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 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 ...........................................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Conventional Control and Monitoring Systems ............................................................6
`
`The ’732 Patent: Mr. Thomas D. Petite and Richard M. Huff Invent A New
`Type Of Distributed System For Remote Monitoring and Control. ..............................9
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR REVIEW ..........................................13
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................................14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Sensor (claims 1 and 2). ...............................................................................................15
`
`Actuator (claims 1, 2, 4, and 5). ...................................................................................16
`
`V. THE PRIOR ART ....................................................................................................................20
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Kahn (Ex. 1002) ...........................................................................................................20
`
`Cunningham (Ex. 1014) ...............................................................................................22
`
`VI. THE PETITIONER CANNOT PREVAIL ON ANY OBVIOUSNESS GROUND
`AGAINST ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’732 PATENT ...................................23
`
`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 ....................................................................................24
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Kahn’s Pickup Packets Are Not Transmitted From The PRNET To The
`ARPANET Via The Gateway ................................................................................28
`
`Kahn’s Measurement File Does Not Contain The Identifiers Of The
`Retransmitting Transceiver Or The Nearby Transceiver For The Packets
`That Are Received At The Station. ........................................................................30
`
`Even If Kahn’s Measurement File Were Modified To Include The Select
`Information And The Identifiers Of The Retransmitting Transceiver And
`The Nearby Transceiver, It Would Still Not Satisfy Claim 1 Because
`These Three Data Items Would Not Be Translated As Required By Claim
`1..............................................................................................................................34
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The Secondary References Do Not Compensate For Kahn’s Deficiencies ...........36
`
`Petitioner’s Position Is Based On Mere Attorney Argument.................................39
`
`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 Not Have Been Taught Or Suggested By The
`Prior Art .......................................................................................................................41
`
`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 ..........................................................................................................46
`
`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. ...............................................................................................................................53
`
`The Claim Limitation That “the control of the actuation device by the actuator
`corresponds to a sensed condition detected by the sensor electrically
`interfaced to the at least one of said plurality of transceivers also electrically
`interfaced with the actuator,” As Recited in Claim 2 Would Not Have Been
`Taught Or Suggested By The Prior Art. ......................................................................55
`
`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 ....................................................................57
`
`G.
`
`The Petitioner Failed To Set Forth A Proper Obviousness Analysis ...........................71
`
`VII. THE IPR PROCEEDINGS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. .........................................74
`
`VIII.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................75
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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) ................................................. 23, 71, 72
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................ 71
`
`OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am Induction Techs., Inc.,
`701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2012). ................................................. 6, 23, 71
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University,
` IPR2013-00298, Paper No. 18 (P.T.A.B. November 15, 2103) ........ 6, 70, 71
`
`Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty,
`CMB-2012-00003, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012) .......................... 72
`
`Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty,
`CMB-2012-00003, Paper No. 8 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012) .......................... 73
`
`MPEP § 2143 ............................................................................................. 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`Exhibits
`
`Declaration of Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`Web page at: http://www.uspto.gov/kids/Petite.html, containing a
`Collectible Card issued by the U.S. Patent Office to Mr. David Petite
`for his contributions as a Native American inventor.
`Resolution from the Georgia State Senate honoring Mr. David Petite
`as a Native American inventor
`Opening remarks acknowledging Mr. David Petite as a Native
`American inventor, made at the Native American Intellectual
`Property Enterprise Council Reception by the Director of the USPTO
`at that time, David Kappos.
`Letter from the USPTO director Michelle Lee acknowledging David
`Petite for helping to train patent examiners.
`application data sheet submitted with the ‘732 patent
`Specification of the application corresponding to the '732 patent
`Response to Office Action
`filing receipt
`bibliographic data sheet
`Petition Decision, January 20, 2017
`wikipedia channel communications
`American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition, Houghton
`Mifflin Company, 1993, p. 14.
`Declaration of Dr. Ameroth
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Almeroth
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Heppe, August 9, 2017
`K. Ramachandran, E. Belding, K. Almeroth, and M. Buddhikot,
`“Interference-Aware Channel Assignment in Multi-Radio Wireless
`Mesh Networks,” IEEE Infocom, Barcelona, SPAIN, April 2006.
`B. Greeves, “SCADA Uses Radio to Bridge the Gap,” Sensor
`Review, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 31-34, 1994.
`Bristol Babcock Network 3000 Communications Users Guide
`O. Gurewitz, V. Mancuso, J. Shi, and E. Knightly, “Measurement
`and Modeling of the Origins of Starvation in Congestion Controlled
`Mesh Networks,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 17,
`num. 6, Pgs. 1832-1845, December 2009.
`Open Bristol System Interface Utilities Manual
`
`v
`
`
`
`2001
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`2008
`2009
`2010
`2011
`2012
`2013
`
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`2020
`
`2021
`
`
`
`

`

`2022
`
`
`
`A. Flowers and S. Zeadally, “Cyberwar: The What, When, Why,
`and How,” IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, vol. 3, num. 3,
`Pgs. 14-21, Fall 2014.
`
`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`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
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`The Petitioner did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that any
`
`of the challenged claims would have been obvious for two separate and
`
`independent sets of reasons. First, several claim limitations would not have
`
`been taught by the prior art. For example, the claim limitation of a transceiver
`
`“configured to wirelessly retransmit in the predetermined signal type the select
`
`information, the identification information associated with the nearby wireless
`
`transceiver, and transceiver identification information associated with the
`
`transceiver making retransmission” would not have been taught by the prior
`
`art, including Kahn.
`
`In addition, the claim limitation of “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,” would
`
`not have been taught by the prior art. Rather, data received at a station in
`
`Kahn’s PRNET is stored in a measurement file and that file – not the items
`
`recited in the claim limitation -- is transmitted to the ARPANET. For
`
`example, there is no teaching that Kahn’s pickup packets are transmitted
`
`outside of the PRNET. Moreover, there is no teaching in Kahn that the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`measurement file within the PRNET would need to be translated before
`
`transmission to the ARPANET. Similarly, data is processed and accumulated
`
`in Cunningham’s data collection module and that accumulated data – not the
`
`items recited in the claim limitation -- is transmitted outside the network.
`
`Exhibit 1014, Cunningham, cols. 16-20.
`
`Further, the claim limitation of a “transceiver electrically interfaced with
`
`a sensor,” would not have been taught by the prior art. Kahn instead teaches
`
`only the transmission of information about the PRNET itself and is not
`
`intended to accommodate extra hardware and software to interface with a
`
`sensor or actuator. Moreover, the claim limitation “wherein the control of the
`
`actuation device by the actuator corresponds to a sensed condition detected by
`
`the sensor electrically interfaced to the at least one of said plurality of
`
`transceivers also electrically interfaced with an actuator to control an actuated
`
`device,” would not have been taught by the prior art. None of the prior art
`
`would have taught a transceiver electrically interfaced to both a sensor and an
`
`actuator such that the actuator is controlled according to a sensed condition
`
`from the sensor. Sensors and actuators are not even mentioned in Kahn. The
`
`thermostat in Cunningham is adjusted based on the results of analysis
`
`performed at a remote server (e.g., utility prices), not a condition sensed by a
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`sensor that is electrically interfaced to the same transceiver as the actuator, as
`
`required by the claim limitation. Exhibit 1014, col. 46, l. 62 – col. 47, l. 10.
`
`Second, 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.6
`
`Indeed, the Board has already ruled in IPR2015-01973 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.” (IPR2015-01973, Final Written Decision,
`
`Paper No. 25, pp. 12-13 (“Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence that claims 13, 14, 16-21, and 23-35 of the ‘732 patent are
`
`unpatentable”)). The Board also recognized that “[t]he Federal Circuit,
`
`however, has noted that ‘[o]ften the inventive contribution lies in defining the
`
`problem in a new revelatory way. In other words, when someone is presented
`
`with the identical problem and told to make the patented invention, it often
`
`becomes virtually certain that the artisan will succeed in making the
`
`
`6 See id.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`invention.’” Id. at p. 8, quoting Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372,
`
`1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`That is, it was Mr. David Petite -- the Native American who has been
`
`honored extensively for his contributions to wireless mesh technology -- who
`
`recognized the problems and shortcomings of the prior art in applying control
`
`system technology to distributed systems. (Exhibit 1001, ‘732 patent, col. 2, ll.
`
`34-46 (“[a] problem with expanding the use of control systems technology to
`
`distributed systems are the costs associated with the sensor-actuator
`
`infrastructure … expense associated with developing and installing appropriate
`
`sensors and actuators … the added expense of connecting functional sensors
`
`and controllers with the local controller … the installation and operational
`
`expense associated with the local controller.”). It was Mr. David Petite who
`
`after recognizing the problems in this revelatory way, invented the system for
`
`remote data collection, assembly, storage, event detection and reporting and
`
`control that is recited in the claims of the ‘732 patent. Petitioner’s attempt to
`
`cancel the claims based on hindsight is both improper and disrespectful to Mr.
`
`Petite.
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`expectation of success in doing so.”7 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
`
`different structures can be combined.8 Here, the Petitioner did not set forth
`
`any such objective evidence.9
`
`For these reasons as explained more fully below, the Petitioner failed to
`
`demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the challenged
`
`claims of the ‘732 patent are obvious.
`
`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
`
`
`7 OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012).
`
`8 Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University, IPR2013-00298, Decision Not To
`
`Institute, Paper No. 18 (P.T.A.B. November 15, 2103).
`
`9 See e.g., Petition, pp. 20-54.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`within the system.”10 Types of control and monitoring systems include
`
`“aperiodic or random, periodic, and real-time.”11 “Aperiodic monitoring
`
`systems (those that do not operate on a predetermined cycle) are inherently
`
`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.”12 Periodic control systems include “meter monitoring,
`
`recording, and client billing.”13 Utility providers cut expenses by “increasing
`
`the period at which manual monitoring and meter data recording was
`
`performed.”14 Nonetheless, “the utility provider retained the costs associated
`
`with less frequent meter readings and the processing costs associated with
`
`reconciling consumer accounts.”15 Exemplary real time control systems
`
`include “[h]eating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems, fire reporting and
`
`
`10 Exhibit 1001, col. 1:59-61.
`
`11 Id. at col. 2:1-2.
`
`12 Id. at col. 2:5-9.
`
`13 Id. at col. 2:12-13.
`
`14 Id. at col. 2:17-18.
`
`15 Id. at col. 2:22-25.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`damage control systems, alarm systems, and access control systems.”16 Real
`
`time control systems present the most challenging problems because they
`
`“require immediate feedback and control.”17
`
`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.”18 Problems associated with this
`
`typical approach included “the costs associated with the sensor-actuator
`
`infrastructure required to monitor and control functions within such
`
`systems.”19 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.”20
`
`
`16 Id. at col. 2:27-29.
`
`17 Id. at col. 2:30-31.
`
`18 Id. at col. 2:38-40.
`
`19 Id. at col. 2:35-37.
`
`20 Id. at col. 2:42-46.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`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.”21
`
`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.”22 FIG. 2 of the ‘732 patent, reproduced below, illustrates “a
`
`monitoring/control system of the present invention.”23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21 Id. at col. 2:46-48.
`
`22 Id., Abstract.
`
`23 Id. at col. 4:42-43.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`transceiver.”24 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.”25 “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.”26 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
`
`
`24 Id. at col. 5:65-67.
`
`25 Id. at col. 6:15-20.
`
`26 Id. at col. 6:32-40.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`from server 260, laptop computer 240, and workstation 250 across WAN
`
`230.”27
`
`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).”28 The integrated
`
`transceivers transmit to the standalone transceivers a data packet 330 including
`
`“a function code, as well as, a transmitter identification number.”29 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.”30
`
`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.
`
`
`27 Id. at col. 6:41-45.
`
`28 Id. at col. 8:44-47.
`
`29 Id. at col. 8:51-53.
`
`30 Id. at col. 11:8-9.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`Indeed, Petitioner’s expert Dr. Heppe testified that in the ‘732 patent, a
`
`standalone transceiver transmits to the gateway (1) sensor data that it received
`
`from the integrated transceiver, (2) the identification code of the integrated
`
`transceiver, and (3) its own identification code to the gateway, which then
`
`translates this data to TCP/IP format before transmitting it via a WAN:
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2016, p. 38, ll. 6-18.
`
`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:
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`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
`
`special definition if he does so with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`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. ABB31 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. Amazon32.
`
`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.”33 This is the
`
`broadest reasonable construction of “sensor” in light of the specification and
`
`should be adopted in this proceeding. See Ex. 2014, ¶ 98.
`
`
`31 Exhibit 1006, pp. 25-29.
`
`32 Exhibit 1007, pp. 26-30.
`
`33 Id., p. 30.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`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.”34
`
`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
`
`nothing in the Specification, for example, that indicates that a computer is an
`
`actuator.
`
`
`34 Ex. 2013, The American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition,
`
`Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, 1993, p. 14.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`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., temper