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`from server 260, laptop computer 240, and workstation 250 across WAN
`
`230.”31
`
`The integrated transceivers “have a unique identification code (e.g.,
`
`transmitter identification number) 326, that uniquely identifies the transmitter
`
`to the functional blocks of control system 200 (see FIG. 2).”32 The integrated
`
`transceivers transmit to the standalone transceivers a data packet 330 including
`
`“a function code, as well as, a transmitter identification number.”33 A
`
`standalone transceiver receiving a data packet 330 from an integrated
`
`transceiver forms its own data packet “by concatenating received data packet
`
`330 with its own transceiver identification code 326.”34
`
`Accordingly, the disclosed invention includes a system for remote
`
`wireless communication comprising a device having a transceiver that is
`
`configured to wirelessly retransmit select information, identification
`
`information of a nearby transceiver, and its own identification information,
`
`and a data controller operatively coupled to a transceiver and a sensor.
`
`
`31 Id. at col. 6:41-45.
`
`32 Id. at col. 8:44-47.
`
`33 Id. at col. 8:51-53.
`
`34 Id. at col. 11:8-9.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
`
`For the Board’s convenience below is a summary (as understood by
`
`Patent Owner) of the claim rejections proposed by the Petitioner:
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are alleged to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) based on Kahn in view of the APA, Cerf, and Cunningham; and
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1-7 are alleged to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`based on Kahn in view of APA, Cerf, and Ehlers.
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Patent Owner opposes the Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions.
`
`The Petitioner’s proposed constructions generally ignore the context of the
`
`terms within the claim, and the Specification of the ‘732 patent.
`
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic
`
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Additionally, the
`
`“appropriate context” to read a claim term includes both the specification and
`
`the claim language itself. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010). If a term is “used differently by the inventor,” he may provide a
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`special definition if he does so with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Sensor (claims 1 and 2).
`
`The Petitioner used the same construction for “sensor” as previously set
`
`forth in the district court case SIPCO v. ABB35 to be “equipment, program, or
`
`device that monitors or measures the state or status of a parameter or condition and
`
`provides information concerning the parameter or condition”. But that construction
`
`for “sensor” was overridden in a later district court case SIPCO v. Amazon36.
`
`The court in Amazon discussed the construction of the term “sensor” in ABB in
`
`detail and although it partially agreed with that construction, the court in
`
`Amazon determined that “equipment” and “program” should be omitted, as
`
`there was no support in the specification to include such terms in the
`
`construction. Therefore, as decided by the court in Amazon, “sensor” should be
`
`construed to mean “device that monitors or measures the state or status of a
`
`condition and provides information concerning the condition.”37 This is the
`
`
`35 Exhibit 1006, pp. 25-29.
`
`36 Exhibit 1007, pp. 26-30.
`
`37 Id., p. 30.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`broadest reasonable construction of “sensor” in light of the specification and
`
`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`should be adopted in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`B. Actuator (claims 1, 2, 4, and 5).
`
`The claim term “actuator” should be construed as “a transducer that
`
`converts electrical, hydraulic, or pneumatic energy to mechanical motion.”
`
`This construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term
`
`“actuate” as “to put into motion or action.”38
`
`In sharp contrast, Petitioner’s construction of “sensor” and “actuator” as
`
`a program executing on a computer is not supported by the claim language. It
`
`is a well-known canon of claim construction that different words in a claim are
`
`presumed to have different meanings. See, e.g., Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S.
`
`Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The challenged claims use
`
`the terms “computer,” “sensor,” and “actuator” and therefore, they are
`
`presumed to have different meanings.
`
`Moreover, nothing in the Specification indicates that any of the terms
`
`“computer,” “sensor,” or “actuator” are used interchangeability. There is
`
`
`38 Ex. 2006, The American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition,
`
`Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, 1993, p. 14.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`nothing in the Specification, for example, that indicates that a computer is an
`
`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`actuator.
`
`For example, Figure 3C in the Specification (reproduced below) shows a
`
`sensor and an actuator as separate hardware components that are interfaced
`
`with a data controller (e.g., computer) via a Data Interface module.
`
`
`
`
`The Specification instead repeatedly makes reference to a sensor, an actuator,
`
`and a computer (e.g., controller) as being different devices:
`
` “Reference is now made briefly to FIG. 3B, which is a block
`
`diagram illustrating certain functional blocks of a similar
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`transmitter 340 that may be integrated with sensor 310. For
`
`example, sensor 310 in its simplest form could be a two-state
`
`device such as a smoke alarm. Alternatively, the sensor 310 may
`
`output a continuous range of values to the data interface 321. If
`
`the signal output from the sensor 310 is an analog signal, the data
`
`interface 321 may include an analog-to-digital converter (not
`
`shown) to convert signals output to the actuator 340. Alternatively,
`
`a digital interface (communicating digital signals) may exist
`
`between the data interface 321 and each sensor 310.
`
`
`
`As illustrated, many of the components of RF transmitter 340 are
`
`similar to that of RF transmitter 320 and need not be repeated
`
`herein. The principal difference between the configurations of RF
`
`transmitter 320 of FIG. 3A and the RF transmitter 340 of FIG.
`
`3B lies at the input of the data interface 321. Specifically, RF
`
`transmitter 320 included user interface buttons 327 and 329. RF
`
`transmitter 340, illustrates electrical integration with sensor 310.
`
`Unique 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 by RF
`
`transmitter 328 and transmission via antenna 323. In this way,
`
`data packet 330 communicated from transmitter 340 will readily
`
`distinguish from similar signals generated by other RF transmitters
`
`in the system. Of course, additional and/or alternative
`
`configurations may also be provided by a similarly configured RF
`
`transmitter. For example, a similar configuration may be provided
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`for a transmitter that is integrated into, for example, a carbon
`
`monoxide detector, a door position sensor and the like.
`
`Alternatively, system parameters that vary across a range of values
`
`may be transmitted by RF transmitter 340 as long as data
`
`interface 321 and data controller 324 are configured to apply a
`
`specific code, consistent with the input from sensor 310. As long as
`
`the code was understood by server 260 or
`
`workstation 250 (see FIG. 2) the target parameter could be
`
`monitored with the present invention.
`
`
`
`Reference is now made to FIG. 3C, which is a block diagram
`
`similar to that illustrated in FIGS. 3A and 3B, but illustrating a
`
`transceiver 360 that is integrated with a sensor 310 and an
`
`actuator 380. In this illustration, data interface 321 is shown with a
`
`single input from sensor 310. It is easy to envision a system that
`
`may include multiple sensor inputs. By way of example, a
`
`common home heating and cooling system might be integrated
`
`with the present invention. The home heating system may include
`
`multiple data interface inputs from multiple sensors. A home
`
`thermostat control connected with the home heating system could
`
`be integrated with a sensor that reports the position of a manually
`
`adjusted temperature control (i.e., temperature set value), as well
`
`as, a sensor integrated with a thermister to report an ambient
`
`temperature. The condition of related parameters can be input to
`
`data interface 321 as well, including the condition of the system
`
`on/off switch, and the climate control mode selected (i.e., heat,
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`fan, or AC). In addition, depending upon the specific
`
`implementation, other system parameters may be provided to data
`
`interface 321 as well”39
`
`Neither the Specification nor any other document cited by the Petitioner
`
`indicates that a computer executing a program is an actuator. There is no
`
`support for Petitioner’s proposed claim construction. Patent Owner’s
`
`construction is the broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`Specification.
`
`
`
`V. THE PRIOR ART
`
`A. Kahn (Ex. 1002)
`
`Kahn discusses “the basic concepts of packet radio … and present[s] the
`
`recent technology and system advances in this field. Various aspects of spread
`
`spectrum transmission in the network environment are identified and our
`
`experience with a testbed network in the San Francisco Bay area is
`
`discussed.”40 Kahn explains that “[i]n a point-to-point routing procedure, a
`
`packet originating at one part of the network proceeds directly through a series
`
`
`39 Exhibit 1001, the ’732 patent, col. 9, ll. 26-65.
`
`40 Exhibit 1002, Abstract.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`of one or more repeaters until it reaches its final destination. The point-to-
`
`point route (which consists of an ordered set of selectors) is first determined by
`
`a station which is the only element in the net that knows the current overall
`
`system connectivity.”41
`
`Significantly, Kahn does not teach a wireless communication system
`
`comprising a device having a transceiver that is configured to wirelessly
`
`retransmit i) select information, ii) identification information of a nearby
`
`transceiver, and iii) its own identification information, as required by each of
`
`challenged independent claims 13 and 20. Kahn also does not teach: i) a data
`
`controller operatively coupled to a transceiver and a sensor, ii) the data
`
`controller providing a control signal to an actuator for implementation of a
`
`command, or iii) an actuator configured to receive command data from the
`
`controller and in response implement the command.
`
`
`
`
`41 Id. at p. 1479.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`VI. THE PETITIONER CANNOT PREVAIL ON ANY OBVIOUSNESS
`GROUND AGAINST ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’732
`PATENT
`
`Differences between the challenged claims and the prior art are critical
`
`factual inquiries for any obviousness analysis and must be explicitly set forth
`
`by the Petitioner.42 The bases for rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 must be
`
`made explicit.43 Thus, a petition seeking to invalidate a patent as obvious must
`
`demonstrate that a “skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the
`
`teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that
`
`the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing
`
`so.”44 The petition’s evidence must also address every limitation of every
`
`challenged claim.
`
`Here, the Board should confirm the challenged claims because (i) the
`
`Petition failed to demonstrate that every claim limitation of any of the
`
`challenged claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and (ii) the Petition failed to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`42 See Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). )
`
`43 MPEP § 2143.
`
`44 OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012).
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the numerous prior art
`
`references in the different combinations to achieve the claimed invention.
`
`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`
`
`A. The Claim Limitations Of A System Comprising A Gateway That Is
`Configured To Receive and Translate Select
`Information,
`Identification
`Information Of A Nearby Transceiver, and
`Identification Information Of Retransmitting Transceivers And To
`Transmit The Translated Information To A Computer Over A Wan Of
`Independent Claim 1 Would Have Been Taught Or Suggested By The
`Prior Art
`
`Independent claim 1 requires a system comprising a gateway that
`
`receives and translates select information, identification information of a
`
`nearby transceiver and identification information of retransmitting transceivers
`
`and to transmit the translated information to a computer over a WAN. In
`
`particular, claim 1 recites “at least one gateway connected to the wide area
`
`network configured to receive and translate the select information, the
`
`identification information associated with the nearby wireless transceiver, and
`
`transceiver identification information associated with one or more
`
`retransmitting transceivers, said gateway further configured to further transmit
`
`the translated information to the computer over the WAN.”45
`
`
`45 Exhibit 1001, col. 20:1-16.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`Petitioner asserted that Kahn’s station is the claimed “gateway” and that
`
`“a POSITA would have recognized that it would be desirable to deliver the full
`
`set of selectors included in a PRNET packet along with the sensor information
`
`to a computer over the WAN.”46 Petitioner fur