Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 8
`Date: November 15, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`
`Before SCOTT B. HOWARD, PAUL J. KORNICZKY, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 8
`Date: November 15, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`
`Before SCOTT B. HOWARD, PAUL J. KORNICZKY, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`ecobee Technologies ULC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter
`partes review of claims 17–23 of U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’550 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). EcoFactor, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed
`a Preliminary Response opposing institution. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b)(4), 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have
`authority to institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in
`the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). After
`considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and evidence of record, we
`determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Thus,
`we grant Petitioner’s request to institute an inter partes review of claims 17–
`23 of the ’550 patent.
`
`
`A.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`II.
`Real Parties-in-Interest
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), each party identifies the real
`party-in-interest. Petitioner identifies ecobee Technologies ULC, ecobee
`Ltd., and Generac Holdings Inc. as the real parties-in-interest. Pet. 76.
`Patent Owner identifies itself as a real party-in-interest. Paper 5, 1.
`
`B.
`
`Related Proceedings
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner and Patent Owner
`identify the judicial or administrative matters that would affect or be affected
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`by a decision in this proceeding. Petitioner and Patent Owner state the ’550
`patent is the subject matter of:
`(1) Emerson Electric Co. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 1-21-cv-00317 (D. Del.
`March 1, 2021);
`(2) Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 3-21-cv-01468
`(N.D. Cal. March 1, 2021);
`(3) ecobee, Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 1-21-cv-00323 (D. Del. March 2,
`2021);
`(4) Carrier Global Corp. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 1-21-cv-00328 (D. Del.
`March 3, 2021);
`(5) EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google, LLC, 6-22-cv-00350 (W.D. Tex. April
`1, 2022);
`(6) Certain Smart Thermostat Systems, Smart HVAC Systems, Smart
`HVAC Control Systems, And Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1258
`(April 4, 2022) (Initial Determination) (“Certain Smart Thermostat
`Systems”); and
`(7) ecobee Technologies ULC v. EcoFactor, Inc., IPR2022-00983.
`Pet. 76–77; Paper 5, 1.
`
`C. Overview of the ’550 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’550 patent is titled “System, Method and Apparatus for
`Identifying Manual Inputs to and Adaptive Programming of a Thermostat.”
`Ex. 1001, code (54). The ’550 patent describes a system and methods for
`controlling climate control systems such as heating, ventilation, and air
`conditioning (HVAC) systems. Id. at code (57).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`
`According to the ’550 patent, programmable thermostats, which
`control HVAC systems, offer two types of advantages over non-
`programmable devices. Ex. 1001, 1:18–20. 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.” Id. at 1:21–
`25. Second, “programmable thermostats can also enhance comfort” and
`“allows homeowners to anticipate [a] desired result by programming a pre-
`conditioning of the home.” Id. at 1:26–38. 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.” Id. at 1:38–41.
`The ’550 patent, however, states “all of the advantages of a
`programmable thermostat depend on the match between the preferences of
`the occupant and the actual settings employed.” Ex. 1001, 1:45–47. “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.” Id. at 1:64–67. “The need to correct
`the ‘mistakes’ of the thermostat is likely to annoy many users” and, “because
`people tend to overshoot the desired temperature when they make such
`manual changes, these overrides are likely to result in excessive heating and
`cooling, and thus unnecessary energy use.” Id. at 1:67–2:5. “That is, if a
`person feels uncomfortable on a summer afternoon when the setting is 73
`degrees, they are likely to change it to 68 or 69 rather than 71 or 72 degrees,
`even if 72 degrees might have made enough of a difference.” Id. at 2:5–8.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`
`Thus, the ’550 patent explains that it would be desirable to have a
`system and method which may adapt to the occupants’ manual temperature
`changes and incorporate the information contained in such gestures into
`long-term programming and which accounts for both outside weather
`conditions and the thermal characteristics of individual homes in order to
`improve the ability to dynamically achieve the best possible balance
`between comfort and energy savings. Ex. 1001, 2:9–17. To achieve these
`goals, the ’550 patent discloses systems and methods for incorporating
`manual changes to the setpoint for a thermostatic controller into long-term
`programming of the thermostatic controller. Id. at code (57). It discloses
`servers 106 which log the temperature readings from inside each house and
`the timing and duration of air conditioning cycles, and databases 300 which
`contain a history of the thermal performance of each house. Id. at 5:21–25.
`According to the ’550 patent, this performance data allows “server 106 to
`calculate an effective thermal mass for each such structure –– that is, the
`speed with the temperature inside a given building will change in response
`to changes in outside temperatures.” Id. at 5:22–29. Because the server will
`also log these inputs against other inputs including time of day, humidity,
`etc., the ’550 patent explains that “the server will be able to predict, at any
`given time on any given day, the rate at which inside temperature should
`change for given inside and outside temperatures.” Id. at 5:30–34.
`According to the ’550 patent, this performance data also permits
`server 106 to calculate and automate setpoints and schedule future set point
`changes to reduce energy consumption, etc. Ex. 1001, 5:54–6:3; see also,
`e.g., id. at 5:63–6:1 (stating “for time0 the setpoint as scheduled by server
`106 according to the standard setpoint programming (S0), and for time0 the
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`setpoint as scheduled by server 106 according to the standard setpoint
`programming (S-1). In step 1004, the server retrieves any additional
`automated setpoint changes C that have been scheduled for the thermostat by
`server 106.”).
`The ’550 patent explains that its system compares “the actual setpoint
`at a given time for the thermostatic controller to an expected setpoint for the
`thermostatic controller in light of the scheduled programming” and “a
`determination is then made as to whether the actual setpoint and the
`expected setpoint are the same or different.” Ex. 1001, code (57).
`“Furthermore, a manual change to the actual setpoint for the thermostatic
`controller is compared to previously recorded setpoint data for the
`thermostatic controller.” Id. “At least one rule is then applied for the
`interpretation of the manual change in light of the previously recorded
`setpoint data.” Id.
`
`D.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`As mentioned above, Petitioner challenges claims 17–23 of the ’550
`patent. Claim 17, the only independent claim, is reproduced below.1
`Ex. 1001, 9:26–10:17.
`[17a] An apparatus for detecting manual changes to the set
`point for a thermostatic controller comprising:
`[17b] at least a programmable communicating
`thermostat;
`[17c] at least a remote processor;
`
`
`1 For ease of reference, we use Petitioner’s claim numbering scheme, added
`in brackets. See Pet. 21–43.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`
`[17d] at least a network connecting said remote
`processor and said communicating [thermostat]2;
`[17e] 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;
`[17f] 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;
`[17g] 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;
`[17h] at least a database that stores the one or more
`automated setpoints associated with the scheduled
`programming for said programmable communicating
`thermostat;
`[17i] at least a database that stores actual setpoint
`programming of said programmable communicating thermostat;
`and
`
`[17j] 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.
`
`
`
`
`2 Petitioner interprets “said communicating” to be the
`communicating thermostat. Pet 26, n.3. Patent Owner does not contest
`Petitioner’s position. See Prelim. Resp.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`E.
`
`Evidence and Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner relies upon the following evidence:
`(1) U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0117330, published June 17, 2004
`(Ex. 1004, “Ehlers”);
`(2) U.S. Patent Publication 2005/0040250, published February 24,
`2005 (Ex. 1005, “Wruck”);
`(3) U.S. Patent 8,374,725 B1 (Ex. 1006, “Ols”);
`(4) U.K. Patent Application GB 2432016 A (Ex. 1007, “Boait”).
`Petitioner submits a declaration from David M. Auslander (Ex. 1002).
`Patent Owner does not submit a declaration at this time.
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 17–23 of the ʼ550
`patent claims on the following grounds (Pet. 10–11):
`Ground Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §3
`1
`17–23
`103(a)
`2
`17–23
`103(a)
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Ehlers, Wruck
`Ols, Boait, Wruck
`
`
`
`
`We briefly summarize the prior art references below.
`Overview of Ehlers (Ex. 1004)
`1.
`Ehlers is a U.S. patent application titled “System and Method for
`Controlling Usage of a Commodity.” Ex. 1004, code (54). Ehlers describes
`a system and method for managing delivery of energy from a distribution
`network to a building or other site. Id. at code (57). Ehlers’s system collects
`
`
`3 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), took effect on March 16,
`2013. Because the ’550 patent claims priority to an application filed before
`this date, our citations to 35 U.S.C. § 103 in this Decision are to its pre-AIA
`version. Our decision is not impacted, however, by which version of the
`statute applies.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`and stores information relevant to the temperature and other HVAC
`conditioning of a building. Id. ¶ 88.
`Ehlers’s thermostat contains various scheduled temperature setpoints
`for the HVAC system, which are manually changeable by a user. Ex. 1004
`¶¶ 12, 116, 153–160. A user can also “override” a scheduled setpoint. Id.
`¶¶ 116, 156, Fig. 4C.
`Ehlers’s system tracks and learns the thermal gain characteristics of
`the home. In order to predict how long it will take for the HVAC system to
`heat or cool the building from one setpoint to another, it uses the rate of
`change in temperatures by calculating the rate at which inside temperature
`changes at any given outside temperature (“thermal gain rate”) for a given
`setpoint. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 253–254, 256, 295, Fig. 3D. Ehlers uses 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.” Id. ¶ 256. By
`utilizing the effect that the thermal gain rate has on HVAC run time,
`Ehlers’s system determines what future setpoint would minimize run time.
`Id.
`
`Ehlers also teaches detecting and implementing a user’s manual
`changes to a setpoint. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 242 (“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”), 243
`(controls are “modified as needed based on the user’s changes to the set
`point at the thermostat 1.30D” and a “control algorithm [] learn[s] the user’s
`individual preferences and over time, eliminate[s] the need for the site 1.04
`occupant to make any changes”).
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`
`Overview of Wruck (Ex. 1005)
`2.
`Wruck is a U.S. patent application titled “Transfer of Controller
`Customizations.” Ex. 1005, code (54). Wruck describes a system that
`allows a personal digital assistant (PDA) or wireless device to control,
`configure, set, and adjust programmable thermostats of air management
`systems. Id. at code (57), ¶¶ 2–5. It permits the user to control the set point
`and temporarily override scheduled setpoints. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 5, 14–15, 104.
`If the user’s temporary setpoint is entered, and the difference between the
`temporary setpoint and the scheduled setpoint is not equal to zero, the
`temporary setpoint is displayed. Id. at Table 28, ¶ 110.
`
`
`Overview of Ols (Ex. 1006)
`3.
`Ols is a U.S. patent titled “Climate Control.” Ex. 1006, code (54).
`Ols describes a climate control/HVAC system using a thermostat. Id. at
`3:16–34, Fig. 1A. Ols’s thermostats connect to controllers, which connect
`over networks to a server. Id. Ols’s system collects and stores information
`relevant to conditioning a building, including the indoor temperature (id. at
`6:30–31), and outdoor temperature (id. at 19:1–2). Ols’s thermostat uses
`various temperature setpoints, which may be scheduled to reflect desired
`temperatures at different times. Id. at 23:1–17, 31:33–36. A user may
`manually change these setpoints and input a user-desired temperature. Id. at
`21:5–17 (a “user may input a value representing a new desired temperature,”
`where “the new desired temperature value (or another new set point) may be
`saved by a key press to a button”), 31:29–37 (“User desired temperature
`1022 is the temperature that was input by the user without any
`modification.”).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`
`Ols also teaches analyzing historical loads needed to change the
`temperature and climate of different rooms in order to enable businesses to
`manage their energy consumption more efficiently. Ex. 1006, 11:53–56.
`For example, “temperature inputs are analyzed, and the control algorithm
`learns the appropriate current action to take based on evaluations of what has
`happened in the past” and “learning from historical data, the adjustment to
`the parameter may be computed to take into account the slower temperature
`response as a result of the higher load that is normally in the room.” Id. at
`12:6–9, 12:27–30. Ols teaches that its setpoint temperature is a “computed
`value to which the temperature of the room is to be set,” and that this
`calculated setpoint temperature may be different from the user desired
`temperature, based on environmental conditions, “in order to conserve
`energy and/or to better meet other needs of the system or of that location.”
`Id. at 31:29–42.
`
`
`Overview of Boait (Ex. 1007)
`4.
`Boait is a U.K. patent application titled “Electronic Control Units for
`Central Heating Systems.” Ex. 1007, code (54). Boait describes an
`“automatic electronic control unit for controlling the operation of a central
`heating system where the time settings are determined automatically from a
`detection of the user's activity and lifestyle habits.” Id. at code (57). Boait’s
`system includes “a manual temperature setting device that can be manually
`activated by an operator to modify at least one of the first and second
`temperature profiles.” Id. at 6. Boait further discloses “[t]he specific
`thermal capacity of the house Q (Joules/°C) and the specific heating load L
`(Watts/°C of temperature difference between the inside and outside of the
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`house) are calculated by the electronic control unit from the gradient of the
`fall in temperature overnight, and the rise in temperature when the central
`heating boiler is supplying heat . . . .” Id. at 20.
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standards
`Petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability, by
`a preponderance of the evidence, of the claims challenged in the Petition.
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic
`Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`2015).
`As mentioned above, Petitioner’s challenge is based on obviousness.
`Pet. 10–11. A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed
`invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing
`date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`which the claimed invention pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved based on
`underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the
`prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in the record,
`objective evidence of nonobviousness.4 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
`U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`
`
`4 At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not directed us to any
`objective evidence of non-obviousness. See Prelim. Resp.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which
`we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
`F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a
`hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of
`the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In
`determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain
`factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art
`solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made;
`sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in
`the field.” Id.
`Petitioner states a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “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.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 23–25).
`Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s proffered level of skill
`discussed by Petitioner’s declarant. See Prelim. Resp.
`We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill for the
`purposes of this Decision.
`
`Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, the claims are 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021).
`
`C.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`This claim construction standard includes construing the claim in accordance
`with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.; see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In construing claims in accordance with
`their ordinary and customary meaning, we consider intrinsic evidence such
`as the specification and the prosecution history of the patent. Phillips, 415
`F.3d at 1315–17. Extrinsic evidence, including expert and inventor
`testimony, dictionaries, and treatises, may also be used but is less significant
`than the intrinsic record. Id. at 1315. Usually, the specification is
`dispositive, and it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.
`Id. Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth in the
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed,
`and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.
`Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`Petitioner states that we should use the claim constructions which
`“Patent Owner itself agreed to in the ITC investigation captioned Certain
`Smart Thermostat Systems.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1012, 17). The claim
`constructions are:
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`
`
`Id. As to the term “database” recited in the claims, Petitioner contends that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art 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” and
`“the plain and ordinary meaning of database is ‘an organized collection of
`data.’” Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 43; Ex. 1018, 165).
`Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s proffered constructions or
`the meaning of any claim terms. See Prelim. Resp.
`Based on the present record and for purposes of this Decision, we
`determine that no construction of the claims is necessary at this stage. See
`Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.
`
`D. Ground 1: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 17–23 Over Ehlers and
`Wruck
`Petitioner asserts that claims 17–23 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 as being obvious over Ehlers (Ex. 1004) and Wruck (Ex. 1005). Pet.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`21–48. Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response opposing Petitioner’s
`challenge. Prelim. Resp. 1–7. As this stage, Patent Owner’s sole argument
`is that the prior art does not teach or suggest “a computer to compare an
`automated setpoint (i.e., a computer-calculated setpoint) with an actual
`setpoint, which allows the patented system to determine if the setpoints that
`the computer is calculating are acceptable to the user, or if the user is
`fighting with or opting-out of the automated programming,” as recited in
`limitation 17j. Id. at 1. Based on the present record, and for the reasons
`below, we determine Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on its obviousness challenge of claims 17–23. Below, we address
`the parties’ contentions.
`
`
`Claim 17
`1.
`Petitioner, relying on Mr. Auslander’s testimony, provides a
`limitation-by-limitation comparison of Ehlers and Wruck to claim 17.
`Pet. 21–46.
`
`a)
`
`Preamble 17a: An apparatus for detecting manual
`changes to the set point for a thermostatic controller
`comprising
`Petitioner contends that Ehlers teaches this preamble by disclosing a
`system that involves managing a thermostatic controller, such as the
`thermostat of a house. Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1004, code (57), ¶¶ 90, 92, 191,
`84, 190, 150, 229, 66, 90, 138, 141, 192, 204, 254, 263, Fig. 2E).
`Petitioner also contends that Wruck teaches this preamble by
`disclosing 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
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`the scheduled setpoint.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1005, Table 28, ¶ 110; Ex. 1002
`¶ 79).
`
`Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s contentions as to the
`preamble.
`
`
`b)
`
`Limitation 17b: at least a programmable communicating
`thermostat
`Petitioner contends that Ehlers teaches this limitation by disclosing
`that “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” and the “temperature setpoint of
`Ehlers’s HVAC system is manually changeable to a user’s desired
`temperature setpoint.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 80, 81; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 12,
`13, 153–160, 228, 239, 244, 253–256, 281, 308, 309, 316–324, 320).
`Petitioner also explains that a “user can also ‘override’ a scheduled setpoint,
`which is programmed.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 116, 118, 156, 316, 354, Fig.
`4C; Ex. 1002 ¶ 81).
`Petitioner contends that Wruck also teaches this limitation by
`disclosing a programmable thermostat that communicates with a PDA
`device. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 62–64, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 83).
`Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s contentions as to this
`limitation.
`
`
`Limitation 17c: at least a remote processor
`c)
`Petitioner contends that Ehlers teaches this limitation by disclosing a
`remote processor in the form of a gateway node and that “each node 1.10 in
`the system 1.02 includes a node processor 2.02 and memory 2.04.” Pet. 25
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`(citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 268; see also Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 244, 253, 295; Ex. 1002 ¶ 84).
`Petitioner explains that 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.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 137,
`142, 145, 147, 150, 180, 268; Ex. 1002 ¶ 84).
`Petitioner contends that Wruck also teaches this limitation by
`disclosing a PDA or PC which may be utilized to process information
`regarding, and configure operation of, the programmable thermostat. Pet. 26
`(citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 62, 63, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 87).
`Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s contentions as to this
`limitation.
`
`
`d)
`
`Limitation 17d: at least a network connecting said
`remote processor and said communicating [thermostat]
`Petitioner contends that Ehlers teaches this limitation by disclosing
`that its “remote processor communicates with the programmable
`communicating thermostat (thermostat 1.30D) via a network RF
`communication.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 88–89). Figure 1B of Ehlers is
`reproduced below:
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1B is a diagrammatic illustration of Ehlers’s energy management
`system. Ex. 1004 ¶ 20. Petitioner explains that Ehlers’s “thermostat 1.30D
`connects to gateway 1.10D, which includes a remote processor as set forth
`under claim limitation [17c].” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 61–62; Ex. 1002
`¶ 89). Petitioner further explains that the “gateway node 1.10D
`communicates with the thermostat 1.30D via a RF communication network.”
`Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 61–62, 72–76, 84, 150, 152–153; Ex. 1002 ¶ 89).
`Petitioner contends that Wruck also teaches this limitation by
`disclosing that the thermostat 11 may be connected via a network, and that
`thermostat information may be transmitted on a network communications
`bus 84. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 135, 144; Ex. 1002 ¶ 90).
`Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s contentions as to this
`limitation.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`
`e)
`
`Limitation 17e: 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
`Petitioner contends that Ehlers teaches this limitation by disclosing
`that Ehlers’s system stores temperature data and “includes ‘indoor air
`temperature sensor 3.10A’ which takes internal temperature measurements
`taken within a structure.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 230; Ex. 1002 ¶ 91).
`According to Petitioner, Ehlers explains that “various data elements are
`stored within the system 1.02” and “the data may be stored in gateway node
`1.10D” or in other nodes in the system. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 268 (“each
`node 1.10 . . . includes . . . memory 2.04”); see also id. ¶¶ 84, 244, 253, 295;
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 91). Petitioner further explains that Ehlers’s system “measures
`inside temperature over time and calculates various thermal gain rates which
`represent how the temperature inside the structure changes in response to a
`different outdoor temperature, given different initial starting setpoint
`temperatures. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 92; Ex. 1004, Fig. 3D (which “depicts
`actual inside temperature measurement data, which were recorded every 4
`minutes”), ¶¶ 253, 256).
`Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s contentions as to this
`limitation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`
`f)
`
`Limitation 17f: 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
`Petitioner contends that Ehlers teaches this limitation by disclosing
`that “Ehlers’s system 3.08 uses the stored data, including outside
`temperatures, to derive a thermal gain rate, which represents a rate of change
`in temperature inside the structure (e.g., a home).” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1002
`¶ 98; Ex. 1004 ¶ 253, Figs. 3D, 3E). According to Petitioner, this process is
`depicted in Figure 3D of Ehlers, which is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3D illustrates a thermal gain table for two set points. Ex. 1004 ¶ 253.
`FIG. 3d shows two set points for the home 2.18 that the
`thermostat 1.30D has recorded. The first set point for which
`data is available is 72 degrees F. The three trends illustrated as
`lines 3.12A, 3.12B, and 3.12C plot the thermal rate of gain in
`the site 1.04 for different outside temperatures. . . . This
`illustration is used to show the impact the set point versus
`outside temperature differential has over the thermal gain rate
`in the home 2.18.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 253; see also id. ¶ 254 (“Since the outside temperature varies
`continuously during a typical day, the rate of thermal gain and the HVAC
`run times also vary in accordance with these changes.”).
`Petitioner explains that the “rate of thermal gain,” or “thermal gain
`rate,” in Ehlers is “the rate of change in temperature inside the structure (for
`a given outside temperature), which is depicted by the slope of the lines
`depicted in Figure 3D (the difference between inside temperature
`measurements divided by the span of time between the measurements).”
`Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 253, 256, Fig. 3E, Fig. 3G (depicting use of
`“thermal gain rate per hour”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 101)).
`
`Ehlers illustrates the “thermal gain rate” in Figure 3E, which is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3E depicts the thermal gain rate (in degrees F per hour) over the
`course of one day where “the set point of the system 3.08 was set at a fixed
`point for the entire day.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 254. According to Petitioner, “[this]
`illustration depicts that as the outside temperature rises and the differential
`between the indoor set point and the outside temperature increase, [sic] the
`thermal gain causes the HVAC system to cycle more frequently.” Pet. 33
`(citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 254; Ex. 1002 ¶ 102) (alterations in original). Thus,
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00969
`Patent 8,596,550 B2
`
`Petitioner explains that, despite the fact that the setpoint remains the same
`during the day, the thermal gain rate (and the inside temperature) changes
`over the course of the day due to variations in the outside temperature. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 1
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
