`
`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
`Patent 8,013,732 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
` Held: February 5, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00216
`Patent 8,013,732 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAMES L. DAVIS, ESQUIRE
`JAMES R. BATCHELDER, ESQUIRE
`STEVEN PEPE, ESQUIRE
` KATHRYN N. HONG, ESQUIRE
`
`DANIEL RICHARDS, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Ropes & Gray, LLP
`
`
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, California 94303-2284
`(650) 617-4000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`GREGORY GONSALVES, ESQUIRE
`Gonsalves Law Firm
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church
`Virginia 22043
`(571) 419-7252
`
`
`
`
`THOMAS MEAGHER, ESQUIRE
`Meagher, Emanuel, Laks, Goldberg & Liao LLP
`
`
`1 Palmer Square
`
`
`Princeton, New Jersey 08542
`
`
`(609) 454-3500
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on, at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00216
`Patent 8,013,732 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: First, we will hear argument in
`IPR2017-00216, Emerson Electric Company versus SIPCO. After a short
`break, we will hear argument in IPR2017-00252, Emerson Electric versus
`IPCO. Judge White is joining us by video from our Dallas office and Judge
`Zado is joining us by video from our Silicon Valley office. They won't have
`the benefit of the visual cues in the room, so, as you move through your
`demonstratives, please identify particular slide numbers.
`All right. Let's begin with IPR2017-00216. Each side has 45 minutes
`to argue. Petitioner has the ultimate burden of establishing unpatentability
`and will argue first, then Patent Owner will present its opposing argument,
`and then Petitioner may use any time that he has reserved for rebuttal.
`Counsel, when you begin your argument, please identify yourself and
`the party you represent, for the record. Petitioner, when you're ready.
`MR. PEPE: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon, Your Honors,
`may it please the Board. My name is Steven Pepe, and I will be discussing
`the disclosure of the prior art, in particular the Kahn reference. And my
`colleague, Kathryn Hong, will be addressing issues relating to the
`motivation to combine the prior art. We're both here on behalf of the
`Petitioner, and we're both from Ropes and Gray.
`Your Honor, I have hard copies of the demonstratives. May I
`approach?
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Yes. Thank you. And would you like to
`reserve any time for rebuttal?
`MR. PEPE: Yes, we would like to reserve 20 minutes for rebuttal,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00216
`Patent 8,013,732 B2
`
`Your Honor. May I proceed?
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Yes, please.
`MR. PEPE: Patent Owner raises two primary arguments about the
`Kahn reference. First is whether Kahn's packet radios, those are the claimed
`transceivers, receive and transmit the three pieces of information required by
`the claims. Second is whether Kahn's stations, that's the claimed gateway,
`receives these three pieces of information and then translates and transmits
`this information over the WAN to a computer.
`If we can please turn to slide 15, we're going to turn to the first issue.
`The claims require a transceiver that transmits three pieces of information,
`select information, ID information for a nearby transceiver, and ID
`information for the retransmitting transceiver. What we see here on slide 15
`is Figure 8 of Kahn, and we've highlighted the header, as well as what's
`called the text. The text portion is the payload, and that would carry the
`claimed select information, such as measurement data. Now, Kahn discloses
`a number of routing options for its packets, for the packets that are shown in
`Figure 8. One of these, and we quoted on the bottom, states that each packet
`originating at a radio could contain the entire set of selectors, and that's very
`important language as we walk through this presentation today. We're going
`to come back to that language time and time again. In the upper left, we see
`that selectors are defined simply as the identifiers of the radio.
`If we could turn to slide 16. Thus, by choosing this option, the option
`that sends the entire set of selectors in a packet, one would be including in
`the packets the ID for the nearby transceiver and the ID for the
`retransmitting transceiver, as Dr. Heppe explains in that quote that we have
`there. Thus, Kahn discloses exactly what the claim requires, a transceiver
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00216
`Patent 8,013,732 B2
`
`that transmits the ID of a nearby transceiver, the ID for a retransmitting
`transceiver, and the select information by virtue of that routing option that
`says send the entire set of selectors with the packet.
`If we could turn to slide 17. Patent Owner makes a number of
`arguments in connection with this element. First, Patent Owner argues that
`the ID of the retransmitting transceiver is not in the header. First, this is not
`a requirement of the claim. The claim never says where this information
`needs to be. It simply says the information needs to be transmitted. But
`even if it was, Kahn expressly discloses, and you can see it again in that
`quote, that the entire set of selectors, which would include identification
`information of the transceivers, would be in the headers.
`If we can turn to slide 18. Now, Kahn states that, when the entire set
`of selectors is sent with each transmission, there may be some impact on
`network efficiency and extendability. As a result, Kahn says that, when
`you're using this option, only a, quote, small finite set of selectors could be
`sent along with the packet. Now, Patent Owner latches onto that small finite
`set language and argues that this means that not all the selectors are being
`sent. It would only be a subset of those selectors. First, this argument
`directly contradicts the express language of Kahn. In the prior sentence,
`Kahn says that this option includes sending the entire set of selectors with
`the transmission. Second, as Dr. Heppe points out, this language simply
`means that, when this routing option is used, there will be a limited number
`of transceivers in the route. Thus, if you have a very, very large network
`with lots of transceivers, this routing option may not be a good option for
`you. That's simply all that language means.
`If we can turn to slide 20. Patent Owner also argues that Kahn
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00216
`Patent 8,013,732 B2
`
`teaches away from including all the selectors in the header because Kahn
`says that doing so would contribute to overhead, impact network efficiency,
`and potentially impact network extendibility. But the fact that there may be
`simultaneous advantages and disadvantages to an option does not mean that
`there's a teach-away. That's exactly the case here, including the entire set
`may be, in Kahn's own words, desirable because of significant operational
`and performance advantages, such as when you need to do a detour. If
`there's a fault along the route, you could detour or reroute the packets, and
`by having that entire set of selectors, that facilitates that rerouting. Now, the
`Board considered the very teach-away arguments that Patent Owner raised
`in its Patent Owner response that were also raised in the preliminary
`response and rejected those arguments at institution.
`If there's no questions on the transceiver limitations, I'm going to turn
`next to the gateway limitation, which is on slide 22. The gateway limitation
`requires that the three pieces of information required by the claim -- again,
`that's the select information and the two pieces of identification information
`-- are received, translated, and then transmitted over a WAN to a computer.
`Now, Kahn discloses that there's two networks. There's the PRNET, that's
`the packet radio network, and the ARPANET, that's like the internet, and
`there's a gateway between the two. And Kahn discloses that
`communications that are from the PRNET that need to go through the
`ARPANET are received by a station that engages in a gateway process.
`Kahn also discloses that there are measurement tools that provide
`networking information that could be useful for debugging and performance
`assessment operations of the network. And what Kahn discloses is that these
`measurement tools -- this information is received by the station, and that is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00216
`Patent 8,013,732 B2
`
`transmitted over the ARPANET to a UCLA computer.
`If we could turn to slide 23. This measurement data is disclosed by
`Kahn as including something called a pickup packet. And you can see that
`in that second quote from Kahn, pickup packets are defined as crates that
`start out empty at a traffic source, and they pick up information at each node
`that they traverse en route to their destination, thus providing a trace of their
`history. And that key language is at the end. As these pickup packets move
`along, this crate which is empty is going to pick up information about each
`node that it is traversing along the route. That would include the
`identification for every repeater, every packet radio that it winds up going to
`along that route. This measurement data --
`JUDGE WHITE: Counselor --
`MR. PEPE: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE WHITE: Counselor, it seems that one of the arguments being
`advanced at this point is that the pickup packets, similar to the cumulative
`statistics, are really not going to give you a view of any specific points in the
`network. It's going to give you some sort of, I guess, 50-foot view of
`cumulative nature of what might be happening at that time in the network.
`Is that a correct reading of Kahn and, if so, does that matter?
`MR. PEPE: We don't believe that's a correct reading. There are four
`tools that are disclosed, the cumulative statistics, snapshots, pickup packets,
`and neighbor tables. The cumulative statistics may aggregate or collect
`certain information, but there's nothing in Kahn that says that the pickup
`packets, which include the entire route through the network, are somehow
`not written into the measurement file or somehow ignored. In fact, the very
`purpose of collecting this data is to debug the network and prove the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00216
`Patent 8,013,732 B2
`
`network -- and improve its performance. And having this information,
`information about the route that was taken and the specific nodes that were
`traversed, that will help analyze that information at that UCLA computer in
`order to figure out how they can improve the network.
`If we could turn to slide 24. One of the arguments that Patent Owner
`makes is that the measurement file does not include the ID of the
`retransmitting transceiver, as well as the nearby transceiver. But in making
`this argument, Patent Owner, as I explained, ignores that the pickup packets
`include an entire trace of the route. And, as Dr. Heppe explains, the pickup
`packets include information about each node, including the nearby
`transceiver and the retransmitting transceiver. Dr. Heppe explains that all
`this information is put into the measurement file, and then it's transmitted
`over the ARPANET to the UCLA computer.
`If we can please turn to slide 27. Another one of Patent Owner's
`arguments is that the station does not perform translation. Again, the station
`is the claimed gateway. Now, the PRNET and the ARPANET are separate
`networks. And if you're going to communicate a signal from the PRNET
`over the ARPANET, there must be translation of the information to allow
`for transmission. Kahn, for example, states that the PRNET uses system
`protocols and that the ARPANET uses internet protocols. Kahn, in fact, on
`page 1494, we have it quoted up there, expressly states that a gateway
`process is used to allow communications between the PRNET and the
`ARPANET. And, as Dr. Heppe explains in his opening declaration at
`paragraphs 13 to 15, a gateway is a component that something that does
`translation or conversion. So clearly here, where you have a PRNET, an
`ARPANET, and a gateway process, there is translation of the signals that are
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00216
`Patent 8,013,732 B2
`
`going from the PRNET to the ARPANET.
`And if we can turn to slide 29. We see in Kahn, when it's talking
`about this gateway process, it specifically cites to Cerf as an example of the
`gateway process. And when you look at Cerf, and we have it quoted there,
`Cerf specifically refers to protocol translation, translation of the signal. And
`as the Board stated in its institution decision, Cerf defines a protocol
`translator that translates the packets from one network for use in another
`network, and that is at the institution decision at page 9. So if there's no
`further questions on the disclosure of Kahn, I'm going to hand off the baton
`to my colleague, Katie Hong.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Thank you, Mr. Pepe.
`MS. HONG: Good afternoon, Your Honors. My name is Kathryn
`Hong. I'm here on behalf of the Petitioner Emerson. Today, I will be
`addressing Patent Owner's arguments with respect to the motivation to
`combine the references.
`If you'll turn to slide 30, please. So, in particular, I'll be addressing
`the motivation to combine the admitted prior art with Kahn, the combination
`further with respect to Cunningham, and also the combination and ground
`with respect to Ehlers.
`Turning to slide 31, please. As the Petition set forth, the Applicants of
`the '732 patent admitted that prior art systems for monitoring and control
`with sensors and actuators, as shown in Figure 1 of the '732 patent, were
`known in the art. Figure 1, on the right-hand side, shows that sensors and
`actuators were hardwired to a local controller. It would have been obvious
`to replace these wired connections with wireless ones in the manner taught
`by Kahn. Kahn itself expressly provides a motivation to combine and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00216
`Patent 8,013,732 B2
`
`teaches that its wireless radio technology offers benefits of flexibility and
`rapid deployment and reconfiguration not currently possible with most fixed
`plant installations. Kahn further states that the basic concept is applicable to
`an extremely wide range of applications.
`Turning to slide 32. Dr. Heppe also provided testimony confirming
`that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Kahn
`with the APA to achieve these express advantages mentioned in Kahn.
`Turning to slide 33. Now, separate from the advantages of flexibility
`and ease of reconfiguration, the Petition set forth another reason to combine
`Kahn with the APA, to achieve cost savings by avoiding the need to install
`wired connections. Patent Owner argues that it is improper hindsight to rely
`on statements in the '732 patent regarding the cost problems of wired
`systems. But it was well known, as Dr. Heppe had testified, that replacing
`wired connections with wireless ones would, indeed, avoid the need to
`install wiring and avoid that cost. Greeves further confirms that it was well
`known that wireless radio is relatively cost effective when compared with
`physical links. Moreover, Applicants had admitted that the cost problems of
`wired connections were known and described these problems alongside the
`APA in the specification.
`If you will turn to slide 34. Patent Owner further argues that there
`would not have been a reasonable expectation of success. But Kahn
`expressly states that its wireless communication system is applicable to an
`extremely wide range of applications. And, as Dr. Heppe had further
`explained and Patent Owner has not disputed, prior art sensors and actuators
`of the admitted prior art were intended for third-party integration and would
`have had well defined behaviors and interface specifications to allow for a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00216
`Patent 8,013,732 B2
`
`predictable integration, thus supporting a reasonable expectation of success.
`I'm next going to move on to the combination with Cunningham on
`slide 35. Turning to slide 36. As the Petition had explained, Cunningham
`discloses a system for communicating data similar to that taught by Kahn
`and the APA. Looking at Figure 49 of Cunningham, information can be
`transmitted from sensors, shown on the left, to gateways, shown in the
`middle, to a host computer, shown on the right. Cunningham further
`discloses the use of customer computers that would allow customers to
`access data as needed and at the customer's request. This feature allows a
`customer, as Cunningham expressly teaches, to see relevant information by
`simply accessing a website.
`Turning to slide 37. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not
`provided an adequate argument regarding how the combination would have
`been obvious. But, as Dr. Heppe had testified, a person of ordinary skill
`would have been motivated to implement Cunningham's teachings to
`advantageously provide for enhanced data collection, including remote
`retrieval by providing users with remote access to centrally access data,
`which is a benefit and would allow a user to access data remotely instead of
`having to physically visit a central computer to get access to that data.
`Patent Owner does not dispute this advantage that would have motivated a
`person of skill to combine the references.
`I'll next be moving on to the combination with Ehlers. That's on slide
`39. So Patent Owner here does not dispute that Ehlers teaches the
`limitations that it is relied on for in the Petition, but instead argues against
`the motivation to combine. Patent Owner's argument should be rejected
`because they simply ignore the combinations presented in the Petition.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00216
`Patent 8,013,732 B2
`
`
`Turning to slide 40, please. So, as set forth in the Petition, Ehlers
`discloses a control system with a thermostat unit, including features such as
`a keypad, temperature sensor, and humidity sensor. Ehlers' control system
`provides for automatic control of an HVAC system using, among other
`things, user input, as well as sensor readings.
`Turning to slide 41, please. As Dr. Heppe had explained, a person of
`ordinary skill would have been motivated to implement Ehlers' control unit
`for an HVAC system to provide for continuous monitoring with feedback
`and control availability in the APA's HVAC system.
`Turning to slide 42. So Patent Owner first makes an argument that
`Ehlers cannot be combined because it does not disclose repeaters to
`retransmit packets. But as the Board had also recognized at institution,
`Petitioner is relying on Kahn, not the Ehlers reference, for retransmission.
`That's Patent Owner's argument that Ehlers does not disclose retransmission
`is frankly irrelevant. Moreover, Dr. Heppe testified that, regardless of
`whether Ehlers teaches retransmission, a person of skill would have been
`motivated to implement Ehlers' teachings of an HVAC control system as a
`known way to implement continuous monitoring for the HVAC system
`described in the APA.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: You have about five minutes left before
`you're into your rebuttal time.
`MS. HONG: Okay, thank you, Your Honor. Turning to slide 43. So
`Patent Owner here, again, ignores what was presented in the Petition. Patent
`Owner argues that Ehlers is not limited to using physical cables and wiring,
`so modifying Ehlers to adopt Kahn's packet retransmission capability does
`not make Ehlers' network more flexible. But, as we just discussed,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00216
`Patent 8,013,732 B2
`
`Petitioner is implementing Ehlers' teaching of a control system in the
`admitted prior art system and further implementing Kahn's wireless
`teachings in the combined system, which is wired. So Petitioner is not
`seeking to implement Kahn with Ehlers alone.
`Petitioner respectfully submits that the Board find these claims
`obvious. And, unless the Board has any further questions with respect to
`these topics, we will reserve the remaining time for rebuttal.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Thank you, Ms. Hong.
`MS. HONG: Thank you, Your Honors.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: All right. Let's hear from Patent Owner.
`MR. GONSALVES: Good afternoon, Your Honors. My name is Dr.
`Gregory Gonsalves, and I'll be representing the company that David Petite
`founded, SIPCO LLC. I also have an extra copy of the slides, if it would be
`useful for Judge Pettigrew.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Yes.
`MR. GONSALVES: I already gave the court reporter a copy. If you
`could please turn to slide number 2. Slide number 2 lists --
`JUDGE WHITE: Counselor --
`MR. GONSALVES: Yes.
`JUDGE WHITE: -- before you get going, I have a few sort of
`preliminary things I want to ask you about, just to be clear on some things.
`In this matter, I know there was a certificate of correction sought. What was
`the status of that?
`MR. GONSALVES: I believe it's still -- I think, in this matter, it was
`only a certificate of correction to correct a Patent Office error in how they
`printed the patent, and I believe that's still pending at the Petitions Branch.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00216
`Patent 8,013,732 B2
`
`
`JUDGE WHITE: Okay. And in the Petition, there was some
`argument as to the priority date and whether Cunningham was prior art. I
`didn't see anything further in the briefing about that. Is that a matter that's
`contested at this point or does Patent Owner agree that Cunningham was
`prior art?
`MR. GONSALVES: I think that, if we didn't contest it in the Patent
`Owner response, then we're not going to do so here.
`JUDGE WHITE: Okay. Continue, then.
`MR. GONSALVES: So if you could turn to slide number 2. It lists
`the grounds -- proposed grounds of rejection that were instituted by the
`Board. I should also note that David Petite's '732 patent, which is at issue in
`this proceeding, was challenged in a prior IPR2015-01973 and, in that IPR,
`the Board in its final written decision, which was written by Judge White,
`did not cancel any of the challenged claims in that proceeding.
`If you can please turn to slide number 3. There's some background
`information listed on slide number 3. These are quotes from the '732 patent.
`Real-time control and monitoring systems are typically implemented in
`remote, distributed environments by installing a local network of hard-wired
`sensors and actuators along with a local controller. It's describing the prior
`art systems. Such systems have sensors and actuators communicating
`directly with a local controller that communicates through a WAN to a
`central controller.
`Can you please turn to slide number 4? David Petite, the inventor of
`the '732 patent, recognized the problems with the conventional approach,
`and some of these problems that David Petite recognized are listed on slide
`number 4, including the cost associated with the sensor actuator
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00216
`Patent 8,013,732 B2
`
`infrastructure required to monitor and control functions within such systems.
`Additional problems include the added expense of connecting functional
`sensors and controllers with the local controller, installation and operational
`expense associated with the local controller.
`If you can jump forward to slide number 31, and then we'll come
`back. As indicated in slide number 31, the Board, in IPR2015-01973, its
`final written decision at pages 12 and 13, found that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would not have been motivated without the benefit of
`hindsight using the '732 patent to modify Kahn's network to connect the
`sensors and actuators of the APA.
`If you can turn to slide number 5, please. So in 2015-01973, the
`Board understood that David Petite was the first person to recognize the
`problems associated with the conventional wired approach and, to invent a
`solution to address the problems, David Petite's invention is recited in
`independent claim 1 and the claims dependent therefrom.
`If you turn to slide number 5.
`JUDGE ZADO: Counselor, I just want to clarify something. I
`believe you just said that the Board recognized that the inventor, Mr. Petite,
`was the first to do something. And I just want to clarify for the record, I
`believe that's a mischaracterization of what the Board did. The standard
`here is whether Petitioners made a particular showing and, to the extent the
`Board made any findings or determinations, it was limited to whether, in that
`particular instance, the Petitioner had made that showing. It wasn't that the
`Board was deciding that no one else had done something first. So I just
`wanted that to be clear on the record.
`MR. GONSALVES: Thank you. If you look at slide number 5,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00216
`Patent 8,013,732 B2
`
`David Petite's invention is recited in independent claim number 1. Among
`the things that independent claim number 1 recites is a computer integrated
`with a wide area network that formats and stores select information for
`retrieval upon demand. It also recites multiple transceivers, and the
`transceiver has to be electrically interfaced with a sensor. And each is
`configured to wirelessly receive three types of information, select
`information. Select information must come from a transceiver that's
`electrically interfaced with a sensor. In addition to this select information
`that must come from a sensor, the transceivers have to receive transceiver
`identification information from a nearby transceiver, and it also has to
`wirelessly retransmit this select information which originates at a sensor, as
`required by the claim, the transceiver's identification information and the
`retransmitting transceiver's identification information. And, in addition,
`there has to be a gateway that has to translate all -- each of these three pieces
`of information, the select information, which must come from a sensor, the
`transceiver identification information for the retransmitting transceivers, as
`well as the transceiver identification information for the transceiver that is
`electrically interfaced with a sensor.
`If we can skip forward to slide number 7, so we can talk about an
`issues with respect to sensor. A sensor, as indicated in the Patent Owner's
`response, should be construed to mean a device that monitors or measures
`the state or status of a condition and provides information concerning the
`condition. Now, it's important to note that, in the District Court case SIPCO
`versus Amazon, Amazon determined in its claim construction that the terms
`equipment and program should be omitted from the construction of sensor
`because there was no support in the specification to include those terms in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00216
`Patent 8,013,732 B2
`
`the construction.
`JUDGE ZADO: Counselor?
`MR. GONSALVES: Yes.
`JUDGE ZADO Petitioner seems to be relying on the admitted prior
`art for the disclosure of a sensor. Is there any reason to believe that the
`sensor described in the admitted prior art would not fall within either the
`customary meaning of the term sensor? Is there a need to construe sensor
`more than that, being that we're relying on admitted prior art here?
`MR. GONSALVES: That's a very good question. But one of the
`things that the Petitioner also relied on was network measurement data that's
`done in Kahn that comes, for example, from computers that are routing
`information and controllers that are routing information in the network. So
`it's important that those are software programs, and those types of things
`were explicitly excluded from the District Court's construction of sensor. So
`the Patent Owner's position is that a sensor is not a computer that's making
`decisions on how to route information through a network, like a PR network
`that's disclosed in Kahn. And that's why the construction of sensor is
`important in this proceeding.
`If you can please turn to slide number 8. The actuator, as indicated in
`the third paragraph of slide number 8, should be construed to mean a
`transducer that converts electrical, hydraulic, or pneumatic energy to
`mechanical motion. Notably, an actuator, as recited in the claims, is not a
`computer or a controller because the claim terms computer and controller
`also appear elsewhere in the claims of the '732 patent. For example, the
`claim term computer is recited in claim 1, and the claim term controller is
`recited in claim 10. Different terms in the claims are presumed to have
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00216
`Patent 8,013,732 B2
`
`different meanings. And this is very important because Petitioner's
`obviousness arguments with respect to the claim term actuator is based on its
`belief that a computer or controller controlling the operation of a packet
`radio network is the claimed actuator. Also, on this particular issue,
`Petitioner introduced new evidence for the first time in its reply, which is a
`dictionary definition of the term actuate in Exhibit 1047. And we believe it
`is improper to introduce new evidence and new argument in a reply to
`attempt to compensate for deficiencies with a prima facie case of
`obviousness that was set forth in the petition. There is no reason why the
`Petitioner could not have included Exhibit 1047 with its petition so that the
`Patent Owner would have had an opportunity to respond to it in its Patent
`Owner response. And, moreover, Exhibit 1047 actually supports the Patent
`Owner's proposed construction for actuator. If you look at Exhibit 1047,
`you see that there are portions in it that were omitted from the Petitioner's
`reply, but nonetheless indicate that the meaning of actuate is to put into
`mechanical action a motion which is consistent with the construction that
`Patent Owner has set forth.
`Slides 9 through 12, which I will not -- which I will skip over, but I
`should tell you that slides 9 through 12 list the claim limitations of the
`challenged claims that are not taught or suggested by the prior art. Those
`were just set there in one place for your convenience.
`If you can please turn to slide number 13. One of the glaring
`omissions of the prior art that's been asserted in this IPR proceeding is that
`the combination does not teach a system comprising a gateway that is
`configured to receive three different types of information, select information,
`which must come from a sensor, identification information of a nearby
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00216
`Patent 8,013,732 B2
`
`transceiver, and identification information of retransmitting transceivers. So
`the claim requir