IPR2015-01973
`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 IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent 8,013,732
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC’S PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 1 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ........................................................ 6
`
`A. Conventional Control and Monitoring Systems ............................... 6
`
`B.
`
`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.
`
`Sensor (claims 13, 20, 26 and 31). ................................................. 13
`
`V. THE PRIOR ART ................................................................................ 14
`
`A. Kahn (Ex. 1002) ........................................................................... 14
`
`VI. THE PETITIONER CANNOT PREVAIL ON ANY
`OBVIOUSNESS GROUND AGAINST ANY CHALLENGED
`CLAIM OF THE ’732 PATENT .......................................................... 16
`
`A. The Claim Limitations Of A Remote Wireless Communication
`System 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 Of Independent Claims 13 and
`20 Would Not Have Been Obvious In View Of The Prior Art ........ 17
`
`B.
`
`The Claim Limitations Of “a data controller operatively
`coupled to the transceiver and the sensor, the data controller
`configured to … receive data from the sensor,” As Recited in
`Independent Claim 13 And As Similarly Recited In
`Independent Claims 20, 26, and 31 Would Not Have Been
`Obvious In View Of The Prior Art ................................................ 20
`
`C.
`
`The Claim Limitation Of “an actuator configured to receive
`command data from the controller and in response implement
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 2 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`the command,” As Recited in Claim 19 And As Similarly
`Recited In Claim 25 ...................................................................... 27
`
`D. The Claim Limitation Requiring The Data Controller To Be
`“configured to receive data packets comprising control signals
`and in response to the control signals provide a control signal to
`an actuator for implementation of a command,” As Recited in
`Claim 14 And As Similarly Recited In Claim 30 ............................ 32
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The Claim Limitation Requiring a Controller Configured to
`“format some data packets by concatenating received data
`packets with data packets formatted by the controller enabling
`the controller to prepare data for transmission that includes
`repeated data and sensed data,” As Recited In Independent
`Claim 26. ..................................................................................... 33
`
`The Petitioner Failed To Show That It Would Have Been
`Obvious To Modify Kahn With the APA To Achieve 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 Coupled To The Transceiver and
`Sensor, As Required By Each Of The Challenged Independent
`Claims Of The ‘732 Patent. ........................................................... 36
`
`G. The Petitioner Failed To Set Forth A Proper Obviousness
`Analysis ....................................................................................... 40
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 42
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 3 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) ................................................... 4, 16, 39
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................ 4, 39
`
`OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am Induction Techs., Inc.,
`701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2012). ................................................. 3, 16, 38
`
`
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University,
` IPR2013-00298, Paper No. 18 (P.T.A.B. November 15, 2103) ........ 3, 37, 38
`
`Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty,
`CMB-2012-00003, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012) ............... 10, 11, 55
`
`Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty,
`CMB-2012-00003, Paper No. 8 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012) ................... 4, 5, 39
`
`MPEP § 2143 ............................................................................................. 40
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 4 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
` The Board should deny the present request for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,013,732 (“the ’732 patent”) because there is not a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail at trial with respect to at least one
`
`claim of the ’732 patent for three separate and independent reasons.
`
`The Board should not cancel any of the challenged claims because one
`
`or more of the limitations required by each of those claims would not have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.1 For example, a system for
`
`remote wireless communication 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 challenged independent claims 13 and 20 would not have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Additional claim limitations from the challenged claims would also not
`
`have been taught by the prior art including: 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, and iii) an actuator
`
`
`1 Infra, § VI.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 5 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`configured to receive command data from the controller and in response
`
`implement the command. Indeed, Petitioner’s argument is based on the
`
`assertion that two different terms (i.e., actuator and transceiver) used
`
`throughout the claims have the same meaning.2
`
`Moreover, the Petitioner’s obviousness rejections are all predicated on
`
`the false assumption that a skilled artisan could have achieved 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, or
`
`a data controller operatively coupled to a transceiver and a sensor, as required
`
`by independent claims 13, 20, 26, and 31 of the ’732 patent, by combining the
`
`teachings of Kahn with the APA.3
`
`The Petitioner did not present any objective evidence as to why one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kahn with the APA to achieve
`
`the claimed system of the ‘732 patent with a reasonable expectation of
`
`
`2 Infra, § IV.
`
`3 Petition, pp. 20-54.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 6 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`success.4 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.”5 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.6 Here, the Petitioner did not set forth
`
`any such objective evidence.7 For this additional reason, none of the
`
`challenged claims of the ’732 patent should be cancelled.
`
`
`4 See id.
`
`5 OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012).
`
`6 Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University, IPR2013-00298, Decision Not To
`
`Institute, Paper No. 18 (P.T.A.B. November 15, 2103).
`
`7 See e.g., Petition, pp. 20-54.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 7 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`In addition, the Petitioner neglected to follow the legal framework for an
`
`obviousness analysis set forth long ago by the Supreme Court.8 That
`
`framework requires consideration of the following factors: (1) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter
`
`and the prior art, and (3) the level of skill in the art. The Board has previously
`
`warned that failure to identify differences between the cited art and the claims
`
`is a basis for denying a petition:
`
`A petitioner who does not state the differences between
`
`a challenged claim and the prior art, and relies instead on the
`
`Patent Owner and the Board to determine those differences based
`
`on the rest of the submission in the petition risks having the
`
`corresponding ground of obviousness not included for trial for
`
`failing to adequately state a claim for relief. 9
`
`The Petitioner ignored the Board’s warning by failing to identify the
`
`differences between the challenged claim and the prior art. That is, the
`
`
`8 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); see
`
`also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 399 (2007) (“While the sequence
`
`of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham]
`
`factors define the controlling inquiry.”)
`
`9 Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty, CMB-2012-00003, Paper No. 7 at 2 – 3.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 8 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`Petitioner failed to identify the claim limitations that it believed are missing
`
`from the primary reference (i.e., Kahn) and are instead taught by the secondary
`
`references (e.g., the APA, Burchfiel, the Fischer catalog, Cerf, HART Data
`
`Link, and HART Command.)10 Rather, Petitioner provided a description of
`
`each reference followed by a conclusory statement that the references taught
`
`certain claim limitations, leaving the Board to figure out whether the primary
`
`or secondary reference best teaches the claim limitation.11 Under this
`
`circumstance, it would be “inappropriate for the Board to take the side of the
`
`Petitioner to salvage an inadequately expressed ground …”12
`
`For the reasons mentioned above as explained more fully below, the
`
`Petitioner failed to demonstrate that any of the challenged claims of the ‘732
`
`patent should be cancelled.
`
`
`
`
`10 Petition, pp. 20-54.
`
`11 Id.
`
`12 Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty, CMB-2012-00003, Paper No. 7 at 2 – 3;
`
`Paper No. 8 at 14-15.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 9 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`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.”13 Types of control and monitoring systems include
`
`“aperiodic or random, periodic, and real-time.”14 “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.”15 Periodic control systems include “meter monitoring,
`
`recording, and client billing.”16 Utility providers cut expenses by “increasing
`
`the period at which manual monitoring and meter data recording was
`
`performed.”17 Nonetheless, “the utility provider retained the costs associated
`
`
`13 Exhibit 1001, col. 1:59-61.
`
`14 Id. at col. 2:1-2.
`
`15 Id. at col. 2:5-9.
`
`16 Id. at col. 2:12-13.
`
`17 Id. at col. 2:17-18.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 10 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`with less frequent meter readings and the processing costs associated with
`
`reconciling consumer accounts.”18 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.”19 Real
`
`time control systems present the most challenging problems because they
`
`“require immediate feedback and control.”20
`
`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.”21 Problems associated with this
`
`typical approach included “the costs associated with the sensor-actuator
`
`infrastructure required to monitor and control functions within such
`
`systems.”22 Additional problems included the “added expense of connecting
`
`functional sensors and controllers with the local controller. Another
`
`
`18 Id. at col. 2:22-25.
`
`19 Id. at col. 2:27-29.
`
`20 Id. at col. 2:30-31.
`
`21 Id. at col. 2:38-40.
`
`22 Id. at col. 2:35-37.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 11 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`prohibitive cost associated with applying control systems technology to
`
`distributed systems is the installation and operational expense associated with
`
`the local controller.”23
`
`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.”24
`
`
`
`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.”25 FIG. 2 of the ‘732 patent, reproduced below, illustrates “a
`
`monitoring/control system of the present invention.”26
`
`
`
`
`23 Id. at col. 2:42-46.
`
`24 Id. at col. 2:46-48.
`
`25 Id., Abstract.
`
`26 Id. at col. 4:42-43.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 12 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`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
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 13 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`transceiver.”27 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.”28 “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.”29 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
`
`
`27 Id. at col. 5:65-67.
`
`28 Id. at col. 6:15-20.
`
`29 Id. at col. 6:32-40.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 14 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`from server 260, laptop computer 240, and workstation 250 across WAN
`
`230.”30
`
`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).”31 The integrated
`
`transceivers transmit to the standalone transceivers a data packet 330 including
`
`“a function code, as well as, a transmitter identification number.”32 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.”33
`
`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.
`
`
`30 Id. at col. 6:41-45.
`
`31 Id. at col. 8:44-47.
`
`32 Id. at col. 8:51-53.
`
`33 Id. at col. 11:8-9.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 15 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`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 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 30, 31 and 33 are alleged to be
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Kahn in view of the APA;
`
`2.
`
`Claims 16-18, 24, 28, 29 and 35 are alleged to be obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Kahn in view of APA, and Burchfield;
`
`3.
`
`Claim 23 is alleged to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
`
`on Kahn in view of APA and the Fisher Catalog;
`
`4.
`
`Claim 32 is alleged to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
`
`on Kahn in view of APA, and Cerf; and
`
`5.
`
`Claims 27 and 34 are alleged to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) based on Kahn in view of APA, Burchfiel, HART Data Link, and
`
`HART Command.
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 16 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`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).
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Sensor (claims 13, 20, 26 and 31).
`
`The Petitioner used the same construction for “sensor” as previously set
`
`forth in the district court case SIPCO v. ABB34 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”. However, that
`
`construction for “sensor” was overridden in a later district court case SIPCO v.
`
`Amazon35. The court in Amazon discussed the construction of the term “sensor”
`
`
`34 Exhibit 1006, pp. 25-29.
`
`35 Exhibit 1007, pp. 26-30.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 17 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`in ABB in detail and although substantially 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.”36
`
`This is the broadest reasonable construction of “sensor” in light of the
`
`specification and should be adopted in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`A. Kahn (Ex. 1002)
`
`V. THE PRIOR ART
`
`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.”37 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
`
`
`36 Id., p. 30.
`
`37 Exhibit 1002, Abstract.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 18 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`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.”38
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`38 Id. at p. 1479.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 19 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`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.39 The bases for rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 must be
`
`made explicit.40 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.”41 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 one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been motivated to combine the teachings of the numerous prior art references
`
`in the different combinations to achieve the claimed invention, and (ii) the
`
`
`39 See Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). )
`
`40 MPEP § 2143.
`
`41 OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012).
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 20 of 47
`
`

`
`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.
`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`
`
`A. The Claim Limitations Of A Remote Wireless Communication System
`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 Of
`Independent Claims 13 and 20 Would Not Have Been Obvious In View
`Of The Prior Art
`
`Each of independent claims 13 and 20 requires a remote wireless
`
`communication system comprising a device having a transceiver that
`
`wirelessly retransmits select information, identification information of a nearby
`
`transceiver and its own identification information. In particular, claim 13
`
`recites “a system … configured for remote wireless communication and
`
`comprising a device … comprising: 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.”42 Claim 20 recites “a wireless system
`
`… comprising … a wireless enabled thermostat device comprising: a
`
`transceiver … configured to wirelessly retransmit … select information, the
`
`
`42 Exhibit 1001, col. 20:1-16.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 21 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`identification information associated with the nearby wireless transmitter, and
`
`transceiver identification information associated with the transceiver making
`
`retransmission.”43
`
`The Petitioner asserted that Kahn alone teaches these claim limitations
`
`from independent claims 13 and 20 because Kahn “discloses a routing
`
`technique in which the entire set of unique identifiers/selectors is included in
`
`the packet header that gets relayed by the second transceiver.”44 But contrary
`
`to the Petitioner’s assertion, neither the portion of Kahn cited by the Petitioner
`
`nor any other portion teaches a remote wireless communication system
`
`comprising a device having a transceiver that wirelessly retransmits i) select
`
`information, ii) identification information of a nearby transceiver and iii) its
`
`own identification information.
`
`Rather, at the page and column cited by the Petitioner, Kahn states that
`
`“the selectors [identification information] would contribute overhead to the
`
`packet and, at most, only a small finite set of them could be carried along.”45
`
`
`43 Id. at col. 20:48-63.
`
`44 Petition, p. 21.
`
`45 Exhibit 1002, p. 1479, col. 2.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 22 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`And there is no indication that the finite set of selectors in Kahn includes both
`
`i) identification information of a nearby transceiver and ii) the transceiver’s
`
`own identification information, as required by independent claims 15 and 20.46
`
`Indeed, Kahn explicitly teaches away from retransmitting the
`
`identification information of both a transceiver and a nearby transceiver by
`
`explicitly disparaging the inclusion of selectors or identification information in
`
`the header of a message: “this choice may have a significant impact on the
`
`network efficiency and ultimately its extendability since the selectors would
`
`contribute overhead to the packet.”47
`
`Kahn instead teaches that “[a] far more attractive choice is for the
`
`sender’s or receiver’s digital unit to take on the responsibility for setting up the
`
`route that was specified by the station.”48 That is, one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would not have been taught by Kahn to include identification information
`
`from both a transceiver and a neighboring transceiver in a retransmitted
`
`message. Rather, one of ordinary skill of the art would have been dissuaded
`
`
`46 Id.
`
`47 Id.
`
`48 Id.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 23 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`from doing so by Kahn and would have been taught to instead have a sender’s
`
`or receiver’s digital unit take the responsibility for setting up a route.
`
`For this reason alone, the Petitioner is not more likely than not to prevail
`
`with respect to independent claims 13 and 20, as well as the challenged claims
`
`dependent therefrom (i.e., claims 14, 16-19, 21, and 23-25).
`
`
`
`B. The Claim Limitations Of “a data controller operatively coupled to the
`transceiver and the sensor, the data controller configured to … receive
`data from the sensor,” As Recited in Independent Claim 13 And As
`Similarly Recited In Independent Claims 20, 26, and 31 Would Not
`Have Been Obvious In View Of The Prior Art
`
`
`
`The Petitioner asserted that Kahn satisfies this limitation because “the
`
`packet radio software that is executed by the microprocessor controller
`
`contains measurement facilities that collect and deliver measurement data over
`
`the radio channel when an experiment is being run.”49 But the mere disclosure
`
`of these measurement facilities in Kahn does not indicate that a sensor as
`
`construed above (i.e., a device) is interfaced with a transceiver. Rather, the
`
`measurements disclosed in Kahn are merely network statistics that are
`
`produced by software tools counting received packets and registering their time
`
`
`49 Petition, pp. 17-18.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1018
`Page 24 of 47
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01973
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`of arrival. For example, Kahn explicitly states that “No additional hardware i