`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC
`Petitioner
`v.
`ECOFACTOR, INC.
`Patent Owner
`__________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00983
`Patent No. 8,596,550
`__________
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF DAVID M. AUSLANDER
`
`ECOBEE Exhibit 1023
`ECOBEE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00983
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
`
`QUALIFICATIONS .................................................................................. 1
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED ...................................................................... 1
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................................. 1
`
`V.
`
`The PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................. 2
`
`VI.
`
`THERMAL GAIN AND THERMAL MASS .......................................... 4
`
`VII. EHLERS .................................................................................................... 5
`
`A. Ehlers’ Fig. 3D .......................................................................................... 5
`
`B. Ehlers’ Figs. 3E and 3G .......................................................................... 11
`
`C. Ehlers Describes an Automated Setpoint ................................................ 15
`
`VIII. WRUCK .................................................................................................. 18
`
`IX.
`
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS .................................................... 19
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 20
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is David M. Auslander. I have been retained for the purpose
`
`of providing opinions with respect to the subject matter recited in the claims of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550 (“’550 patent”). I have previously provided a
`
`declaration in this matter (Ex. 1002; “Original Declaration”). This Reply
`
`Declaration responds to opinions in the declaration of John A. Palmer (Ex. 2006).
`
`2.
`
`I have no financial interest in either party or in the outcome of this
`
`proceeding. I am being compensated for my work as an expert on an hourly basis,
`
`for all tasks involved. My compensation is not dependent on the outcome of these
`
`proceedings or on the content of my opinions.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3. My qualifications are set forth in my Original Declaration.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`4.
`
`In addition to the materials listed in my Original Declaration, I have
`
`also considered the following materials:
`
` Ex. 2006 (Declaration of Dr. Palmer); and
`
` Ex. 1022 (the deposition of Dr. Palmer).
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`In forming my opinions and considering the subject matter of the ’550
`1
`
`5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent and its claims in light of the prior art, I am relying on certain legal principles
`
`that counsel explained to me. My understanding of these concepts is set forth in my
`
`Original Declaration. Ex. 1002, ¶¶10-27.
`
`V. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`6.
`
`Dr. Palmer asserts that “a POSITA would have a bachelor’s degree in
`
`engineering, computer science, or a comparable field, with 2-3 years’ experience in
`
`temperature controls, embedded control systems, electronic thermostats, or HVAC
`
`controls, or similarly relevant industry experience, with relevant experience
`
`substituting for education and vice versa.” Ex. 2006, ¶26. Regarding my
`
`description of the POSITA, Dr. Palmer disagrees with the reliance on experience in
`
`building energy management and controls. Ex. 1002, ¶24. Specifically, Dr. Palmer
`
`also asserts that:
`
`“a building energy management system, as the phrase is generally
`applied, describes a complex implementation of multiple sensors,
`processors, actuators, and other components and devices integrated
`into a large commercial building or multiplicity of buildings such as
`on a campus. The building energy management system will generally
`control not only the HVAC system but also other power consumers
`such as elevators, escalators, lighting, and other equipment. By
`contrast, the subject matter of the ‘550 patent is focused on
`residential and similar smaller-scale structures that do not require
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`the sophistication of controls that are integral to typical building
`energy management systems.”
`
`Ex. 2006, ¶28 (emphasis added). Thus, Dr. Palmer appears to argue that the field I
`
`used in connection with defining the POSITA is more complex than the field of the
`
`’550 patent. Ex. 1022, 14:14-16:7 (explaining that the field he assumes for the ’550
`
`patent is “less complicated to understand, for sure, and arguably, less complicated
`
`to design as well”).
`
`7.
`
`The opinions offered in my Original Declaration would not change if
`
`Dr. Palmer’s definition of the POSITA was accepted. In particular, while my
`
`definition calls for 5 years of experience, that is for a definition of the field that Dr.
`
`Palmer deems more complicated than necessary. Thus, having less experience (2-3
`
`years instead of 5 years) pertaining to technology that involves less
`
`“sophistication” would balance out. Put another way, where Dr. Palmer admits that
`
`the field of the ’550 patent is not complicated, it follows that it would take little
`
`experience to realize that the subject matter recited in the claims is obvious.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. THERMAL GAIN AND THERMAL MASS
`
`8.
`
`Dr. Palmer asserts that “thermal gain,” as used in Elhers,1 does not
`
`refer to a rate of change of temperatures inside a structure in response to changes in
`
`outside temperatures. He argues that “[t]hermal gain is the absorption of thermal
`
`energy.” Ex. 1022, 47:4-49:6. Of note, Ehlers refers to the “rate” of thermal gain.
`
`See Ex. 1004, Fig. 3E, ¶[0253].
`
`9.
`
`Dr. Palmer also asserts that “thermal mass,” as used in the ’550
`
`patent, refers to “the speed with which the temperature inside the structure will
`
`change in response to changes in outside temperatures.” Ex. 1022, 27:19-28:15.
`
`However, during his deposition, he ultimately acknowledged that the term
`
`“thermal mass” actually refers to “an amount of energy that … a structure or
`
`system would absorb to result in a … particular change in temperature.” Ex. 1022,
`
`35:7-37:5. He admitted that this value “it’s not time based”; instead, the units of
`
`measurement “could be BTUs per degree Fahrenheit.” Ex. 1022, 35:7-37:5. Thus,
`
`
`1 Dr. Palmer asserts that another Ehlers patent with the same disclosure is of record
`
`in the ’550 patent. Ex. 2006, ¶34. Whether or not Ehlers was considered by the patent
`
`examiner does not affect my opinions concerning what a POSITA would understand
`
`from Ehlers. On this point, Dr. Palmer and I agree. Ex. 1022, 14:3-13.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Palmer is acknowledging that the ’550 patent is using “thermal mass” in a
`
`manner that he believes to be different with how a POSITA would normally
`
`interpret that term and that his basis for applying a different understanding in
`
`connection with the ’550 patent is the patent’s discussion of a rate of change in
`
`inside temperatures. Ex. 1022, 27:19-29:10.
`
`10. Under the same logic, Elhers states that its “rate of thermal gain”
`
`refers to the gain in internal temperatures over time. Ex. 1004, ¶[0255] (“the rate of
`
`thermal gain per hour would be set at 3 degrees F. per hour”). Dr. Palmer does not
`
`disagree that this statement in Ehlers describes a rate of temperature change inside
`
`of a structure. Ex. 1022, 50:2-53:11. Ultimately, a POSITA would clearly
`
`understand that Elhers is describing the rate of change of temperatures inside a
`
`room in response to outside temperatures. Ex. 1004, ¶¶[0253]-[0255], Figs. 3D,
`
`3E, and 3G.
`
`VII. EHLERS
`
`A. Ehlers’ Fig. 3D
`
`11. Dr. Palmer takes issue with Ehlers’ Fig. 3D. Specifically, Dr. Palmer
`
`points to, e.g., his disagreement as to the meaning of “thermal gain” and asserts
`
`that the figure cannot be read “literally” based on his understanding of the
`
`terminology. Ex. 2006, ¶39. Interestingly, in acknowledging problems with Fig.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`6A in the ’550 patent, Dr. Palmer asserts that the figures should not be taken
`
`literally and should be understood as “qualitative.” Ex. 1022, 40:7-42:18. While I
`
`believe Fig. 6A of the ’550 patent is simply wrong, it is fair to say that a POSITA
`
`would have taken a “qualitative” view of what a reference teaches, including
`
`Ehler’s Fig. 3D. A POSITA would have understood Ehlers’ Fig. 3D, in
`
`combination with the description thereof, to indicate that the system tracks changes
`
`in inside temperatures, over time, in response to different outside temperatures.
`
`Indeed, Ehlers refers to “trends” illustrated by the figure. Ex. 1004, ¶[0253]. Dr.
`
`Palmer agrees that this is a reasonable interpretation of Fig. 3D. Ex. 1022, 74:15-
`
`77:19.
`
`12. For context, Ehlers describes the collection of interval data. Ex. 1004,
`
`¶[0084] (“records actual interval data … for each device 1.08”). In one aspect, the
`
`interval data is tracked for learning purposes related to making future adjustments.
`
`Ex. 1004, ¶¶ [0253]-[0254] (“to learn the operational run characteristics of the
`
`HVAC system as a function of the thermal gain. 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”). A POSITA would have
`
`understood that the interval data derives from sensors, which include indoor and
`
`outdoor temperature sensors. Ex. 1004, ¶¶[0230]-[0231], [0239] (explaining that
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`the effective setpoint is based on sensed data). Thus, Ehlers suggests that the
`
`accumulated interval data is sensor data from indoor and outdoor temperature
`
`sensors.
`
`13. Ehlers also explains that Fig. 3D depicts how the system “tracks and
`
`learns about the thermal gain characteristics of the home 2.18. To do this, the
`
`system 3.08 tracks the thermal gain rate of the home 2.18 for each set point
`
`selected over time by the customer.” Ex. 1004, ¶[0253]. For different set points and
`
`different outside temperatures, Ehlers’ system tracks inside temperatures as they
`
`approach the outside temperatures. In other words, from certain setpoints, when the
`
`HVAC system cycles off (or is turned off), the thermostat tracks the inside
`
`temperature as it rises from that setpoint (e.g., 72 degrees F.) towards the outside
`
`temperature. This would have been the logical understanding a POSITA would
`
`have had from the description in Ehlers concerning Fig. 3D.
`
`14. Specifically, in connection with Fig.3D, Ehlers is tracking the change
`
`in inside temperatures in relation to certain outside temperatures in order be able to
`
`obtain data that can predict future trends under similar conditions. Ex. 1004, ¶¶
`
`[0254] (“learn the operational run characteristics of the HVAC system as a
`
`function of the thermal gain.”); [0256] (“uses the learned thermal gain
`
`characteristics”). While Fig. 3D’s Y axis refers to the “INDOOR SETPOINT,” a
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`POSITA would understand the same is referring to the setpoint at the start of the
`
`measurement, before the indoor temperature was allowed to rise in response to
`
`outside temperatures. This is because, in part, when an HVAC is running normally,
`
`the temperature stays constant, as Dr. Palmer acknowledges. Ex. 1022, 20:2-22:22,
`
`23:19-22; 107:16-109:18. Thus, while the Y axis is referred to as the “setpoint,” a
`
`POSITA would have understood Ehlers Y axis to be tracking the rise in the indoor
`
`temperature from that setpoint, when the HVAC switches off. Ex. 1004, ¶[0253]
`
`(“as the indoor temperature reaches the outside temperature”), ¶[0255] (“3 degree
`
`F. per hour”).
`
`15. Further, while Ehlers shows this representation as a straight line, the
`
`straight line suggests an average rate of gain, as Ehlers explains that the straight
`
`lines are used for illustrative purposes. Ex. 1004, ¶[0253] (“trends illustrated”). As
`
`would have been appreciated by a POSITA, and as explained in Ehlers, when an
`
`HVAC switches off (and remains off for an extended period, for whatever reason)
`
`in the presence of a relatively high outdoor temperature, the rate of change of the
`
`inside temperature is high at the outset, with the rate flattening as the inside
`
`temperature approaches the outdoor temperature. Ex. 1004, ¶[0253] (“rapid initial
`
`gain when the differential is large and the slower rate of thermal gain, which
`
`occurs as the indoor temperature reaches the outside temperature”).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`16. This operation in Ehlers (observing how the inside temperatures
`
`respond to changes in outside temperature for learning purposes) is similar to the
`
`description of the ’550 patent. The ’550 patent explains:
`
`FIG. 6b shows a graph of the same house on the same day, but
`assumes that the air conditioning is turned off from noon to 7
`PM. As expected, the inside temperature 304a rises with
`increasing outside temperatures 302 for most of that period,
`reaching 88 degrees at 7 PM. Because server 106 logs the
`temperature readings from inside each house (whether once per
`minute or over some other interval), as well as the timing and
`duration of air conditioning cycles, database 300 will contain a
`history of the thermal performance of each house. That performance
`data will allow 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
`temperature. Because the server will also log these inputs against
`other inputs including time of day, humidity, etc. 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.
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:17-34.
`
`17.
`
` The ’550 patent uses that learned information for purposes similar to
`
`that in Ehlers—e.g., to determine programming associated with achieving a
`
`setpoint by a desired time. Ex. 1001, 5:21-34; Ex. 1004, ¶[0295] (“thermal
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`recovery time”; “computed factor is used to more accurately compute the recovery
`
`time for thermal gain or loss when combined with the average normalized thermal
`
`gain or loss for the site”).
`
`18. Thus, a POSITA would have understood that Ehlers’ Fig. 3D and
`
`associated description to be describing and/or suggesting generating “stored data
`
`comprising a plurality of internal temperature measurements taken within a
`
`structure and a plurality of outside temperature measurements relating to
`
`temperatures outside the structure; using the stored data to predict a rate of change
`
`of temperatures inside the structure in response to at least changes in outside
`
`temperatures.” Ex. 1001, claim 1. Ehlers uses this predicted rate of change, in one
`
`instance, to determine a new “offset” setpoint (different from what the user
`
`selected). Ex.1004, ¶¶[0253]-[0255], [0256] (“effective set point offset needed”) .
`
`The offset setpoint reduces the percentage of time need for the HVAC to cycle on
`
`during operation (discussed in more detail below). In other words, by knowing
`
`how quickly the temperature will rise in a space, the system can select a setpoint
`
`that keeps the runtime to 33%. Ex. 1004, ¶[0256]. In other words, Ehlers
`
`“calculate[es] … scheduled programming of the thermostatic controller for one or
`
`more times based on the predicted rate of change.” Ex. 1001, claim 1.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Ehlers’ Figs. 3E and 3G
`
`19. Dr. Palmer takes an odd view of Figs. 3E and 3G of Ehlers. Ex. 2006,
`
`¶¶40-45. In Dr. Palmer’s view, the “THERMAL GAIN RATE PER HOUR” in
`
`Figs. 3E and 3G cannot be a “rate of inside temperature change because Ehlers
`
`expressly states that” the HVAC system was set a specific setpoint for the entire
`
`day and humidity control was not being used. Ex. 2006, ¶41. In Dr. Palmer’s view,
`
`because an HVAC setpoint keeps the inside temperature constant, there cannot be a
`
`rate change of the inside temperature, as shown in Figs. 3E and 3G. He further
`
`asserts that if thermal gain was understood to be a rate of change of inside
`
`temperature, then those figures would indicate a constant increase of inside
`
`temperatures over a 24-hour period, resulting in a 42-degree increase of inside
`
`temperature. Ex. 2006, ¶44. A POSITA would not have found that to be a logical
`
`interpretation of Ehlers’ Figs. 3E and 3G.
`
`20. To begin, Dr. Palmer does not dispute the normal operation of an
`
`HVAC system in which, as would have been appreciated by a POSITA, cycles on
`
`and off to maintain a fairly constant inside temperature. Ex. 1022, 20:2-22:22,
`
`23:19-22; 107:16-109:18. If the setpoint is 72 degrees F., the HVAC system may
`
`cycle on when the temperature rises to 73 degrees F., stay on until the temperature
`
`drops to 71 degrees F., cycle off, and then repeat that cycle when the temperature
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`again reaches 73 degrees F. Dr. Palmer refers to this band as the “dead band.” Ex.
`
`1022, 21:5-22:17. I refer to the operation as hysteresis.
`
`21. Regardless of the terminology applied, this cycling on and off is
`
`explicitly referred to in Ehlers with respect to Figs. 3E and 3G. In Ehlers’ example
`
`pertaining to Fig. 3E, the HVAC system cycles to keep the inside temperature
`
`close to the setpoint (which was fixed for the entire day). Ex. 1004, ¶[0254]. The
`
`cycling on and off of the HVAC system is referred to as the “HVAC RUNTIME
`
`%” and, for Fig. 3E, varies from about 10% to about 80%. Ex. 1004, ¶[0254], Fig.
`
`3E. This indicates, for instance, that when it is not particularly hot outside, the
`
`HVAC system may only need to cycle on for 10% of the time to maintain the
`
`setpoint. As the outdoor temperature rises, the HVAC system may need to cycle on
`
`for 80% of the time to maintain the setpoint. As a POSITA would have understood,
`
`while the temperature is kept fairly constant (within a narrow band) the system is
`
`cycling on and off, and during the off cycle, the temperature inside the structure
`
`rises at approximately the predicted rate of thermal gain, which as shown in Fig.
`
`3E varies from about 0.5 degrees F. per hour to about 4 degrees F. per hour. Ex.
`
`1004, Fig. 3E. Thus, that rate of thermal gain indicates the expected rate of change
`
`when the HVAC system cycles off, which it does throughout the day.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22.
`
`In the example in Ehlers’ Fig. 3G, the goal is to prevent the HVAC
`
`runtime from exceeding 33%, to conserve energy. The system does this using the
`
`knowledge of the expected rate of thermal gain given current conditions. Ex. 1004,
`
`¶[0256] (“using it computed thermal gain rate and the corresponding HVAC cycle
`
`run time projections”). Specifically, the system changes the setpoint to a new
`
`setpoint that allows the system to prevent its runtime from exceeding 33%. Ex.
`
`1004, ¶[0256] (“[b]y adjusting the effective set point upward, the system 3.08 is
`
`able to maintain the HVAC run time at the predetermined trigger level”; “Fig. 3G
`
`illustrates this scenario”).
`
`23. Thus, in Fig. 3G, the expected rate of thermal gain, which is a rate of
`
`change of inside temperature per unit time, is used to control the programming of
`
`the system by providing a new (computer calculated) setpoint. Ex. 1004, ¶¶[0255]
`
`(“the dead band in this example would be raised to 3 degrees F. and the rate of
`
`thermal gain would be set at 3 degrees F. per hour”); [0256] (“uses the learned
`
`thermal gain characteristics of the site 1.04 … to maintain a flat level of demand
`
`and consumption”).
`
`24. Moreover, in Figs. 3E and 3G, a POSITA would understand that the
`
`thermal gain rate is that “learned” information that predicts what will happen at
`
`any given point of time for a given setpoint and a given outside temperature, when
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the system cycles off. Ex. 1004, ¶¶[0253]-[0256]. Dr. Palmer’s suggestion that this
`
`thermal gain rate would indicate a continual increase in inside temperature over 24
`
`hours straight, even with the HVAC operating normally to maintain the setpoint, is
`
`not logical given the disclosure in Ehlers. Dr. Palmer acknowledged that a
`
`POSITA would know that a normally operating HVAC system strives to maintain
`
`its setpoint, and Ehlers describes just that. Ex. 1004, ¶[0254]. Dr. Palmer also
`
`acknowledges that HVAC systems cycle on and off such that the inside
`
`temperatures is kept within a narrow band, which is also explicitly described in
`
`Ehlers with respect to Figs. 3E and 3G. Ex. 1004, ¶¶[0254]-[0256]; see also Ex.
`
`1001, 5:9-12 (stating that when an HVAC system “turns on[] the inside
`
`temperature stays constant”). Figures 3E and 3G show that the system is operating
`
`normally (i.e., cycling on and off at runtime rates), as opposed to staying on 100%
`
`of the time, which would happen if the inside temperature was continuously rising.
`
`Just applying these accepted principles described in Ehlers rebuts Dr. Palmer’s
`
`assertion that Ehlers suggests a continuous rise in indoor temperature over 24
`
`hours at the same time that the system determines a runtime intended to maintain
`
`the inside temperature. A POSTA would adopt a sensical view of Ehlers’ Figs. 3E
`
`and 3G, along the lines I have set forth above.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Ehlers Describes an Automated Setpoint
`
`25. Dr. Palmer disputes whether Ehlers describes an automated setpoint.
`
`See Ex. 2006, ¶78. In particular, Dr. Palmer believes that because Ehlers’ system
`
`allows a user to dictate how far from the user selected setpoint the system may
`
`stray in determining a new (automated) setpoint, that somehow the new setpoint is
`
`not automated. See, e.g., Ex. 2006, ¶80. That does not square with the record. What
`
`is described is that, while the user may control that allowable range of the offset,
`
`the system automatically determines a particular offset setpoint within that range.
`
`26. Ehlers describes that the system calculates a new setpoint different
`
`from the one selected by a user. Ex. 1004, ¶¶[0141] (“setpoints are offset”;
`
`“original setpoint (prior to the offset change)”), [0150] (“can change the heating
`
`and cooling setpoint(s) and offset the values of the thermostat”), [0255] (“permit
`
`the system in this example to vary the temperature in the home from the normal set
`
`point of 72 F by the 4 degree offset …”), [0256] (“computes the required effective
`
`set point offset …”). A POSITA would understand these changes to a manual
`
`setpoint as automated setpoints because the computer selects the new temperature
`
`setting.
`
`27. While, in Ehlers, a user may influence how far from the manual
`
`setpoint the automated setpoint may be offset, that does not change the analysis.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Specifically, Ehlers explains that the user may select from a range of options (e.g.,
`
`10 settings) from “100% comfort management … to 100% economic
`
`management.” Ex. 1004, ¶[0255]. The settings “would be tied to the number of
`
`degrees from the set point that the customer would make available to the system
`
`3.08 to achieve economic benefits.” Ex. 1004, ¶[0255]. In the maximum setting for
`
`economic benefits, the system may be permitted to deviate from the manual
`
`setpoint by 4 degrees F. (e.g., “from 72 F to 76 F”). Ex. 1004, ¶[0255]. Thus, while
`
`the user may limit how far the system may stray from the manual setpoint, a
`
`POSITA would understand that the system makes the determination of when to
`
`change the setpoint and by how much. Thus, the new setpoint is automated. Also,
`
`over the course of the day, the system may vary the setpoint multiple times. In the
`
`late morning, the system may adjust the setpoint from 72 degrees F. to 73 degrees
`
`F. to reduce the HVAC runtime. By 1pm, the system may have adjusted the offset
`
`to 75 degrees F. and, as the outside temperatures drops later in the day, that process
`
`would likely reverse itself. This is an automated process using setpoints (at
`
`particular times) that the user did not input. Thus, I disagree that Ehlers does not
`
`describe automated setpoints.
`
`28.
`
`In addition, as discussed in my Original Declaration, Ehlers uses the
`
`predicted rate of change of inside temperatures in recovery operations from, for
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`instance, unoccupied mode to occupied modes. Ex. 1002, ¶¶84-89. In a recovery
`
`operation, a user may desire the inside temperature to be 72 degrees F. by 6pm,
`
`upon arriving home from work. To achieve that desired indoor temperature, the
`
`system in Ehlers would use the predicted rate of change under given conditions to
`
`determine when to begin operating the HVAC. That could mean changing the
`
`setpoint to 72 degrees F. at 5pm, or using ramping to select various setpoints in
`
`ramping to the desired temperatures. These intermediate setpoints prior to 6pm
`
`would be automated by the system. See Ex. 1004, ¶¶ [0246],[0255]; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶135-136.
`
`29.
`
`It should also be noted that, in Ehlers, the system learns from user
`
`preferences. Ex. 1004, ¶[0242] (“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”). For instance, if the system adopted an
`
`offset setpoint to conserve energy each afternoon, but the user manually adjusted
`
`the offset setpoint on Saturday afternoons when the outdoor temperature exceeded
`
`95 degrees F., the system would learn from the user’s actions. See Ex. 1004,
`
`¶[0243] (explaining that the offset programming “would be modified as needed
`
`based on the user’s changes to the set point”). The learning of user behavior is not
`
`described in Ehlers as being limited to instances when the user’s modifications are
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`made relative to a manual setpoint or an automated setpoint. See Ex. 1002, ¶89.
`
`And a POSITA would understand that the learning would happen regardless of
`
`whether the setpoint being adjusted was the original setpoint or an offset
`
`(automated) setpoint. In either case, the system would learn from the user’s
`
`preferences. In fact, Ehlers describes tracking user adjustments without regard to
`
`the origin of the prior setpoint in order to execute “follow my lead” learning. Ex.
`
`1004, ¶¶[0308]-[0309]. A POSITA would have appreciated that a system like
`
`Ehlers would often be learning from changes to automated setpoints inasmuch as
`
`Ehlers’ automated, offset setpoints are intended for energy conservation (at the
`
`expense of comfort) and users often adjust their thermostats when they are
`
`uncomfortable.
`
`VIII. WRUCK
`
`30. Dr. Palmer asserts that Wruck does not describe comparing different
`
`setpoints or provide a detailed explanation of the “Delta value.” Ex. 2006, ¶53. As
`
`explained in my Original Declaration, Wruck describes that a user may override
`
`setpoints and that the system detects when such changes have been made. Ex.
`
`1002, ¶59. Specifically, Wruck’s system determines the “Delta value” between the
`
`actual setpoint and the scheduled setpoint and, if that setpoint is greater than zero,
`
`determines that a change has been made such that new setpoint should be
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`displayed. Ex. 1002, ¶¶60-61. Given the simple principles involved, Wruck does
`
`not need to provide a more detailed description for a POSITA to understand that
`
`Wruck is, at least, suggesting a comparison of values (scheduled and actual
`
`setpoints) and a determination of a difference between those values. In fact, Dr.
`
`Palmer admits that “Delta” has a common meaning in the scientific community—
`
`“a change.” Ex. 1022, 139:9-11.
`
`IX. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS
`
`31. Dr. Palmer asserts that because of associations I had with the named
`
`inventors in the ’550 patent years ago, I somehow viewed the claimed subject
`
`matter “to be beneficial.” Ex. 2006, ¶115. For clarity, the named inventors
`
`participated in a research program with my students at the University of California
`
`at Berkley. As a public institution, the University endeavors to engage the public.
`
`And, as a researcher, I am happy to receive data sets for analysis. However, any
`
`sharing of information with, and receiving information from, the named inventors
`
`is simply that—the exchange of information. The willingness to share information
`
`should not be perceived as any suggestion that what is claimed in the ’550 patent is
`
`new or non-obvious. My opinions expressed in this case establish what was known
`
`and obvious at the relevant time.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`X. CONCLUSION
`
`32.
`
`In signing this declaration, I understand that the declaration will be
`
`filed as evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I acknowledge that I may be
`
`subject to deposition in this case.
`
`33.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true,
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and that
`
`these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and
`
`the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section
`
`1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`_____________________
`
`David M. Auslander
`
`20
`
`DATED:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`May 17, 2023
`
`