Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 26-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 147
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`UBIQUITOUS CONNECTIVITY, LP
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CITY OF SAN ANTONIO by and through its
`agent, CITY PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF
`SAN ANTONIO d/b/a CPS ENERGY
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant
`
`CASE NO. 5:18-CV-00718
`
`JUDGE Xavier Rodriguez
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH IN SUPPORT OF UBIQUITOUS
`CONNECTIVITY’S OPPOSITION TO CPS ENERGY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1014
`Page 1 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 26-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 147
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH IN SUPPORT OF UBIQUITOUS CONNECTIVITY’S
` OPPOSITION TO CPS ENERGY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................5
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ..................................................................6
`LEGAL STANDARDS ....................................................................................................10
`A.
`Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................. 10
`TECHNICAL BACKGROUND .....................................................................................12
`A.
`Control Systems: Polling versus Event-driven Detection ..................................... 12
`i.
`Polling-based Systems .............................................................................. 13
`ii.
`Event-driven Systems ............................................................................... 14
`iii.
`Applications for Polling-based or Event-driven Control Systems ............ 16
`B.
`Communication Paradigms in Control Systems ................................................... 17
`i.
`One-way versus Two-way Communication .............................................. 17
`ii.
`Range Considerations for Various Communication Types ...................... 21
`iii.
`Early Interactive Telephone-based Systems ............................................. 23
`iv.
`Smartphone Development History ............................................................ 24
`Location Detection and Geo-fencing .................................................................... 26
`C.
`i.
`Location Trilateration, Generally .............................................................. 26
`ii.
`Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) ........................................................... 28
`iii.
`Cellular Tower .......................................................................................... 28
`iv.
`Geo-fencing............................................................................................... 30
`v.
`Conclusion ................................................................................................ 31
`OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS IN SUIT ..................................................................32
`Field of the Invention ............................................................................................ 32
`A.
`Background ........................................................................................................... 33
`B.
`Discussion ............................................................................................................. 35
`C.
`i.
`Systems ..................................................................................................... 35
`a)
`Base Unit ....................................................................................... 37
`b)
`Environmental Device(s) .............................................................. 40
`c)
`Remote Unit .................................................................................. 40
`ii.
`Systems ..................................................................................................... 44
`D.
`Disclosures in the Patents-in-Suit as a Whole ...................................................... 47
`VI.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................................50
`VII. Claim Construction ..........................................................................................................50
`Simple Messaging Service .................................................................................... 51
`A.
`VIII. CLAIMS ARE DIRECTED TO PATENT-ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER .........56
`
`Component Arrangement for On-demand, Bidirectional Communications
`
`Specific Communications for On-demand, Bidirectional Communications
`
`
`Page 2
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1014
`Page 2 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 26-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 4 of 147
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH IN SUPPORT OF UBIQUITOUS CONNECTIVITY’S
` OPPOSITION TO CPS ENERGY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Step 1 of the Alice test: Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are Directed to a Novel and
`Patent Eligible “On-demand, Bidirectional Communication System” and not to
`
`No Disclosed Improvements Directly Attributable to
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Step 2 of the Alice test: Claims of the Patents-in-Suit Reflect an Inventive
`Concept - Significantly more than “an Abstract Idea of Environmental Monitoring
`and Control” with Addition of an On-demand, Bidirectional Communications
`
`the “Abstract Idea of Environmental Monitoring and Control” ........................... 56
`i.
`“Involves” vs. “Directed to” ..................................................................... 57
`ii.
`Advances Over the Art.............................................................................. 59
`a)
`Then-existing Systems with Significant Shortcomings ................ 59
`b)
`Patents-in-Suit Overcome the Shortcomings ................................ 60
`c)
`Environmental Monitoring and Control........................................ 67
`d)
`Conclusion .................................................................................... 67
`iii.
`Considering the Character of the Claims as a Whole ............................... 67
`iv.
`Concrete and Tangible Elements in Claims .............................................. 70
`Considering the Field of the Invention ..................................................... 73
`v.
`Conclusion: On-demand, Bidirectional Communications System ........... 73
`vi.
`System ................................................................................................................... 74
`i.
`Overview ................................................................................................... 74
`a)
`Inventive Concepts........................................................................ 75
`b)
`Unconventional Uses .................................................................... 77
`ii.
`Detailed Discussion of Inventive Concepts .............................................. 78
`iii.
`Combination of Inventive Concepts ......................................................... 90
`C.
`Remaining Ubiquitous Claims .............................................................................. 91
`i.
`Remaining Independent Ubiquitous Claims ............................................. 92
`ii.
`Remaining Dependent Ubiquitous Claims................................................ 93
`D.
`Summary ............................................................................................................... 94
`IX. REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANT’S ASSERTIONS .......................................................94
`Rebuttals to Defendant’s Assertions under Alice’s First Step .............................. 95
`A.
`i.
`and Control................................................................................................ 95
`ii.
`Particular Technical Solution for Generating a Result ........................... 100
`iii.
`Environmental Monitoring and Control; is Fully Disclosed................... 102
`iv.
`................................................................................................................. 104
`v.
`Defendant Asserts are Inherently Unpatentable ..................................... 106
`a)
`Collecting Information ................................................................ 107
`b)
`Mere Use of a Computer and Conventional Business Practices . 109
`
`Patents-in-Suit Teach Significantly More Than Environmental Monitoring
`
`Patents-in-Suit do not merely “Claim a Result” but Instead Claim a
`
`Geo-fencing is not a Routine and Conventional Activity within
`
`Defendant Mischaracterizes the Problem Addressed by the Patents-in-Suit;
`Patents-in-Suit Concern Communication Technology not Remote Access
`
`Patents-in-Suit do not Fall into Certain Categories of Activities that
`
`
`Page 3
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1014
`Page 3 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 26-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 5 of 147
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH IN SUPPORT OF UBIQUITOUS CONNECTIVITY’S
` OPPOSITION TO CPS ENERGY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Dependent Claims Add Additional Detail to Ubiquitous Claims and do not
`
`Patents-in-Suit do not Recite a Collection of Conventional Components
`
`vi.
`Reflect the “Same Abstract Idea” or Any Abstract Idea ......................... 111
`B.
`Rebuttals to Defendant’s Assertions under Alice’s Second Step ....................... 113
`i.
`Performing their Ordinary Functions ...................................................... 113
`Bookmark not defined.
`SIGNATURE ..................................................................................................................120
`
`COMPARISONS OF THE UBIQUITOUS PATENT ELIGIBLE EXAMPLES Error!
`
`X.
`XI.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1014
`Page 4 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 26-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 6 of 147
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH IN SUPPORT OF UBIQUITOUS CONNECTIVITY’S
` OPPOSITION TO CPS ENERGY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`I, Ivan Zatkovich, hereby declare:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I have been retained by counsel for Ubiquitous Connectivity, LP (hereinafter “Ubiquitous”)
`
`to provide opinions on subject matter eligibility issues concerning the claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,064,935 (hereinafter “the ’935 Patent”) and 9,602,655 (hereinafter “the ’655 patent”), both
`
`entitled “UBIQUITOUS CONNECTIVITY AND CONTROL SYSTEM FOR REMOTE
`
`LOCATIONS.” I will collectively refer to these patents as the “Patents-in-Suit”). I understand
`
`that the complaint that Ubiquitous filed asserts claim 1 of the ’655 Patent (hereinafter “Claim 1”)
`
`and claim 19 of the ’935 Patent (hereinafter “Claim 19”). I will collectively refer to these claims
`
`as the “Ubiquitous Claims.”
`
`I am aware that defendant City of San Antonio (hereinafter “CPS Energy” or “Defendant”)
`
`has filed a motion seeking to invalidate the Patents-in-Suit, asserting that the claims of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit are directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`I have been asked to opine on the subject matter eligibility of the Patents-in-Suit under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101 in view of legal guidance provided by counsel for Ubiquitous and my evaluation of
`
`the Patents-in-Suit and Ubiquitous Claims.
`
`In this declaration, I use the term “SMS” as that term is defined in the specification and as
`
`defined by patentee acting as his own lexicographer, the meaning of which comprises “short
`
`message service messages,” “simple message service messages” and other digital communication
`
`messages. I discuss a proposed construction for “simple message service” below.
`
`My opinions are set forth below. I make these statements based upon facts and matters
`
`within my own knowledge or on information provided to me by others. All such facts and matters
`
`
`Page 5
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1014
`Page 5 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 26-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 7 of 147
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH IN SUPPORT OF UBIQUITOUS CONNECTIVITY’S
` OPPOSITION TO CPS ENERGY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. The list of material I considered in forming these
`
`opinions is in Exhibit 2.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`A copy of my curriculum vitae with a list of cases where I have been retained in the past
`
`five years is attached as Exhibit 1 to this declaration.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, with a minor in Electrical Engineering
`
`Digital Circuit Design, from the University of Pittsburgh in 1980. I completed a Master’s thesis
`
`in Computer Networks in 1981 at the University of Pittsburgh, the results of which were published
`
`in Byte Magazine. My Master’s thesis involved designing a heterogeneous network architecture
`
`that allowed substantially different computer systems to communicate with a common command
`
`interface. The primary application used to test the network was a search game that allowed
`
`multiple players on different computers to navigate through a shared matrix. The application
`
`maintained a common database of player locations across all computers in real time.
`
`I have over 30 years of experience in computer science and computer network architecture
`
`involving a diverse set of implementations including Telecommunication, CTI (Computer
`
`Telephony Integration), early wireless/cell phone communication, booking and provisioning
`
`systems. I specialize in systems for eCommerce, Geolocation, Supply Chain, and Logistics.
`
`I have been a Principal Consultant with eComp Consultants for over ten years. eComp
`
`Consultants provides professional consulting services relating to computer and technical matters
`
`in a wide range of industries including embedded Internet systems, cellular telephony, and cloud-
`
`based services. Such consulting services include working with clients, such as Amazon.com,
`
`
`Page 6
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1014
`Page 6 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 26-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 8 of 147
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH IN SUPPORT OF UBIQUITOUS CONNECTIVITY’S
` OPPOSITION TO CPS ENERGY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Microsoft, GEICO, Verizon, and McGraw-Hill, on specific information technology projects,
`
`process improvement, project management, and other technology issues.
`
`At eComp Consultants, I have been frequently called upon to provide my expert opinion
`
`on matters concerning patent disputes. I have been qualified as a technical expert in over 24
`
`matters and have specifically analyzed and testified about computer systems for managing and
`
`tracking shipments and supply chain and logistics management. A complete list of the cases in
`
`which I have testified in the last five years is included in Exhibit 1.
`
`In my professional career, I have worked for companies such as Digital Equipment Corp.,
`
`GTE Data Services (now Verizon), and Eva-Tone, Inc. on projects designing, developing, and
`
`integrating software and hardware for major computer and telecommunications systems and
`
`networks and on projects designing and developing eCommerce, content management, and web
`
`publishing systems.
`
`I worked for Digital Equipment Corp. from approximately 1980 until 1987. There I
`
`designed and developed computer models that could simulate a manufacturer’s supply chain,
`
`including tracking the status of the delivery of parts and other goods. I also designed a computer
`
`network that could handle Just-in-Time (JIT) ordering and shipping. I also designed and developed
`
`the communications drivers to operate within the DECNet architecture. This work also involved
`
`designing and implementing relational databases that could handle the complex workflows.
`
`I worked for GTE Data Services (now Verizon) from approximately 1987 until 1996.
`
`There I worked on designing the network architecture for a communications system that had
`
`service provisioning and service booking capabilities. I also designed and developed automated
`
`
`Page 7
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1014
`Page 7 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 26-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 9 of 147
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH IN SUPPORT OF UBIQUITOUS CONNECTIVITY’S
` OPPOSITION TO CPS ENERGY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Geolocation, and geographic mapping applications including truck routing for customer services
`
`and Facilities management.
`
`I worked for Eva-Tone, Inc. from approximately 2002 until 2007. There I designed and
`
`implemented systems for enterprise resource planning and supply chain management. My work
`
`also entailed designing and implementing an eCommerce system that allowed the company to
`
`book shipments using a variety of carriers and transport modes, including bulk, drop shipping, and
`
`container shipping, and manage and track shipments being handled by multiple carriers. Another
`
`eCommerce system I designed and implemented for Eva-Tone’s customer, Pro Marine USA,
`
`required developing separate interfaces to different freight carriers (e.g. UPS, FedEx, USPS) since
`
`each carrier implemented a separate API to access their in-house carrier systems. I understand that
`
`this system is still in use today.
`
`Specific projects I have developed or managed that are related to this matter include:
`
` Digital Equipment Corporation –
`• Developed TMS, a Computer Telephony Interface system for interfacing computers with
`telephone lines including receiving and sending computer commands and messages.
`• Designed Computer control systems and user control panels for remote control of
`manufacturing equipment.
` Verizon
`Implemented systems for provisioning, configuration, and update of Mobile Phones and
`•
`wireless devices.
`Implemented remote monitoring of telephone facilities including central office switch
`buildings. Application included remote control of zoned X10 monitoring devices and
`alarm activation operating on local secure networks and external networks.
`• Designed and developed Automated Geolocation, Geographic mapping and Facilities
`Management system based on Customer & Equipment location.
`
`•
`
`
`Page 8
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1014
`Page 8 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 26-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 10 of 147
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH IN SUPPORT OF UBIQUITOUS CONNECTIVITY’S
` OPPOSITION TO CPS ENERGY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
` GIS Dispatch Mapping (AWAS) – Implemented Geographic based mobile field services for
`locating subscribers and displaying routing information on a geographic map.
` Utility Partners - Development of remote appliance monitoring and control applications
`using Zigbee wireless multi-hop mesh network system, for monitoring of utility buildings,
`security and alarm notification. Also, implemented system for remote meter reading and
`appliance control.
` eComp Consultants - Development of mobile applications (iPhone and Android), high
`speed wireless communications, Wi-fi security mesh networks, and performed evaluation of
`secure networks, protected data storage systems, and wireless telecommunication systems.
`
`I have been retained as a testifying expert on the following matters related to remote
`
`control, cellular communications, and geolocation.
`
`• Black Hills v. Samsung et.al. – ITC Patent Litigation
`Analysis of Mobile based location sharing and event driven mobile applications such as
`AT&T FamilyMap, Google+ Location, and Latitude. Providing infringement assertions
`against Samsung, LG, and Toshiba (smart phones & mobile tablets).
`
`• Black Hills v. Sonos – Patent Litigation
`Testifying expert for central control of multiple remote devices including, creating a multi-
`hop mesh network for relaying communications through network nodes.
`
`• ABC v. ENC, CISCO, et.al. – Patent Litigation
`Testifying expert for Remote control of legacy monitoring systems including relaying
`keypad entry and display information to a remote user interface. Provided Infringement
`reports, invalidity rebuttal reports, and deposition.
`
`• KeyNetics v. Samsung – Patent Litigation
`Testifying expert regarding the programming mobile phones for access to Proximity
`Sensors, Motion sensors, accelerometer devices, and determine threshold and index of
`activity allowable before triggering events.
`
`
`Page 9
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1014
`Page 9 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 26-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 11 of 147
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH IN SUPPORT OF UBIQUITOUS CONNECTIVITY’S
` OPPOSITION TO CPS ENERGY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`By virtue of at least the above education and experiences, I have gained a detailed
`
`understanding of the technology that is the subject of my Declaration. For example, my experience
`
`with computer network architecture, cellular device communication, geolocation, and remote
`
`control and monitoring of devices is relevant to the subject matter of the Patents-in-Suit. As such,
`
`I am qualified to provide opinions regarding the state of the art at the time of the invention (2004),
`
`how one of ordinary skill in the art at that time would have interpreted and understood the Patents-
`
`in-Suit, and the subject matter eligibility of the claims of the Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`101.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`A.
`
`I understand that through decisions such as Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347
`
`(2014) and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), the
`
`Supreme Court established a two-part test to distinguish between patents that claim laws of nature,
`
`natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from patents that claim patent-eligible applications of these
`
`concepts. I will refer to this test as the “Alice test” because I understand that the specific
`
`articulation of the test, as provided to me by counsel, comes from the Alice decision.
`
`I understand that step one of the Alice test is to determine if the claims at issue are “directed
`
`to” a patent-ineligible concept such as an abstract idea. Although I understand that there is no
`
`explicit definition of what qualifies as an abstract idea, I understand it can include “fundamental
`
`economic practices,” “methods of organizing human activity,” and “an idea of itself.”
`
`I understand that an important distinction exists between an invention that is “directed to”
`
`an abstract idea and an invention that “involves” an abstract idea. As the Supreme Court has noted,
`
`
`Page 10
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1014
`Page 10 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 26-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 12 of 147
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH IN SUPPORT OF UBIQUITOUS CONNECTIVITY’S
` OPPOSITION TO CPS ENERGY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`all inventions somehow implicate laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. “At the
`
`same time, we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent
`
`law. At some level, all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature,
`
`natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for [a] patent
`
`simply because it involves an abstract concept.” Alice at 2354.
`
` I also understand that the courts have offered guidance on how to distinguish whether
`
`claims are “directed to” or merely “involve” a concept. One approach is to consider whether the
`
`claims’ “character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft et
`
`al., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Another approach is to consider “the focus of the claimed
`
`advance over the prior art.” Genetic Techs., Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016). In particular, I understand that courts do not consider all improvements to computer or
`
`communication systems as necessarily directed to an abstract idea. Enfish at 1335. Thus, some
`
`claims directed to such subjects may properly be resolved in the first Alice step in favor of
`
`patentability.
`
`If the claims are “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, I understand that the second step
`
`is an analysis of the claims at issue to determine if the limitations of the claims amount to
`
`“significantly more” than the ineligible concept itself. This analysis determines whether additional
`
`elements of each claim—both individually and as an ordered combination—transform the nature
`
`of the claim into a patent-eligible application of that abstract idea. I also understand that this
`
`second step is sometimes described as a search for an “inventive concept” where some element or
`
`combination of elements sufficiently ensure that the claim in practice does amounts to significantly
`
`more than a patent on an ineligible concept. To this end, I understand that a claim that recites an
`
`
`Page 11
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1014
`Page 11 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 26-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 13 of 147
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH IN SUPPORT OF UBIQUITOUS CONNECTIVITY’S
` OPPOSITION TO CPS ENERGY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`abstract idea must include additional features to ensure that the claim is more than a “drafting
`
`effort designed to monopolize” the abstract idea, and that claiming an abstract idea while adding
`
`the words “apply it with a computer” is insufficient. Alice at 2357, 2358.
`
` I further understand that claims that recite an invention that is not merely the routine or
`
`conventional use of a generic computer or the Internet have been found to be patent-eligible. I
`
`understand that claims that do not broadly and generically claim “use of the Internet” and are
`
`“necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in
`
`the realm of computer networks” have been found to be patent-eligible.
`
`I also understand that the Supreme Court cites examples of patentable subject matter that
`
`include: improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning
`
`of the computer itself; specific limitations other than what is well-understood, routine and
`
`conventional in the field; unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful
`
`application; and other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial
`
`exception to a particular technological environment.
`
`IV. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`The present discussion offers a brief overview of technical issues raised by or implicated
`
`by the Patents-in-Suit. The discussion that follows is not meant to be exhaustive as to these topics
`
`but is instead meant to supplement and expand on topics mentioned within the Patents-in-Suit so
`
`that the relevance of those topics to the Patents-in-Suit and the Ubiquitous Claims is apparent and
`
`so these concepts are understood within an appropriate context.
`
`A.
`
`Control Systems: Polling versus Event-driven Detection
`
`
`Page 12
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1014
`Page 12 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 26-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 14 of 147
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH IN SUPPORT OF UBIQUITOUS CONNECTIVITY’S
` OPPOSITION TO CPS ENERGY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Some electronic systems detect and respond to events in the ordinary course of their
`
`operation. These systems can be broadly categorized into two types: systems that detect
`
`occurrence of an event through “polling” and systems that respond automatically to the occurrence
`
`of the event (systems that are “event-driven”).
`
`i.
`
`Polling-based Systems
`
`A system that operates on polling requires the system to check for the existence of a
`
`condition on regular time intervals. A trivial example of a system that operates by polling the
`
`existence of a condition is an automobile driver checking the fuel level indicated on a gas gauge.
`
`An example of such a gas gauge is illustrated below.
`
`
`
`In this system, a driver looks at the gas gauge and visually discerns the fuel level in the
`
`automobile from the position of a needle within the gas gauge. The drive may act in response to
`
`receiving this information by putting refilling the automobiles fuel tank; e.g., a polling-based
`
`event. In this trivial example, the position of the needle reflects the information polled from the
`
`gas gauge, by a driver, as of the moment of polling.
`
`Systems employing polling have several benefits which make them attractive for some
`
`types of control environments. For example, polling-based systems are typically relatively
`
`
`Page 13
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1014
`Page 13 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 26-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 15 of 147
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH IN SUPPORT OF UBIQUITOUS CONNECTIVITY’S
` OPPOSITION TO CPS ENERGY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`inexpensive to create and simple to operate because the portion of the system related to retrieving
`
`the polled information may be idle until a request to poll for information is received.
`
`Systems employing polling can also have several considerations which make them
`
`unattractive for other types of control environments. One consideration with polling-based
`
`systems is that they require a polling interval that will detect potentially problematical changes to
`
`the system within an acceptable time period. For example, if a polling-based system checks a
`
`monitored condition every minute and the shortest time in which changed circumstances to the
`
`monitored condition could become problematical is at least five minutes, the polling-based system
`
`will detect the changed circumstances at least four minutes before the changed circumstances
`
`become problematical. By contrast, if a monitored condition could become problematical in two
`
`minutes but the condition is only polled every five minutes, the polling interval is too long.
`
`Referring back to the fuel gauge example: Drivers probably check the position of the gas
`
`needle on infrequent intervals (hours or days) because they may not expect the position of the
`
`needle on the gas gauge to change quickly, which is perfectly acceptable for most automobiles.
`
`Other types of control systems, such as home intrusion systems, would want much shorter polling
`
`intervals (if polling was used at all in such systems).
`
`ii. Event-driven Systems
`
`An event-driven system is different from a system that operates on polling because an
`
`event-driven system contains mechanisms that trigger an alert or an action on the occurrence of a
`
`condition than triggering an alert or an action on detection of the condition through polling. An
`
`example of an event-driven system is the “low-fuel indicator” within the driver’s field of vision in
`
`a conventional automobile. An example of this indicator, as a yellow light, is shown below.
`
`
`Page 14
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1014
`Page 14 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 26-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 16 of 147
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH IN SUPPORT OF UBIQUITOUS CONNECTIVITY’S
` OPPOSITION TO CPS ENERGY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Circuitry internal to the automobile constantly monitors the fuel level in the gas tank of the
`
`automobile. When the fuel level drops below a predetermined level, a low-fuel indicator typically
`
`turns on that is intended to alert the user to the low fuel level. The purpose of using a light is to
`
`draw the driver’s attention to the fact that the light is on when the light comes on or for the driver
`
`to at least notice the light shortly after coming on. If the driver notices when the fuel light comes
`
`on, the driver becomes immediately aware of the low-fuel condition without any regard to polling
`
`intervals. Because a low-fuel condition has a greater time sensitivity than an ordinary fuel level
`
`indicator, an event-driven system is appropriate for the former and is not necessary for the latter.
`
`Event-driven systems have several benefits which make them attractive for some types of
`
`control environments. For example, event-driven systems can respond quickly (without any
`
`consideration for a polling interval). Although an event-driven system can be more expensive and
`
`more complex than a polling-based system, when monitoring a single condition, event-driven
`
`systems typically have a controller that can be adapted or configured to monitor several
`
`circumstances with little or no additional expense or complexity.
`
`
`Page 15
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1014
`Page 15 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 26-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 17 of 147
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH IN SUPPORT OF UBIQUITOUS CONNECTIVITY’S
` OPPOSITION TO CPS ENERGY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`iii. Applications for Polling-based or Event-driven Control Systems
`
`As discussed above, some types of monitored circumstances can use polling-based
`
`monitoring while other types of circumstances need event-driven monitoring. The typical factors
`
`justifying one type of monitoring versus the other, for a particular application, are cost/complexity
`
`and required urgency for learning of changed circumstances.
`
`For example