`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.
`
`(record) Patent Owner
`
`IPR2022-00538
`U.S. Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET. SEQ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 6
`A.
`The ’597 Patent Disclosure ................................................................... 6
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11
`III. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY ........................................................................ 13
` Claims 1-24 Are Obvious Over Ehlers ’330 in view of the knowledge
`of a POSITA and Wruck. .................................................................... 13
`Effective Prior Art Dates ..................................................................... 13
`Overview of the Ground ...................................................................... 14
`1.
`Overview of Ehlers ’330. .......................................................... 14
`2.
`Overview of Wruck ................................................................... 17
`3.
`Overview of the Combination ................................................... 19
`Rationale (Motivation) Supporting Obviousness ................................ 20
`C.
`D. Graham Factors ................................................................................... 21
`E.
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................................... 21
`F.
`Analogous Art ..................................................................................... 22
`G.
`Claim Mapping .................................................................................... 22
`INSTITUTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314 .................................................... 72
`IV.
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 73
`V.
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 75
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ...................................................................... 76
`
`
`
`A.
`B.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,194,597 (“the 597 patent”).
`Declaration of Rajendra Shah.
`C.V. of Rajendra Shah.
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2004/0117330 (“Ehlers ’330”).
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2005/0040250 A1 (“Wruck”).
`Excerpt from The Industrial Electronics Handbook, Irwin, J.D.
`ed. CRC Press and IEEE Press, 1997, pp. 59-60.
`Horan, T, Control Systems and Applications for HVAC/R,
`Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1997.
`Levenhagen, J, HVAC Control and Systems, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
`1993.
`File History of Application No. 14/082,675.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,751,186 B2 (“the ’186 patent”).
`Exhibit number not used.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,789,739 (“Rosen”).
`WO 2007/128783 A1 (“McNulty”).
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2005/0171645 (“Oswald”).
`U.S. Patent No. 5,943,544 (“Charles”).
`U.S. Patent No. 6,029,092 (“Stein”).
`ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1185, Public Version of April 20, 2021
`Initial Determination
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220
`(N.D. Cal.), Answer (July 13, 2021).
`Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220
`(N.D. Cal.), Scheduling Order (August 11, 2021).
`Security People, Inc. v. Ojmar US, LLC, 14-cv-04968-HSG
`(N.D. Cal.), Order (May 29, 2015).
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 of
`
`claims 1-24 of U.S. Pat. No. 9,194,597 (“the ’597 patent”).
`
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL
`Lead Counsel
`Backup Counsel
`Matthew A. Smith
`Elizabeth Laughton
`Reg. No. 49,003
`Reg. No. 70,484
`SMITH BALUCH LLP
`SMITH BALUCH LLP
`700 Pennsylvania Ave. SE
`700 Pennsylvania Ave. SE
`Second Floor
`Second Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20003
`Washington, D.C. 20003
`(202) 669-6207
`(703) 585-8839
`smith@smithbaluch.com
`laughton@smithbaluch.com
`
`
`NOTICE OF THE REAL-PARTIES-IN-INTEREST
`The real-party-in-interest for this petition is Google LLC (“Google”).
`
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS
`The ’597 patent has been asserted in the following litigations:
`
`EcoFactor, Inc. v. ecobee, Inc., 6-21-cv-00428 (W.D. Tex. April 28,
`
`2021);
`
`
`
`Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220
`
`(N.D. Cal. April 30, 2021).
`
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION
`Please address all correspondence to the lead counsel at the addresses shown
`
`above.
`
`Petitioners
`
`consent
`
`to
`
`electronic
`
`service
`
`by
`
`
`at:
`
`smith@smithbaluch.com, and laughton@smithbaluch.com.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the patent for which review is sought is
`
`available for inter partes review, and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting an inter partes review on the grounds identified in the petition.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner respectfully requests that claims 1-24 of the ’597 patent be canceled
`
`based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-24 are obvious over Ehlers ’330 in view of the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA and Wruck.
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`This petition presents “a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioners would
`
`prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition”, 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a), as shown in the Grounds explained below.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. The ’597 Patent Disclosure
` The ’597 patent at-issue (with an earliest-possible benefit date of 2009)
`
`relates generally to controls for climate control systems, such as heating and cooling
`
`systems (“HVAC systems”). (Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:18-2:18, 3:48-67, 4:8-32)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶31). HVAC systems have, for decades, been controlled by thermostats. (Ex.
`
`1001, 1:18-2:17)(Ex. 1002, ¶32). Thermostats are typically wall-mounted units that
`
`have an internal temperature sensor, and which allow a user to set a target
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`temperature. (Ex. 1002, ¶32). The target temperature, or “setpoint,” is compared
`
`against the actual temperature, and the HVAC system switched on or off in an
`
`attempt to maintain the setpoint temperature. (Ex. 1002, ¶32).
`
`The ’597 patent states that “programmable thermostats have been available
`
`for more than 20 years.” (Ex. 1001, 1:18-19). According to the ’597 patent,
`
`“[p]rogrammable thermostats offer two types of advantages as
`compared to non-programmable devices.
`
`[¶] On the one hand, programmable thermostats can save energy in
`large part because
`they automate
`the process of reducing
`conditioning during times when the space is unoccupied, or while
`occupants are sleeping, and thus reduce energy consumption.
`
`[¶] On the other hand, programmable thermostats can also enhance
`comfort as compared to manually changing setpoints using a non-
`programmable thermostat. For example, during the winter, a
`homeowner might manually turn down the thermostat from 70
`degrees F. to 64 degrees when going to sleep and back to 70 degrees
`in the morning. . . . A programmable thermostat allows homeowners
`to anticipate the desired result by programming a pre-conditioning of
`the home. So, for example, if the homeowner gets out of bed at 7
`AM, setting the thermostat to change from the overnight setpoint of
`64 degrees to 70 at 6 AM can make the house comfortable when the
`consumer gets up.”
`
`(Ex. 1001, 1:19-44)(Ex. 1002, ¶33).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`According to the ’597 patent, however, “all of the advantages of a
`
`programmable thermostat depend on the match between the preferences of the
`
`occupants and the actual settings employed.” (Ex. 1001, 1:45-47)(Ex. 1002, ¶34).
`
`The ’597 patent explains that “[i]f the temperatures programmed into a thermostat
`
`do not accurately reflect the preferences of the occupants, those occupants are likely
`
`to resort to manual overrides of the programmed settings.” (Ex. 1001, 1:64-66)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶34).
`
`The ’597 patent suggests improving typical thermostat function by “adapting
`
`to signaling from occupants in the form of manual temperature changes and
`
`incorporating
`
`the
`
`information contained
`
`in such gestures
`
`into
`
`long-term
`
`programming.” (Ex. 1001, 2:10-12)(Ex. 1002, ¶35). In other words, the ’597 patent
`
`suggest detecting user-initiated manual changes to temperature settings (e.g.,
`
`setpoints) and then using information regarding those changes to make changes to
`
`long-term programming of a thermostat. (Ex. 1002, ¶35). It also suggests using
`
`inside temperature, outside temperature, and other factors to purportedly calculate
`
`and take into account the building’s thermal characteristics. (Ex. 1001, 2:12-17,
`
`5:17-34)(Ex. 1002, ¶35). As the ’597 patent notes, such calculations might involve
`
`the rate at which an HVAC system heats or cools a building. (Ex. 1001, 5:5-40,
`
`3:48-67, claim 9)(Ex. 1002, ¶35).
`
`The difference between the indoor and outdoor temperature was well known
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`in the prior art to affect the rate at which a building loses or gains heat. (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1007, Book p. 200; Ex. 1008, Book p. 281)(Ex. 1002, ¶36). For example, on a
`
`hot summer afternoon, a building will gain heat (incur a rise in temperature) faster
`
`than on a cool day, placing greater demand on the air conditioning system on a hot
`
`day. (Ex. 1002, ¶36). Similarly, on a cold winter day, the building will lose heat
`
`more quickly than on a warmer day, placing greater demand on the heating system.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶36). By extension, the apparent ability of the HVAC system to change
`
`the temperature of the house (and thus affect the rate of change of temperature) was
`
`known to depend on the outside temperature. (Ex. 1002, ¶36).
`
`One common prior art application of this principle relates to “setback and
`
`recovery” schedules. Such schedules change the setpoint of a thermostat at different
`
`times of day, in order to save energy when the building is unoccupied. (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶37). For example, a workplace thermostat could be programmed during the winter
`
`to have a daytime (8 AM to 5 PM) setpoint of 70 F, and an evening setpoint of 50 F
`
`(when the building is expected to be unoccupied). Allowing the building to cool
`
`down to 50 F in the evening is called “setback”, while heating the building back up
`
`to 70 F in the morning is called “recovery.” (Ex. 1002, ¶37).
`
`The ’597 patent has three independent claims. (Ex. 1002, ¶37). Exemplary
`
`independent claim 1 of the ’597 patent reads as follows:
`
`“1. A method for detecting manual changes to the setpoint for a
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`thermostatic controller comprising:
`
`providing a thermostatic controller operatively connected to a
`heating ventilation and air conditioning system, the temperature
`set point of the heating ventilation and air conditioning system
`being manually changeable;
`
`accessing stored data comprising a plurality of internal temperature
`measurements taken within a structure and a plurality of outside
`temperature measurements;
`
`using the stored data to predict changes in temperature inside the
`structure in response to at least changes in outside temperatures;
`
`calculating with at least one computer, scheduled programming of
`the thermostatic controller for one or more times to control the
`heating ventilation and air conditioning system, the scheduled
`programming comprising at least a first automated setpoint at a
`first time;
`
`recording, with the thermostatic controller, actual setpoints of the
`heating ventilation and air condition system;
`
`communicating the actual setpoints from the one or more
`thermostatic controllers to the at least one computer;
`
`generating with the at least one computer, a difference value based
`on comparing at least one of the an [sic] actual setpoints at the
`first time for the thermostatic controller to the first automated
`setpoint for the thermostatic controller;
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`detecting a manual change to the first automated setpoint by
`determining whether the at least one of the actual setpoints and
`the first automated setpoint are the same or different based on
`the difference value; and
`
`logging the manual change to a database.”
`
`(Ex. 1001, claim 1)(Ex. 1002, ¶38).
`
`As set forth in detail below, the elements of the ’597 patent’s claims were
`
`obvious over the prior art. As EcoFactor’s own patents acknowledge, it was well-
`
`understood that the ability of an HVAC system to cool a structure depended on the
`
`outside temperature and the “thermal mass” of the structure. (See, e.g., Ex. 1010,
`
`2:54-3:6)(Ex. 1002, ¶39). It was also known how to detect user-initiated manual
`
`changes to setpoints and to learn from those changes in order to improve thermostat
`
`programming and reduce the need for users to make manual setpoint adjustments.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶39).
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`“In an inter partes review proceeding, a claim of a patent…shall be construed
`
`using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim
`
`in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b)….” 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b).
`
`Claim constructions have not issued in either of the co-pending district court
`
`actions.
`
`A prior ITC investigation addressed related U.S. Pat. No. 10,018,371 (“the
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`’371 patent”). (Ex. 1017). Claim 9 of the ’371 patent recites a limitation similar to
`
`the “detecting a manual change” limitation of the ’597 patent. The two claim
`
`limitations are shown below, side-by-side, with the differences denoted in blue:
`
`“detecting a manual change to the first
`automated setpoint by determining
`whether the at least one of the actual
`setpoints and
`the
`first automated
`setpoint are the same or different....”
`
`’371 patent, claim 9
`
`(Ex. 1017, pp. 369-370)
`
`“detecting a manual change to the first
`automated setpoint by determining
`whether the at least one of the actual
`setpoints and
`the
`first automated
`setpoint are the same or different based
`on the difference value....”
`’597 patent, claim 1
`
`
`
`In the ITC proceeding, EcoFactor argued that the “detecting a manual setpoint
`
`change” limitation was met when the relevant comparison was carried out,
`
`regardless of whether the system had previously detected a setpoint change, and
`
`regardless of whether the system could retrieve complete manual setpoint change
`
`information from its memory. The ITC ultimately found that the accused product
`
`met the “detecting a manual setpoint change” limitation of claim 1. (Ex. 1017, pp.
`
`396-402).
`
`In this proceeding, Petitioner applies the ITC’s apparent construction of the
`
`“detecting a manual change to the first automated setpoint” limitation. (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶45-46).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`III. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY
`
` Claims 1-24 Are Obvious Over Ehlers ’330 in view of the
`knowledge of a POSITA and Wruck.
`
`Claims 1-24 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. Pat.
`
`App. Pub. 2004/0117330 (“Ehlers ’330”)(Ex. 1004) in view of the knowledge of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) and U.S. Pat. Pub. 2005/0040250 A1
`
`(“Wruck”)(Ex. 1005).
`
`A. Effective Prior Art Dates
`Ehlers ’330 was published on June 17, 2004, and is therefore prior art under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Wruck was published on February 24, 2005 and is therefore prior art under
`
`at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Wruck was not of record during the prosecution of the application leading to
`
`the ’597 patent. Ehlers ’330 was not of record during the prosecution of the
`
`application leading to the ’597 patent, although a similar patent to Ehlers ’330, U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 7,130,719 (“Ehlers ’719”) was cited in a 194-reference IDS. (Ex. 1009, p.
`
`300). The Ehlers ’719 patent was never discussed on the record by the Examiner or
`
`Applicant. See Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologies, Inc., IPR2019-01467, Paper 7
`
`at 10 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2020)(Ex. 1002, ¶¶47-48).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`B. Overview of the Ground
`Ehlers ’330 teaches or renders obvious all elements of the claims, and could
`
`be applied in a standalone §103 challenge. Wruck and the knowledge of POSITA
`
`are cited, however, to reinforce the obviousness of the limitations directed to
`
`“detecting a manual change” using a “difference value”, as described in more detail
`
`below.
`
`1. Overview of Ehlers ’330.
`Ehlers ’330 is similar to the ’597 patent. (Ex. 1004, Fig. 1B, ¶¶0072-0079,
`
`0099)(Ex. 1002, ¶¶51-52). Shown below are Fig. 1B of Ehlers ’330 (left side),
`
`compared with Fig. 2 of the ’597 patent (right side):
`
`
`
`
`
`Ehlers ’330, Fig. 1B
`
`’597 patent, Fig. 2
`
`
`(Ex. 1004, Fig. 1B, ¶¶0072-0079)(Ex. 1002, ¶52). In both systems there are
`
`conditioned spaces having thermostats. (Ex. 1004, ¶0076)(Ex. 1001, 3:48-67, 4:8-
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`32)(Ex. 1002, ¶52). The thermostats in each system are connected to gateways,
`
`specifically gateway 1.10D in Ehlers ’330 (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0061-0062) and gateways
`
`112 in the ’597 patent (Ex. 1001, 3:48-67, 7:54-61)(Ex. 1002, ¶52). The gateways
`
`connect the thermostats in each system over networks to servers. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0072-
`
`0073)(Ex. 1001, 3:48-67)(Ex. 1002, ¶52).
`
`Both systems collect and store information relevant to the conditioning of a
`
`building. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0088, 0151, 0268-0309)(Ex. 1001, 4:33-42)(Ex. 1002, ¶53).
`
`In Ehlers ’330, for example:
`
`“[T]he system 1.02 may have the ability to sense the current indoor
`temperature and could be enhanced to include at a minimum,
`humidity sensing, outside temperature, . . . dew point and local
`weather forecast data or encoded signals . . . .”
`
`(Ex. 1004, ¶0088)(Emphasis added)(Ex. 1002, ¶53).
`
`Ehlers ’330’s thermostat contains various temperature set points for the
`
`HVAC system, which are manually changeable by a user. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0012, 0013,
`
`0153-0160, 0228, 0239, 0244, 0253-0256, 0278, 0281, 0308-0309, 0316-0324,
`
`0320). A user can also “override” a scheduled setpoint. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0116, 0118,
`
`0156, 0316, 0354, Fig. 4C)(Ex. 1002, ¶54).
`
`Ehlers ’330 also teaches using rates of changes in temperatures. For example,
`
`Ehlers ’330 teaches calculating the rate at which inside temperature changes at any
`
`given outside temperature (i.e. the “thermal gain rate”) for a given setpoint, in order
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`to predict how long it will take for the HVAC system to heat or cool the building
`
`from one setpoint to another. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0253-0254, 0256, 0295, Fig. 3D)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶55). Ehlers ’330 can use this thermal gain rate to “compute[] the required
`
`effective set point offset needed to keep the HVAC cycle run time at [a] specified
`
`trigger level.” (Ex. 1004, ¶0256). Ehlers ’330 specifically determines what future
`
`setpoint would result in a thermal gain rate that would not increase the average
`
`HVAC run time and the controls the system accordingly. (Ex. 1004, ¶0256)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶55).
`
` Ehlers ’330 also teaches detecting and implementing a user’s manual
`
`changes to a setpoint. (Ex. 1002, ¶56). Ehlers ’330 explains that:
`
`“[i]n one aspect of the invention, the system 3.08 manages comfort
`for the customer site 1.04 by learning from the user’s inputs or
`adjustments to the system 3.08 to change or modify indoor air
`temperature.”
`
`(Ex. 1004, ¶0242)(Emphasis added)(See also Ex. 1004, ¶0243)(controls are
`
`“modified as needed based on the user’s changes to the set point at the thermostat
`
`1.30D” and that a “control algorithm [] learn[s] the user’s individual preferences and
`
`over time, eliminat[es] the need for the site 1.04 occupant to make any changes”)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶56).
`
`Ehlers ’330 further teaches that its system performs “set point pattern change
`
`tracking,” in which the system tracks and learns from a user’s changes to setpoints.
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`(Ex. 1004, ¶¶0268, 0308, 0309)(Ex. 1002, ¶57). Ehlers thus ’330 discloses that its
`
`system detects manual changes to HVAC setpoints, and uses such changes to alter
`
`the HVAC setpoint control algorithms. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0242-0243, 0268, 0308,
`
`0309)(Ex. 1002, ¶58).
`
`2. Overview of Wruck
` Wruck teaches a system that allows a wireless device such as a PDA to
`
`control a thermostat. (Ex. 1005, ¶¶0002-0005)(Ex. 1002, ¶59). The thermostat can
`
`be programmed with a schedule to save energy, as shown, for example, in Figs. 9G
`
`and 9I of Wruck, reproduced here:
`
`
`(Ex. 1005, Figs. 9G and 9I, ¶0098)(Ex. 1002, ¶59). As shown in the figures, the user
`
`can enter times of the day when periods of occupancy and non-occupancy begin
`
`(Fig. 9G and Fig. 9I), and associated heating and cooling setpoints. (Id.). Wruck
`
`thus teaches a system with “scheduled programming of the thermostatic controller”,
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`similar to the scheduled programming of the ’597 patent. (Ex. 1002, ¶59).
`
`Wruck further teaches that the user can temporarily override scheduled
`
`setpoints. (Ex. 1005, ¶¶0005, 0014-0015, 0104, 0125, 0150, 0198, 0231, Figs. 14s-
`
`14z, 20b, Tables 28, 31, 36)(Ex. 1002, ¶60). This can be accomplished, for example,
`
`by pressing the up and down keys on the thermostat. (Ex. 1005, Table 36, Table 38,
`
`items 96 and 97, ¶0150)(Ex. 1002, ¶60). Wruck thus teaches making manual
`
`setpoint changes to scheduled setpoints. (Ex. 1002, ¶60).
`
`Wruck further teaches detecting manual changes using a difference value, or
`
`“delta”. Specifically, Wruck teaches that if a temporary setpoint has been entered,
`
`it will be displayed on the thermostat if it is different from the scheduled setpoint, as
`
`shown in Table 28 of Wruck, reproduced in relevant part below, with highlighting
`
`added:
`
`
`(Ex. 1005, Table 28, ¶0110)(Ex. 1002, ¶61). Here, Wruck teaches to check whether
`
`the difference between the temporary setpoint and the scheduled setpoint is equal to
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`zero, and if not, to display the temporary setpoint. (Ex. 1002, ¶61).
`
`3. Overview of the Combination
`As noted above, Ehlers ’330 is similar to the ’597 patent, and teaches or
`
`renders obvious all claims of the ’597 patent on its own. With specific reference to
`
`claim features directed to “detecting a manual change” using a “difference value”,
`
`Ehlers ’330 already teaches generating an automatic thermostatic control schedule,
`
`having automated setpoints. (Ex.1004, ¶¶0231-0234, 0239)(Ex. 1002, ¶62). Ehlers
`
`’330 further teaches adjusting its schedule by “learning” from a user’s setpoint
`
`changes that depart from the schedule. For example, Ehlers ’330 teaches:
`
`“In one aspect of the invention, the system 3.08 manages comfort for
`the customer site 1.04 by learning from the user’s inputs or
`adjustments to the system 3.08 to change or modify indoor air
`temperature. This learning process alters the operation of the
`system 3.08, freeing the customer from having to make changes to
`manage the indoor environmental condition.”
`
`(Ex. 1004, ¶0242)(Emphasis added)(Ex. 1002, ¶62).
`
`Based on Ehlers ’330 alone, it would have been obvious to determine a
`
`difference value based on comparing at least one of an actual setpoints at the first
`
`time for the thermostatic controller to the first automated setpoint for the
`
`thermostatic controller. (Ex. 1002, ¶63). This would have allowed the system to
`
`determine whether a manual change occurred, how far off the automated setpoints
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`were from the user’s desired setpoint, and to eliminate cases where manual changes
`
`were made that resulted in no difference between the user’s setpoint and the
`
`automated setpoint (e.g. where the user increases and then decreases the setpoint by
`
`one degree). (Ex. 1002, ¶63). Forming a difference value simply means subtraction,
`
`which was well-understood in the relevant timeframe. (Ex. 1002, ¶63).
`
`Furthermore, it would have been obvious based on the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA and Wruck to use a difference value between a user’s manually-entered
`
`setpoint and an automated setpoint to detect the manual setpoint change.
`
`Specifically, a POSITA would have understood from Ehlers ’330 that it would be
`
`necessary to compare actual setpoints (which can be user-entered) with the
`
`automated setpoints in order to “learn[] from the user’s inputs or adjustments to the
`
`system 3.08 to change or modify indoor air temperature.” (Ex. 1004, ¶0242)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶64). A POSITA further would have known that, in computer systems, a
`
`standard way to compare two numbers (e.g. two numerical setpoints) was by
`
`subtracting one from the other. (Ex. 1006, Book p. 60)(Ex. 1002, ¶64). Wruck
`
`provides an example of this by forming the difference value between a user-entered
`
`temporary setpoint and an automated setpoint. (Ex. 1005, Table 28)(Ex. 1002, ¶64).
`
`C. Rationale (Motivation) Supporting Obviousness
`A detailed explanation of the rationale supporting obviousness is provided
`
`below in the Claim Mapping section, under each claim element as appropriate.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`D. Graham Factors
`The level of ordinary skill encompassed a (1) Bachelor’s degree in
`
`engineering, computer science, or a comparable field of study, and (2) at least five
`
`years of (i) professional experience in building energy management and controls, or
`
`(ii) relevant industry experience. Additional relevant industry experience may
`
`compensate for lack of formal education or vice versa. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶26-28).
`
`The scope and content of the prior art are discussed throughout the Ground.
`
`The differences between the prior art and the claims are discussed in the
`
`“Overview of the Combination” and in the claim mapping, below.
`
`Petitioner is not aware of any secondary considerations that would make an
`
`inference of non-obviousness more likely.
`
`E. Reasonable Expectation of Success
`A POSITA in the relevant timeframe would have had a reasonable expectation
`
`of success in implementing the combination (as described with particularity below
`
`in the claim mapping section) of Ehlers ’330, the knowledge of a POSITA and
`
`Wruck. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶65-66). As Mr. Shah explains, the art was relatively
`
`predictable in the relevant timeframe (early 2009). (Ex. 1002, ¶66). A POSITA
`
`would have been able to make any necessary modifications to implement this
`
`Ground. (Ex. 1002, ¶66). This is discussed in more detail in the claim mapping
`
`section, where appropriate.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`F. Analogous Art
`Ehlers ’330 and Wruck are analogous art, because they are in the same field
`
`as the ’597 patent (building energy management and controls). (Ex. 1001, 1:18-
`
`2:17, 3:48-67, claim 1, preamble)(“A method for detecting manual changes to the
`
`setpoint for a thermostatic controller comprising….”)(Ex. 1004, Abstract, Title)(Ex.
`
`1005, Abstract, Title, ¶¶0002-0008)(Ex. 1002, ¶67). Furthermore, both references
`
`address several problems faced by the inventors—chiefly, control of building
`
`heating and cooling systems, implementation of setpoints, and control in view of
`
`outdoor temperature. (Ex. 1001, claim 1, Abstract, 1:18-2:17, 3:48-67, 4:62-
`
`5:42)(Ex. 1005, Abstract, ¶¶0062, 0120, 0183)(Ex. 1004, ¶¶0090, 0092, 0095, 0137,
`
`0141, 0145, 0147, 0167, 0182, 0204, 0239, 0244-0247, 0252-0256 and ¶¶0078-
`
`0082)(Ex. 1002, ¶68). See Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010).
`
`G. Claim Mapping
`This section maps the challenged claims to the relevant disclosures of Ehlers
`
`’330, the knowledge of a POSITA, and Wruck, where the claim text appears in bold-
`
`italics, and the relevant mapping follows the claim text. Petitioner has added
`
`numbering and lettering in brackets (e.g. 1[a], [1b]) to certain claim elements, to
`
`facilitate the discussion.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`“1[a]. A method for detecting manual changes to the setpoint for a
`thermostatic controller comprising:”
`
`Ehlers ’330 in view of the knowledge of a POSITA and Wruck renders
`
`obvious a method for detecting manual changes to the setpoint for a
`
`thermostatic controller. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶69-70).
`
`First, Ehlers ’330 teaches a system that involves managing a thermostatic
`
`controller. The thermostatic controller is the thermostat of a house. (Ex. 1004,
`
`Abstract, ¶¶0090, 0092, 0191, 0084, 0190)(See also Ex. 1004, ¶¶0150, 0229, 0066,
`
`0090, 0138, 0141, 0150, 0192, 0204, 0254, 0263, Fig. 2E). The overall system
`
`including the thermostat is depicted in Figure 1B below:
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1004, Fig. 1B)(Ex. 1002, ¶71). Another exemplary configuration of a portion
`
`of Ehlers ’330’s system (system 3.08) is illustrated in Figure 3B, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`
`(Ex. 1004, Fig. 3B)(Ex. 1002, ¶72). Ehlers ’330 teaches that “the system 1.02 will
`
`manage the indoor air temperature” and that “the system 1.02 is designed to provide
`
`monitoring and control of major loads, e.g., total electric load, HVAC systems, . .
`
`. .” (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0088, 0095, 0141, 0224, 0231, 0242, 0256, Fig. 1B, Fig.
`
`3B)(Emphasis added)(Ex. 1002, ¶73).
`
`As can be seen in Figures 1B and 3B, Ehlers ’330’s system contains a
`
`thermostatic controller in the form of thermostat device 1.30D. (Ex. 1002, ¶74).
`
`Ehlers ’330’s “system 1.02 . . . includes an advanced thermostat device 1.30D.”
`
`(Ex. 1004, ¶¶0076, 0088, 0141, 0149, 0223, 0229)(See also Ex. 1004,
`
`¶0224)(“thermostat 1.30D is an advanced thermostatic control device”)(Emphasis
`
`added)(Ex. 1002, ¶75).
`
`As depicted above in Figure 3B, “thermostat 1.30D” may also “form[] part of
`
`a temperature and environmental sensing and control system 3.08.” (See, e.g.,
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 3B, ¶0229)(Emphasis added). “Based on the sensed data, the
`
`thermostat 1.30D controls other devices 1.08 to manage air quality.” (Ex. 1004,
`
`¶¶0229, 0230, 0231, 0232, 0234, 0256)(Emphasis added)(See also Ex. 1004,
`
`¶¶0231, 0088)(“[T]he temperature and environmental sensing and control system
`
`3.08 will manage indoor air temperature.”)(Ex. 1002, ¶75).
`
`Ehlers ’330’s thermostatic controller contains various temperature set
`
`points for the HVAC system. (See, e.g., Ex. 1004, ¶¶0153-0160, 0253-0256, 0281,
`
`0320). These temperature set points are manually changeable. (Ex. 1002, ¶76).
`
`For example, a user may set a desired temperature set point for the thermostat
`
`1.30D. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0012, 0013, 0153-0160, 0228, 0239, 0244, 0253-0256, 0278,
`
`0281, 0308-0309, 0316-0324, 0320). A user can also “override” a scheduled
`
`setpoint. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0116, 0118, 0156, 0316, 0354, Fig. 4C)(Ex. 1002, ¶76).
`
`Ehlers ’330 renders obvious a method for detecting manual changes to the
`
`setpoint for a thermostatic controller. (Ex. 1002, ¶77). Ehlers ’330 explains that
`
`“[i]n one aspect of the invention, the system 3.08 manages comfort for the customer
`
`site 1.04 by learning from the user’s inputs or adjustments to the system 3.08 to
`
`change or modify indoor air temperature.” (Ex. 1004, ¶0242)(See also Ex. 1004,
`
`¶0243)(noting that controls are “modified as needed based on the user’s changes to
`
`the set point at the thermostat 1.30D” and that a “control algorithm [] learn[s] the
`
`user’s individual preferences and over time, eliminat[es] the need for the site 1.04
`
`
`
`26
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`occupant to make any changes”)(Emphasis added)(Ex. 1002, ¶77). Ehlers ’330
`
`further teaches that its system also performs “set point pattern change tracking.” (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶78). For example, Ehlers ’330 discloses that the “following data may be
`
`maintained or stored by the system 1.02. . . .
`
`“[0308] 40. Set point pattern change tracking tables to reflect
`specific day, time and day type setting changes to be used with
`‘follow my lead’ artificial intelligence learning and execution
`routines.
`
`[0309] 41. Set point pattern change tracking tables to reflect
`specific outside weather conditions in relationship to set point
`chang