`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.
`Patent Owner
`Patent No. 8,596,550
`IPR2022-00969
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 6 
`SUMMARY OF THE ’550 PATENT ............................................................. 6 
`A. 
`The Claimed Subject Matter ................................................................. 6 
`B. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 10 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE .................................................................. 10 
`III.  STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................. 10 
`IV.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11 
`A. 
`Stipulated Constructions ..................................................................... 11 
`B. 
`“database” ............................................................................................ 12 
`V.  DETAILED EXPLANATION OF REASONS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
` ....................................................................................................................... 12 
`Ground 1.  Claims 17-23 are obvious over Ehlers in view of Wruck. .................. 12 
`A. 
`Effective Prior Art Dates ..................................................................... 12 
`B.  Overview of the Ground ...................................................................... 13 
`1.  Overview of Ehlers ........................................................................ 13 
`2.  Overview of Wruck ........................................................................ 16 
`3.  Overview of the Combination ........................................................ 18 
`C.  Graham Factors ................................................................................... 20 
`D. 
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................................... 20 
`E. 
`Analogous Art ..................................................................................... 21 
`F. 
`Claim Mapping .................................................................................... 21 
`Ground 2.  Claims 17-23 are obvious over Ols ’725 in view of Boait and Wruck.
`
`48 
`Effective Prior Art Dates ..................................................................... 48 
`A. 
`B.  Overview of the Ground ...................................................................... 49 
`1.  Overview of Ols ’725 ..................................................................... 49 
`2.  Overview of Boait .......................................................................... 50 
`3.  Overview of Wruck ........................................................................ 51 
`4.  Overview of the Combination ........................................................ 52 
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`C.  Graham Factors ................................................................................... 53 
`D. 
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................................... 53 
`E. 
`Analogous Art ..................................................................................... 53 
`F. 
`Claim Mapping .................................................................................... 54 
`VI.  THE BOARD SHOULD INSTITUTE UNDER § 314(a) ............................ 74 
`VII.  MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 75 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 78 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 79 
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ...................................................................... 80 
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550 (“the ’550 patent”).
`
`Declaration of David M. Auslander.
`
`C.V. of David M. Auslander.
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2004/0117330 (“Ehlers ’330”).
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2005/0040250 A1 (“Wruck”).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,374,725 (“Ols ’725”)
`
`U.K. Patent App. Pub. No. GB 2432016 (“Boait”).
`
`File History of Application No. 12/778,052.
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2005/0171645 (“Oswald”).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,934,554 (“Charles”).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,029,092 (“Stein”).
`ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1258, Order No. 18, Construing the
`Terms of the Asserted Claims of the Patents at Issue (Sept. 1,
`2021).
`ecobee, Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 1-21-cv-00323 (D. Del.),
`Answer (May 5, 2021).
`
`ecobee, Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 1-21-cv-00323 (D. Del.),
`Scheduling Order (October 14, 2021).
`
`Horan, T, Control Systems and Applications for HVAC/R,
`Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1997.
`
`Levenhagen, J, HVAC Control and Systems, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
`1993.
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,751,186 B2 (“the ’186 patent”).
`
`Excerpt from McDaniel, G, IBM Dictionary of Computing,
`McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993, p. 165.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,784,704 (“Harter”).
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`claims 17-23 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,596,550 (“the ’550 patent”).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’550 PATENT
`A. The Claimed Subject Matter
`
`The ’550 patent relates to controlling climate control systems, such as heating
`
`and cooling (“HVAC”) systems. (Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:18-2:17, 3:48-67, 4:8-
`
`32)(Ex. 1002, ¶28). HVAC systems have, for decades, been controlled by
`
`thermostats. (Ex. 1001, 1:18-2:17)(Ex. 1002, ¶29). Thermostats are typically wall-
`
`mounted units with internal temperature sensors, which allow a user to set a target
`
`temperature. (Ex. 1002, ¶29). The target temperature, or “setpoint,” is compared
`
`against the actual temperature, and the HVAC system is essentially switched on or
`
`off to maintain the setpoint temperature. (Ex. 1002, ¶29).
`
`“Programmable thermostats have been available for more than 20 years,” as
`
`the ’550 patent notes. (Ex. 1001, 1:18-19). They “offer two types of advantages”
`
`over non-programmable devices. (Ex. 1001, 1:19-41)(Ex. 1002, ¶30). First,
`
`“programmable thermostats can save energy ... 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.” (Ex. 1001, 1:21-25).
`
`Second, “programmable thermostats can also enhance comfort…. For example.... [a]
`
`programmable thermostat allows homeowners to anticipate [a] desired result by
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`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, 1:26-41).
`
`According to the ’550 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, ¶31).
`
`“If 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, 1:64-67)(Ex. 1002, ¶31).
`
`The ’550 patent discusses “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, ¶32). In other
`
`words, the ’550 patent suggests detecting user-initiated manual changes to
`
`temperature settings (e.g., programmed setpoints) and then using that information to
`
`make changes to long-term programming of a thermostat. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶32-33). It
`
`also discusses using inside temperature, outside temperature, and other factors in the
`
`programming. (Ex. 1001, 2:12-17, 5:17-34)(Ex. 1002, ¶¶32-33). As the ’550 patent
`
`notes, such calculations might involve the rate at which an HVAC system heats or
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`cools a building to reach or maintain a setpoint at the desired time. (Ex. 1001, 5:5-
`
`40, 3:48-67, claim 17)(Ex. 1002, ¶32).
`
`However, these features were already known in the field. The difference
`
`between the indoor and outdoor temperature was known to affect the rate at which a
`
`building loses or gains heat. (Ex. 1002, ¶34). 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,
`
`¶34). 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, ¶34).
`
`The 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, ¶34).
`
`One common prior art application of this principle relates to, for example,
`
`“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, ¶35). For example, a workplace thermostat could be
`
`programmed during the winter to have a daytime (8 AM to 5 PM) setpoint of 70º 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,
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`¶35). As discussed below, the time needed for recovery was known to be calculated
`
`based on the rate of change possible given, e.g., the outside temperature.
`
`It was also known to use user-initiated manual changes to temperature settings
`
`to improve thermostat programming and reduce the need for users to make manual
`
`setpoint adjustments. For instance, Ehlers, discussed below, explains that the system
`
`may perform “set point pattern change tracking,” where manual changes by the user
`
`may be tracked and utilized (with artificial learning and execution routines) in order
`
`to improve the operation of a thermostat control system. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0268, 0308,
`
`0309)(Ex. 1002, ¶37).
`
`Thus, the claims of the ’550 patent simply recite a combination of well-known
`
`HVAC control features. (Ex. 1002, ¶36). Exemplary independent claim 17 of the
`
`’550 patent reads as follows:
`
`17. An apparatus for detecting manual changes to the set point for a
`thermostatic controller comprising:
`
`at least a programmable communicating thermostat;
`
`at least a remote processor;
`
`at least a network connecting said remote processor and said
`communicating;
`
`at least a database comprising a plurality of internal temperature
`measurements taken within a structure and a plurality of outside
`temperature measurements relating to temperatures outside the
`structure;
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`computer hardware comprising one or more computer processors
`configured to use the stored data to predict a rate of change of
`temperatures inside the structure in response to changes in outside
`temperatures;
`
`the one or more computer processors configured to calculate scheduled
`setpoint programming of the programmable communicating thermostat
`for one or more times based on the predicted rate of change, the
`scheduled programming comprising one or more automated setpoints;
`
`at least a database that stores the one or more automated setpoints
`associated with the scheduled programming for said programmable
`communicating thermostat;
`
`at least a database that stores actual setpoint programming of said
`programmable communicating thermostat; and
`
`the one or more computer processors configured to compare the one or
`more automated setpoints associated with said scheduled setpoint
`programming with said actual setpoint programming.
`(Ex. 1001, claim 17).
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The application that would become the ’550 patent was filed on May 11, 2010.
`
`(Ex. 1001). The application claimed priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application
`
`No. 61/215999, which was filed on May 12, 2009. (Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`III. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner respectfully requests that claims 17-23 of the ’550 patent be
`
`canceled based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 17-23 are obvious over Ehlers in view of Wruck.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Ground 2: Claims 17-23 are obvious over Ols in view of Boait and Wruck.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. Stipulated Constructions
`
`This Petition should be considered using claim constructions Patent Owner
`
`itself agreed to in the ITC investigation captioned Certain Smart Thermostat
`
`Systems.1 (Ex. 1012, 17). “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).
`
`’550 Patent Term
`
`Stipulated Construction
`
`“compare”/“comparing”
`
`“rate of change of temperatures inside
`the structure”
`
`“setpoint”
`
`“automated setpoint”
`
`“analyze/analyzing to determine one or
`more similarities or differences
`between”
`“the difference between inside
`temperature measurements divided by
`the span of time between the
`measurements”
`“a temperature setting for a thermostat
`to achieve or maintain”
`“a computer-calculated temperature
`setting for a thermostat to achieve or
`maintain”
`
`
`
` There, claim 17 was found invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
` 1
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`B.
`
`“database”
`
`The ’550 patent describes multiple databases stored on a “database structure
`
`300,” as shown in Fig. 5. (Ex. 1001, 4:33-42, 5:55-58). A POSITA would have
`
`understood that a database, in the context of the ’550 patent, is a collection of data
`
`stored on a data structure, where multiple databases can be stored on one data
`
`structure. (Ex. 1002, ¶43)(Ex. 1018, 165). Further, the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`of database is “an organized collection of data.” (Ex. 1002, ¶43)(Ex. 1018, 165).
`
`V. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF REASONS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY
`Ground 1. Claims 17-23 are obvious over Ehlers in view of Wruck.
`Claims 17-23 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. Pat.
`
`App. Pub. 2004/0117330 (“Ehlers”)(Ex. 1004) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub.
`
`2005/0040250 (“Wruck”)(Ex. 1005).
`
`A. Effective Prior Art Dates
`
`Ehlers was published on June 17, 2004, and is therefore prior art under pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Ehlers was not of record during the prosecution of the application leading to
`
`the ’550 patent, although a different Ehlers (U.S. Pat. No. 7,130,719 (“Ehlers
`
`’719”)), from a different patent family and having a different disclosure, was cited
`
`in a 78-reference IDS. (Ex. 1008, 253). Ehlers ’719 was not discussed on the record
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`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).
`
`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 ’550 patent.
`
`B. Overview of the Ground
`
`While Ehlers teaches and/or suggests all elements of the claims, Wruck
`
`reinforces the obviousness cases with respect to, at least, “compar[ing] ... automated
`
`setpoints ... with ... actual setpoint[s],” as described in more detail below. Wruck
`
`also describes other features of the claim.
`
`1. Overview of Ehlers
`
`Ehlers is similar to the ’550 patent. (Ex. 1004, Fig. 1B, ¶¶0072-0079,
`
`0099)(Ex. 1002, ¶¶50). Shown below are Fig. 1B of Ehlers (left side), compared
`
`with Fig. 2 of the ’550 patent (right side):
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`
`
`
`
`Ehlers, Fig. 1B
`
`’550 patent, Fig. 2
`
`(Ex. 1004, Fig. 1B, ¶¶0072-0079)(Ex. 1002, ¶50). In both systems there are
`
`conditioned spaces having thermostats. (Ex. 1004, ¶0076)(Ex. 1001, 3:48-67, 4:8-
`
`32)(Ex. 1002, ¶51). The thermostats in each system are connected to gateways,
`
`specifically gateway 1.10D in Ehlers (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0061-0062) and gateways 112 in
`
`the ’550 patent (Ex. 1001, 3:48-67, 7:54-61)(Ex. 1002, ¶51). The gateways connect
`
`the thermostats in each system over networks to servers. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0072-
`
`0073)(Ex. 1001, 3:48-67)(Ex. 1002, ¶51).
`
`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, ¶52).
`
`In Ehlers, for example:
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`“[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)(Ex. 1002, ¶52).
`
`Ehlers’s thermostat contains various scheduled temperature setpoints 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, ¶53).
`
`Ehlers also teaches using rates of changes in temperatures, including
`
`calculating the rate at which inside temperature changes at any given outside
`
`temperature (“thermal gain rate”) for a given setpoint, in order 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, ¶54). Ehlers 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).
`
`Thus, by utilizing effect thermal gain rate has on HVAC run time, the system of
`
`Ehlers determines what future setpoint would minimize run time. (Ex. 1004,
`
`¶0256)(Ex. 1002, ¶54).
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`Ehlers also teaches detecting and implementing a user’s manual changes to a
`
`setpoint. (Ex. 1004, ¶0242 (“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”), ¶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, ¶55).
`
`Ehlers 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.
`
`(Ex. 1004, ¶¶0268, 0308, 0309)(Ex. 1002, ¶56). Thus, Ehlers describes that its
`
`system detects manual changes to HVAC setpoints, and uses such changes to alter
`
`the HVAC setpoint control algorithms, as claimed in the ’550 patent. (Ex. 1004,
`
`¶¶0242-0243, 0268, 0308, 0309)(Ex. 1002, ¶57).
`
`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, ¶58). The thermostat can be
`
`programmed with a schedule to save energy, as shown, for example, in Figs. 9G and
`
`9I of Wruck, reproduced here:
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1005, Figs. 9G and 9I, ¶0098)(Ex. 1002, ¶58). 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.). Thus,
`
`Wruck teaches a system with “scheduled programming of the thermostatic
`
`controller,” similar to that of the ’550 patent. (Ex. 1002, ¶58).
`
`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, ¶59). 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, ¶59).
`
`Wruck further explains that manual changes may be detected using a “delta”
`
`between an actual temporary setpoint and a scheduled setpoint. Specifically, Wruck
`
`teaches that if the user enters a new “temporary setpoint,” that new, user-entered
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`setpoint 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, ¶60). Wruck describes checking whether the
`
`difference between the temporary setpoint and the scheduled setpoint is not equal to
`
`zero, and if so, to display the temporary setpoint. (Ex. 1002, ¶61).
`
`3. Overview of the Combination
`
`As noted above, Ehlers teaches and/or suggests all of the features of claims
`
`17-23.2 With respect to “compar[ing] ... automated setpoints ... with ... actual
`
`setpoint[s],” Ehlers describes generating an automatic thermostatic control schedule,
`
`having automated setpoints. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0231-0234, 0239)(Ex. 1002, ¶62). Ehlers
`
`further teaches adjusting its schedule by “learning” from a user’s setpoint changes
`
`that depart from the schedule. (Ex. 1004, ¶0242 (“system 3.08 manages comfort for
`
`
`
` Petitioners rely upon the combination out of an abundance of caution.
`
` 2
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`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. 1002, ¶62).
`
`Based on Ehlers alone, it would have been obvious to compare one or more
`
`automated setpoints associated with the scheduled setpoint programming with the
`
`actual setpoint programming. (Ex. 1002, ¶63). This would have allowed the system
`
`to determine whether a manual change occurred, how far off the automated setpoints
`
`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). A POSITA would have understood from Ehlers that
`
`comparing entered and automated setpoints would be beneficial to the described
`
`“learning from the user’s inputs or adjustments to the system 3.08 to change or
`
`modify indoor air temperature.” (Ex. 1004, ¶0242)(Ex. 1002, ¶63).
`
`Wruck provides, at least, an example of how the manually entered setpoint
`
`override may be determined—by comparing a user desired setpoint with a calculated
`
`setpoint—such that if the difference in setpoints is not equal to zero, the system may
`
`display the new setpoint. (Ex. 1005, Table 28, ¶0110)(Ex. 1002, ¶64).
`
`19
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`C. 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, ¶¶23-25).
`
`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.
`
`D. 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 and Wruck. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶66). As Mr.
`
`Auslander 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.
`
`20
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`E. Analogous Art
`
`Ehlers and Wruck are in the same field as the ’550 patent (building energy
`
`management and controls). (Ex. 1001, 1:18-2:17, 3:48-67, claim 17)(“An apparatus
`
`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). Specifically, these references address controlling heating and
`
`cooling systems, implementation of setpoints, and HVAC control in view of outdoor
`
`temperatures. (Ex. 1001, claim 1, Abstract, 1:18-2:17, 3:48-67, 4:62-5:40)(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).
`
`F. Claim Mapping
`
`Independent Claim 17
`
`“17[a]. An apparatus for detecting manual changes to the set point
`for a thermostatic controller comprising:”
`Ehlers in view of Wruck renders obvious an apparatus for detecting manual
`
`changes to the setpoint for a thermostatic controller. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶70).
`
`First, Ehlers teaches a system that involves managing a thermostatic
`
`controller, such as 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 is depicted in Figure 1B below:
`
`21
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`(Ex. 1004, Fig. 1B)(Ex. 1002, ¶71). Another exemplary configuration of a portion
`
`of Ehlers’s system (system 3.08) is illustrated in Figure 3B, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`(Ex. 1004, Fig. 3B)(Ex. 1002, ¶72). Ehlers teaches 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)(Ex. 1002, ¶73).
`
`As can be seen in Figures 1B and 3B, Ehlers’s system contains a thermostatic
`
`controller (e.g., thermostat device 1.30D). (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0076, 0088, 0141, 0149,
`
`0223, 0229, 0224 (“thermostat 1.30D is an advanced thermostatic control
`
`device”))(Ex. 1002, ¶74).
`
`“[T]hermostat 1.30D” may also “form[] part of a temperature and
`
`environmental sensing and control system 3.08.” (See, e.g., Ex. 1004, Fig. 3B,
`
`¶0229). “Based on the sensed data, the thermostat 1.30D controls other devices 1.08
`
`to manage air quality.” (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0088, 0229, 0230, 0231, 0232, 0234, 0256)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶75).
`
`Ehlers’s thermostatic controller contains various manually changeable
`
`temperature setpoints for the HVAC system. (See, e.g., Ex. 1004, ¶¶0153-0160,
`
`0253-0256, 0281, 0320, 0116, 0118, 0316, 0354, Fig. 4C)(Ex. 1002, ¶76).
`
`Ehlers 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,
`
`0243)(Ex. 1002, ¶77). Ehlers further teaches that its system also performs “set point
`
`23
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`pattern change tracking,” where setpoint changes initiated by the occupant are stored
`
`in relationship to outside weather conditions “for use with … artificial intelligence
`
`learning and execution routines.” (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0268, 0308, 0309)(Ex. 1002, ¶77). A
`
`POSITA would recognize that tracking and learning from the user’s changes
`
`suggests the detecting of when a user has changed the setpoint. (Ex. 1002, ¶78)(Ex.
`
`1004, ¶¶0242-0243 (“[t]his learning process alters the operation of the system 3.08,
`
`freeing the customer from having to make changes to manage the indoor
`
`environmental condition”)).
`
`Furthermore, Wruck discloses that if the user enters a new “temporary
`
`setpoint,” it will be displayed on the thermostat if the new user-entered setpoint is
`
`different from the scheduled setpoint. (Ex. 1005, Table 28, ¶0110)(Ex. 1002, ¶79).
`
`“[17b] at least a programmable communicating thermostat;”
`As set forth under claim element 17[a], Ehlers’s system contains a
`
`programmable communicating thermostat in the form of thermostat device 1.30D,
`
`which is in communication with gateway node 1.10D via a network. (Ex. 1002, ¶80).
`
`The temperature setpoint of Ehlers’s HVAC system is manually changeable to a
`
`user’s desired temperature setpoint. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0012, 0013, 0153-0160, 0228,
`
`0239, 0244, 0253, 0254, 0255, 0256, 0281, 0308-0309, 0316-0324, 0320)(Ex. 1002,
`
`¶81). A user can also “override” a scheduled setpoint, which is programmed. (Ex.
`
`1004, ¶¶0116, 0118, 0156, 0316, 0354, Fig. 4C)(Ex. 1002, ¶81).
`
`24
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`Indeed, Ehlers specifically describes that its communicating thermostat is
`
`programmable, where “with regard to the thermostat 1.30D, the customer may view
`
`current temperature, view current heating or cooling setpoint(s) … resume scheduled
`
`heating or cooling setpoint(s).” (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0116, 0013, 0017, 0132, 0148–0160,
`
`0171, 0251, 0316, 0335, Fig. 3A)(see Ex. 1001, 1:18-20)(Ex. 1002, ¶82).
`
`Wruck also discloses a programmable thermostat 11 that communicates with
`
`a PDA device. (Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 0062-0064, Fig. 2)(Ex. 1002, ¶83).
`
`“[17c] at least a remote processor;”
`Ehlers discloses a remote processor in the form of a gateway node. Ehlers
`
`explains that “each node 1.10 in the system 1.02 includes a node processor 2.02 and
`
`memory 2.04.” (Ex. 1004, ¶0268)(see also Ex. 1004, ¶¶0244, 0253, 0268, 0295)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶84). The gateway node is (or includes) a computer processor so that it can,
`
`among other things, control devices, administer demand reduction programs, and
`
`store data. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0137, 0142, 0145, 0147, 0150, 0180, 0268)(Ex. 1002, ¶84).
`
`Ehlers teaches that the gateway node can be situated at a different location
`
`than the thermostat 1.30D (i.e., it may be remote). (See, e.g., Ex. 1004, ¶¶0181, 0182,
`
`0202, 0257, 0266)(Ex. 1002, ¶85). For example, Ehlers explains that “[t]he gateway
`
`node ... could be a node which is part of an aggregate group of homes in a star
`
`network” and further teaches that nodes “may be located at a single customer site
`
`1.04 or across multiple sites 1.04.” (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0202, 0181). In such a
`
`25
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`configuration, there is one gateway node for a group of sites and thus the gateway
`
`node is not located in the same structure as the programmable communicating
`
`thermostat for a particular site. (Ex. 1002, ¶85). Indeed, given Ehlers’ disclosure, a
`
`POSITA would have found it obvious to locate the gateway node in a different
`
`structure from the programmable communicating thermostat and the same would
`
`have been a simple design choice. (Ex. 1002, ¶86).
`
`Wruck discloses that a PDA or PC may be utilized to process information
`
`regarding, and configure operation of, the programmable thermostat 11. (Ex. 1005,
`
`¶¶0062, 0063, Fig. 2)(Ex. 1002, ¶87).
`
`“[17d] at least a network connecting said remote processor and said
`communicating;”3
`Ehlers discloses the remote processor communicates with the programmable
`
`communicating thermostat (thermostat 1.30D) via a network RF communication.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶¶88-89). Figure 1B illustrates Ehlers’s system:
`
`
`
` 3
`
` For purposes of this analysis, Petitioner interprets “said communicating” to be the
`communicating thermostat.
`
`26
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1004, Fig. 1B). As can be see