Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.
`
`(record) Patent Owner
`
`IPR2022-00538
`U.S. Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET. SEQ
`
`1
`
`ECOBEE Exhibit 1027
`ECOBEE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00983
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.
`
`(record) Patent Owner
`
`IPR2022-00538
`U.S. Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET. SEQ
`
`1
`
`ECOBEE Exhibit 1027
`ECOBEE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00983
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 6
`A.
`The ’597 Patent Disclosure ................................................................... 6
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11
`III. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY ........................................................................ 13
` Claims 1-24 Are Obvious Over Ehlers ’330 in view of the knowledge
`of a POSITA and Wruck. .................................................................... 13
`Effective Prior Art Dates ..................................................................... 13
`Overview of the Ground ...................................................................... 14
`1.
`Overview of Ehlers ’330. .......................................................... 14
`2.
`Overview of Wruck ................................................................... 17
`3.
`Overview of the Combination ................................................... 19
`Rationale (Motivation) Supporting Obviousness ................................ 20
`C.
`D. Graham Factors ................................................................................... 21
`E.
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................................... 21
`F.
`Analogous Art ..................................................................................... 22
`G.
`Claim Mapping .................................................................................... 22
`INSTITUTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314 .................................................... 72
`IV.
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 73
`V.
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 75
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ...................................................................... 76
`
`
`
`A.
`B.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,194,597 (“the 597 patent”).
`Declaration of Rajendra Shah.
`C.V. of Rajendra Shah.
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2004/0117330 (“Ehlers ’330”).
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2005/0040250 A1 (“Wruck”).
`Excerpt from The Industrial Electronics Handbook, Irwin, J.D.
`ed. CRC Press and IEEE Press, 1997, pp. 59-60.
`Horan, T, Control Systems and Applications for HVAC/R,
`Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1997.
`Levenhagen, J, HVAC Control and Systems, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
`1993.
`File History of Application No. 14/082,675.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,751,186 B2 (“the ’186 patent”).
`Exhibit number not used.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,789,739 (“Rosen”).
`WO 2007/128783 A1 (“McNulty”).
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2005/0171645 (“Oswald”).
`U.S. Patent No. 5,943,544 (“Charles”).
`U.S. Patent No. 6,029,092 (“Stein”).
`ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1185, Public Version of April 20, 2021
`Initial Determination
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220
`(N.D. Cal.), Answer (July 13, 2021).
`Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220
`(N.D. Cal.), Scheduling Order (August 11, 2021).
`Security People, Inc. v. Ojmar US, LLC, 14-cv-04968-HSG
`(N.D. Cal.), Order (May 29, 2015).
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 of
`
`claims 1-24 of U.S. Pat. No. 9,194,597 (“the ’597 patent”).
`
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL
`Lead Counsel
`Backup Counsel
`Matthew A. Smith
`Elizabeth Laughton
`Reg. No. 49,003
`Reg. No. 70,484
`SMITH BALUCH LLP
`SMITH BALUCH LLP
`700 Pennsylvania Ave. SE
`700 Pennsylvania Ave. SE
`Second Floor
`Second Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20003
`Washington, D.C. 20003
`(202) 669-6207
`(703) 585-8839
`smith@smithbaluch.com
`laughton@smithbaluch.com
`
`
`NOTICE OF THE REAL-PARTIES-IN-INTEREST
`The real-party-in-interest for this petition is Google LLC (“Google”).
`
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS
`The ’597 patent has been asserted in the following litigations:
`
`EcoFactor, Inc. v. ecobee, Inc., 6-21-cv-00428 (W.D. Tex. April 28,
`
`2021);
`
`
`
`Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220
`
`(N.D. Cal. April 30, 2021).
`
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION
`Please address all correspondence to the lead counsel at the addresses shown
`
`above.
`
`Petitioners
`
`consent
`
`to
`
`electronic
`
`service
`
`by
`
`
`at:
`
`smith@smithbaluch.com, and laughton@smithbaluch.com.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the patent for which review is sought is
`
`available for inter partes review, and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting an inter partes review on the grounds identified in the petition.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner respectfully requests that claims 1-24 of the ’597 patent be canceled
`
`based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-24 are obvious over Ehlers ’330 in view of the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA and Wruck.
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`This petition presents “a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioners would
`
`prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition”, 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a), as shown in the Grounds explained below.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. The ’597 Patent Disclosure
` The ’597 patent at-issue (with an earliest-possible benefit date of 2009)
`
`relates generally to controls for climate control systems, such as heating and cooling
`
`systems (“HVAC systems”). (Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:18-2:18, 3:48-67, 4:8-32)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶31). HVAC systems have, for decades, been controlled by thermostats. (Ex.
`
`1001, 1:18-2:17)(Ex. 1002, ¶32). Thermostats are typically wall-mounted units that
`
`have an internal temperature sensor, and which allow a user to set a target
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`temperature. (Ex. 1002, ¶32). The target temperature, or “setpoint,” is compared
`
`against the actual temperature, and the HVAC system switched on or off in an
`
`attempt to maintain the setpoint temperature. (Ex. 1002, ¶32).
`
`The ’597 patent states that “programmable thermostats have been available
`
`for more than 20 years.” (Ex. 1001, 1:18-19). According to the ’597 patent,
`
`“[p]rogrammable thermostats offer two types of advantages as
`compared to non-programmable devices.
`
`[¶] On the one hand, programmable thermostats can save energy in
`large part because
`they automate
`the process of reducing
`conditioning during times when the space is unoccupied, or while
`occupants are sleeping, and thus reduce energy consumption.
`
`[¶] On the other hand, programmable thermostats can also enhance
`comfort as compared to manually changing setpoints using a non-
`programmable thermostat. For example, during the winter, a
`homeowner might manually turn down the thermostat from 70
`degrees F. to 64 degrees when going to sleep and back to 70 degrees
`in the morning. . . . A programmable thermostat allows homeowners
`to anticipate the desired result by programming a pre-conditioning of
`the home. So, for example, if the homeowner gets out of bed at 7
`AM, setting the thermostat to change from the overnight setpoint of
`64 degrees to 70 at 6 AM can make the house comfortable when the
`consumer gets up.”
`
`(Ex. 1001, 1:19-44)(Ex. 1002, ¶33).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`According to the ’597 patent, however, “all of the advantages of a
`
`programmable thermostat depend on the match between the preferences of the
`
`occupants and the actual settings employed.” (Ex. 1001, 1:45-47)(Ex. 1002, ¶34).
`
`The ’597 patent explains that “[i]f the temperatures programmed into a thermostat
`
`do not accurately reflect the preferences of the occupants, those occupants are likely
`
`to resort to manual overrides of the programmed settings.” (Ex. 1001, 1:64-66)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶34).
`
`The ’597 patent suggests improving typical thermostat function by “adapting
`
`to signaling from occupants in the form of manual temperature changes and
`
`incorporating
`
`the
`
`information contained
`
`in such gestures
`
`into
`
`long-term
`
`programming.” (Ex. 1001, 2:10-12)(Ex. 1002, ¶35). In other words, the ’597 patent
`
`suggest detecting user-initiated manual changes to temperature settings (e.g.,
`
`setpoints) and then using information regarding those changes to make changes to
`
`long-term programming of a thermostat. (Ex. 1002, ¶35). It also suggests using
`
`inside temperature, outside temperature, and other factors to purportedly calculate
`
`and take into account the building’s thermal characteristics. (Ex. 1001, 2:12-17,
`
`5:17-34)(Ex. 1002, ¶35). As the ’597 patent notes, such calculations might involve
`
`the rate at which an HVAC system heats or cools a building. (Ex. 1001, 5:5-40,
`
`3:48-67, claim 9)(Ex. 1002, ¶35).
`
`The difference between the indoor and outdoor temperature was well known
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`in the prior art to affect the rate at which a building loses or gains heat. (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1007, Book p. 200; Ex. 1008, Book p. 281)(Ex. 1002, ¶36). For example, on a
`
`hot summer afternoon, a building will gain heat (incur a rise in temperature) faster
`
`than on a cool day, placing greater demand on the air conditioning system on a hot
`
`day. (Ex. 1002, ¶36). Similarly, on a cold winter day, the building will lose heat
`
`more quickly than on a warmer day, placing greater demand on the heating system.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶36). By extension, the apparent ability of the HVAC system to change
`
`the temperature of the house (and thus affect the rate of change of temperature) was
`
`known to depend on the outside temperature. (Ex. 1002, ¶36).
`
`One common prior art application of this principle relates to “setback and
`
`recovery” schedules. Such schedules change the setpoint of a thermostat at different
`
`times of day, in order to save energy when the building is unoccupied. (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶37). For example, a workplace thermostat could be programmed during the winter
`
`to have a daytime (8 AM to 5 PM) setpoint of 70 F, and an evening setpoint of 50 F
`
`(when the building is expected to be unoccupied). Allowing the building to cool
`
`down to 50 F in the evening is called “setback”, while heating the building back up
`
`to 70 F in the morning is called “recovery.” (Ex. 1002, ¶37).
`
`The ’597 patent has three independent claims. (Ex. 1002, ¶37). Exemplary
`
`independent claim 1 of the ’597 patent reads as follows:
`
`“1. A method for detecting manual changes to the setpoint for a
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`thermostatic controller comprising:
`
`providing a thermostatic controller operatively connected to a
`heating ventilation and air conditioning system, the temperature
`set point of the heating ventilation and air conditioning system
`being manually changeable;
`
`accessing stored data comprising a plurality of internal temperature
`measurements taken within a structure and a plurality of outside
`temperature measurements;
`
`using the stored data to predict changes in temperature inside the
`structure in response to at least changes in outside temperatures;
`
`calculating with at least one computer, scheduled programming of
`the thermostatic controller for one or more times to control the
`heating ventilation and air conditioning system, the scheduled
`programming comprising at least a first automated setpoint at a
`first time;
`
`recording, with the thermostatic controller, actual setpoints of the
`heating ventilation and air condition system;
`
`communicating the actual setpoints from the one or more
`thermostatic controllers to the at least one computer;
`
`generating with the at least one computer, a difference value based
`on comparing at least one of the an [sic] actual setpoints at the
`first time for the thermostatic controller to the first automated
`setpoint for the thermostatic controller;
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`detecting a manual change to the first automated setpoint by
`determining whether the at least one of the actual setpoints and
`the first automated setpoint are the same or different based on
`the difference value; and
`
`logging the manual change to a database.”
`
`(Ex. 1001, claim 1)(Ex. 1002, ¶38).
`
`As set forth in detail below, the elements of the ’597 patent’s claims were
`
`obvious over the prior art. As EcoFactor’s own patents acknowledge, it was well-
`
`understood that the ability of an HVAC system to cool a structure depended on the
`
`outside temperature and the “thermal mass” of the structure. (See, e.g., Ex. 1010,
`
`2:54-3:6)(Ex. 1002, ¶39). It was also known how to detect user-initiated manual
`
`changes to setpoints and to learn from those changes in order to improve thermostat
`
`programming and reduce the need for users to make manual setpoint adjustments.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶39).
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`“In an inter partes review proceeding, a claim of a patent…shall be construed
`
`using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim
`
`in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b)….” 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b).
`
`Claim constructions have not issued in either of the co-pending district court
`
`actions.
`
`A prior ITC investigation addressed related U.S. Pat. No. 10,018,371 (“the
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`’371 patent”). (Ex. 1017). Claim 9 of the ’371 patent recites a limitation similar to
`
`the “detecting a manual change” limitation of the ’597 patent. The two claim
`
`limitations are shown below, side-by-side, with the differences denoted in blue:
`
`“detecting a manual change to the first
`automated setpoint by determining
`whether the at least one of the actual
`setpoints and
`the
`first automated
`setpoint are the same or different....”
`
`’371 patent, claim 9
`
`(Ex. 1017, pp. 369-370)
`
`“detecting a manual change to the first
`automated setpoint by determining
`whether the at least one of the actual
`setpoints and
`the
`first automated
`setpoint are the same or different based
`on the difference value....”
`’597 patent, claim 1
`
`
`
`In the ITC proceeding, EcoFactor argued that the “detecting a manual setpoint
`
`change” limitation was met when the relevant comparison was carried out,
`
`regardless of whether the system had previously detected a setpoint change, and
`
`regardless of whether the system could retrieve complete manual setpoint change
`
`information from its memory. The ITC ultimately found that the accused product
`
`met the “detecting a manual setpoint change” limitation of claim 1. (Ex. 1017, pp.
`
`396-402).
`
`In this proceeding, Petitioner applies the ITC’s apparent construction of the
`
`“detecting a manual change to the first automated setpoint” limitation. (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶45-46).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`III. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY
`
` Claims 1-24 Are Obvious Over Ehlers ’330 in view of the
`knowledge of a POSITA and Wruck.
`
`Claims 1-24 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. Pat.
`
`App. Pub. 2004/0117330 (“Ehlers ’330”)(Ex. 1004) in view of the knowledge of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) and U.S. Pat. Pub. 2005/0040250 A1
`
`(“Wruck”)(Ex. 1005).
`
`A. Effective Prior Art Dates
`Ehlers ’330 was published on June 17, 2004, and is therefore prior art under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Wruck was published on February 24, 2005 and is therefore prior art under
`
`at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Wruck was not of record during the prosecution of the application leading to
`
`the ’597 patent. Ehlers ’330 was not of record during the prosecution of the
`
`application leading to the ’597 patent, although a similar patent to Ehlers ’330, U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 7,130,719 (“Ehlers ’719”) was cited in a 194-reference IDS. (Ex. 1009, p.
`
`300). The Ehlers ’719 patent was never discussed on the record by the Examiner or
`
`Applicant. See Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologies, Inc., IPR2019-01467, Paper 7
`
`at 10 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2020)(Ex. 1002, ¶¶47-48).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`B. Overview of the Ground
`Ehlers ’330 teaches or renders obvious all elements of the claims, and could
`
`be applied in a standalone §103 challenge. Wruck and the knowledge of POSITA
`
`are cited, however, to reinforce the obviousness of the limitations directed to
`
`“detecting a manual change” using a “difference value”, as described in more detail
`
`below.
`
`1. Overview of Ehlers ’330.
`Ehlers ’330 is similar to the ’597 patent. (Ex. 1004, Fig. 1B, ¶¶0072-0079,
`
`0099)(Ex. 1002, ¶¶51-52). Shown below are Fig. 1B of Ehlers ’330 (left side),
`
`compared with Fig. 2 of the ’597 patent (right side):
`
`
`
`
`
`Ehlers ’330, Fig. 1B
`
`’597 patent, Fig. 2
`
`
`(Ex. 1004, Fig. 1B, ¶¶0072-0079)(Ex. 1002, ¶52). In both systems there are
`
`conditioned spaces having thermostats. (Ex. 1004, ¶0076)(Ex. 1001, 3:48-67, 4:8-
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`32)(Ex. 1002, ¶52). The thermostats in each system are connected to gateways,
`
`specifically gateway 1.10D in Ehlers ’330 (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0061-0062) and gateways
`
`112 in the ’597 patent (Ex. 1001, 3:48-67, 7:54-61)(Ex. 1002, ¶52). The gateways
`
`connect the thermostats in each system over networks to servers. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0072-
`
`0073)(Ex. 1001, 3:48-67)(Ex. 1002, ¶52).
`
`Both systems collect and store information relevant to the conditioning of a
`
`building. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0088, 0151, 0268-0309)(Ex. 1001, 4:33-42)(Ex. 1002, ¶53).
`
`In Ehlers ’330, for example:
`
`“[T]he system 1.02 may have the ability to sense the current indoor
`temperature and could be enhanced to include at a minimum,
`humidity sensing, outside temperature, . . . dew point and local
`weather forecast data or encoded signals . . . .”
`
`(Ex. 1004, ¶0088)(Emphasis added)(Ex. 1002, ¶53).
`
`Ehlers ’330’s thermostat contains various temperature set points for the
`
`HVAC system, which are manually changeable by a user. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0012, 0013,
`
`0153-0160, 0228, 0239, 0244, 0253-0256, 0278, 0281, 0308-0309, 0316-0324,
`
`0320). A user can also “override” a scheduled setpoint. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0116, 0118,
`
`0156, 0316, 0354, Fig. 4C)(Ex. 1002, ¶54).
`
`Ehlers ’330 also teaches using rates of changes in temperatures. For example,
`
`Ehlers ’330 teaches calculating the rate at which inside temperature changes at any
`
`given outside temperature (i.e. the “thermal gain rate”) for a given setpoint, in order
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`to predict how long it will take for the HVAC system to heat or cool the building
`
`from one setpoint to another. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0253-0254, 0256, 0295, Fig. 3D)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶55). Ehlers ’330 can use this thermal gain rate to “compute[] the required
`
`effective set point offset needed to keep the HVAC cycle run time at [a] specified
`
`trigger level.” (Ex. 1004, ¶0256). Ehlers ’330 specifically determines what future
`
`setpoint would result in a thermal gain rate that would not increase the average
`
`HVAC run time and the controls the system accordingly. (Ex. 1004, ¶0256)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶55).
`
` Ehlers ’330 also teaches detecting and implementing a user’s manual
`
`changes to a setpoint. (Ex. 1002, ¶56). Ehlers ’330 explains that:
`
`“[i]n one aspect of the invention, the system 3.08 manages comfort
`for the customer site 1.04 by learning from the user’s inputs or
`adjustments to the system 3.08 to change or modify indoor air
`temperature.”
`
`(Ex. 1004, ¶0242)(Emphasis added)(See also Ex. 1004, ¶0243)(controls are
`
`“modified as needed based on the user’s changes to the set point at the thermostat
`
`1.30D” and that a “control algorithm [] learn[s] the user’s individual preferences and
`
`over time, eliminat[es] the need for the site 1.04 occupant to make any changes”)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶56).
`
`Ehlers ’330 further teaches that its system performs “set point pattern change
`
`tracking,” in which the system tracks and learns from a user’s changes to setpoints.
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`(Ex. 1004, ¶¶0268, 0308, 0309)(Ex. 1002, ¶57). Ehlers thus ’330 discloses that its
`
`system detects manual changes to HVAC setpoints, and uses such changes to alter
`
`the HVAC setpoint control algorithms. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0242-0243, 0268, 0308,
`
`0309)(Ex. 1002, ¶58).
`
`2. Overview of Wruck
` Wruck teaches a system that allows a wireless device such as a PDA to
`
`control a thermostat. (Ex. 1005, ¶¶0002-0005)(Ex. 1002, ¶59). The thermostat can
`
`be programmed with a schedule to save energy, as shown, for example, in Figs. 9G
`
`and 9I of Wruck, reproduced here:
`
`
`(Ex. 1005, Figs. 9G and 9I, ¶0098)(Ex. 1002, ¶59). As shown in the figures, the user
`
`can enter times of the day when periods of occupancy and non-occupancy begin
`
`(Fig. 9G and Fig. 9I), and associated heating and cooling setpoints. (Id.). Wruck
`
`thus teaches a system with “scheduled programming of the thermostatic controller”,
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`similar to the scheduled programming of the ’597 patent. (Ex. 1002, ¶59).
`
`Wruck further teaches that the user can temporarily override scheduled
`
`setpoints. (Ex. 1005, ¶¶0005, 0014-0015, 0104, 0125, 0150, 0198, 0231, Figs. 14s-
`
`14z, 20b, Tables 28, 31, 36)(Ex. 1002, ¶60). This can be accomplished, for example,
`
`by pressing the up and down keys on the thermostat. (Ex. 1005, Table 36, Table 38,
`
`items 96 and 97, ¶0150)(Ex. 1002, ¶60). Wruck thus teaches making manual
`
`setpoint changes to scheduled setpoints. (Ex. 1002, ¶60).
`
`Wruck further teaches detecting manual changes using a difference value, or
`
`“delta”. Specifically, Wruck teaches that if a temporary setpoint has been entered,
`
`it will be displayed on the thermostat if it is different from the scheduled setpoint, as
`
`shown in Table 28 of Wruck, reproduced in relevant part below, with highlighting
`
`added:
`
`
`(Ex. 1005, Table 28, ¶0110)(Ex. 1002, ¶61). Here, Wruck teaches to check whether
`
`the difference between the temporary setpoint and the scheduled setpoint is equal to
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`zero, and if not, to display the temporary setpoint. (Ex. 1002, ¶61).
`
`3. Overview of the Combination
`As noted above, Ehlers ’330 is similar to the ’597 patent, and teaches or
`
`renders obvious all claims of the ’597 patent on its own. With specific reference to
`
`claim features directed to “detecting a manual change” using a “difference value”,
`
`Ehlers ’330 already teaches generating an automatic thermostatic control schedule,
`
`having automated setpoints. (Ex.1004, ¶¶0231-0234, 0239)(Ex. 1002, ¶62). Ehlers
`
`’330 further teaches adjusting its schedule by “learning” from a user’s setpoint
`
`changes that depart from the schedule. For example, Ehlers ’330 teaches:
`
`“In one aspect of the invention, the system 3.08 manages comfort for
`the customer site 1.04 by learning from the user’s inputs or
`adjustments to the system 3.08 to change or modify indoor air
`temperature. This learning process alters the operation of the
`system 3.08, freeing the customer from having to make changes to
`manage the indoor environmental condition.”
`
`(Ex. 1004, ¶0242)(Emphasis added)(Ex. 1002, ¶62).
`
`Based on Ehlers ’330 alone, it would have been obvious to determine a
`
`difference value based on comparing at least one of an actual setpoints at the first
`
`time for the thermostatic controller to the first automated setpoint for the
`
`thermostatic controller. (Ex. 1002, ¶63). This would have allowed the system to
`
`determine whether a manual change occurred, how far off the automated setpoints
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`were from the user’s desired setpoint, and to eliminate cases where manual changes
`
`were made that resulted in no difference between the user’s setpoint and the
`
`automated setpoint (e.g. where the user increases and then decreases the setpoint by
`
`one degree). (Ex. 1002, ¶63). Forming a difference value simply means subtraction,
`
`which was well-understood in the relevant timeframe. (Ex. 1002, ¶63).
`
`Furthermore, it would have been obvious based on the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA and Wruck to use a difference value between a user’s manually-entered
`
`setpoint and an automated setpoint to detect the manual setpoint change.
`
`Specifically, a POSITA would have understood from Ehlers ’330 that it would be
`
`necessary to compare actual setpoints (which can be user-entered) with the
`
`automated setpoints in order to “learn[] from the user’s inputs or adjustments to the
`
`system 3.08 to change or modify indoor air temperature.” (Ex. 1004, ¶0242)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶64). A POSITA further would have known that, in computer systems, a
`
`standard way to compare two numbers (e.g. two numerical setpoints) was by
`
`subtracting one from the other. (Ex. 1006, Book p. 60)(Ex. 1002, ¶64). Wruck
`
`provides an example of this by forming the difference value between a user-entered
`
`temporary setpoint and an automated setpoint. (Ex. 1005, Table 28)(Ex. 1002, ¶64).
`
`C. Rationale (Motivation) Supporting Obviousness
`A detailed explanation of the rationale supporting obviousness is provided
`
`below in the Claim Mapping section, under each claim element as appropriate.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`D. Graham Factors
`The level of ordinary skill encompassed a (1) Bachelor’s degree in
`
`engineering, computer science, or a comparable field of study, and (2) at least five
`
`years of (i) professional experience in building energy management and controls, or
`
`(ii) relevant industry experience. Additional relevant industry experience may
`
`compensate for lack of formal education or vice versa. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶26-28).
`
`The scope and content of the prior art are discussed throughout the Ground.
`
`The differences between the prior art and the claims are discussed in the
`
`“Overview of the Combination” and in the claim mapping, below.
`
`Petitioner is not aware of any secondary considerations that would make an
`
`inference of non-obviousness more likely.
`
`E. Reasonable Expectation of Success
`A POSITA in the relevant timeframe would have had a reasonable expectation
`
`of success in implementing the combination (as described with particularity below
`
`in the claim mapping section) of Ehlers ’330, the knowledge of a POSITA and
`
`Wruck. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶65-66). As Mr. Shah explains, the art was relatively
`
`predictable in the relevant timeframe (early 2009). (Ex. 1002, ¶66). A POSITA
`
`would have been able to make any necessary modifications to implement this
`
`Ground. (Ex. 1002, ¶66). This is discussed in more detail in the claim mapping
`
`section, where appropriate.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`F. Analogous Art
`Ehlers ’330 and Wruck are analogous art, because they are in the same field
`
`as the ’597 patent (building energy management and controls). (Ex. 1001, 1:18-
`
`2:17, 3:48-67, claim 1, preamble)(“A method for detecting manual changes to the
`
`setpoint for a thermostatic controller comprising….”)(Ex. 1004, Abstract, Title)(Ex.
`
`1005, Abstract, Title, ¶¶0002-0008)(Ex. 1002, ¶67). Furthermore, both references
`
`address several problems faced by the inventors—chiefly, control of building
`
`heating and cooling systems, implementation of setpoints, and control in view of
`
`outdoor temperature. (Ex. 1001, claim 1, Abstract, 1:18-2:17, 3:48-67, 4:62-
`
`5:42)(Ex. 1005, Abstract, ¶¶0062, 0120, 0183)(Ex. 1004, ¶¶0090, 0092, 0095, 0137,
`
`0141, 0145, 0147, 0167, 0182, 0204, 0239, 0244-0247, 0252-0256 and ¶¶0078-
`
`0082)(Ex. 1002, ¶68). See Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010).
`
`G. Claim Mapping
`This section maps the challenged claims to the relevant disclosures of Ehlers
`
`’330, the knowledge of a POSITA, and Wruck, where the claim text appears in bold-
`
`italics, and the relevant mapping follows the claim text. Petitioner has added
`
`numbering and lettering in brackets (e.g. 1[a], [1b]) to certain claim elements, to
`
`facilitate the discussion.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`“1[a]. A method for detecting manual changes to the setpoint for a
`thermostatic controller comprising:”
`
`Ehlers ’330 in view of the knowledge of a POSITA and Wruck renders
`
`obvious a method for detecting manual changes to the setpoint for a
`
`thermostatic controller. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶69-70).
`
`First, Ehlers ’330 teaches a system that involves managing a thermostatic
`
`controller. The thermostatic controller is the thermostat of a house. (Ex. 1004,
`
`Abstract, ¶¶0090, 0092, 0191, 0084, 0190)(See also Ex. 1004, ¶¶0150, 0229, 0066,
`
`0090, 0138, 0141, 0150, 0192, 0204, 0254, 0263, Fig. 2E). The overall system
`
`including the thermostat is depicted in Figure 1B below:
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1004, Fig. 1B)(Ex. 1002, ¶71). Another exemplary configuration of a portion
`
`of Ehlers ’330’s system (system 3.08) is illustrated in Figure 3B, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`
`(Ex. 1004, Fig. 3B)(Ex. 1002, ¶72). Ehlers ’330 teaches that “the system 1.02 will
`
`manage the indoor air temperature” and that “the system 1.02 is designed to provide
`
`monitoring and control of major loads, e.g., total electric load, HVAC systems, . .
`
`. .” (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0088, 0095, 0141, 0224, 0231, 0242, 0256, Fig. 1B, Fig.
`
`3B)(Emphasis added)(Ex. 1002, ¶73).
`
`As can be seen in Figures 1B and 3B, Ehlers ’330’s system contains a
`
`thermostatic controller in the form of thermostat device 1.30D. (Ex. 1002, ¶74).
`
`Ehlers ’330’s “system 1.02 . . . includes an advanced thermostat device 1.30D.”
`
`(Ex. 1004, ¶¶0076, 0088, 0141, 0149, 0223, 0229)(See also Ex. 1004,
`
`¶0224)(“thermostat 1.30D is an advanced thermostatic control device”)(Emphasis
`
`added)(Ex. 1002, ¶75).
`
`As depicted above in Figure 3B, “thermostat 1.30D” may also “form[] part of
`
`a temperature and environmental sensing and control system 3.08.” (See, e.g.,
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 3B, ¶0229)(Emphasis added). “Based on the sensed data, the
`
`thermostat 1.30D controls other devices 1.08 to manage air quality.” (Ex. 1004,
`
`¶¶0229, 0230, 0231, 0232, 0234, 0256)(Emphasis added)(See also Ex. 1004,
`
`¶¶0231, 0088)(“[T]he temperature and environmental sensing and control system
`
`3.08 will manage indoor air temperature.”)(Ex. 1002, ¶75).
`
`Ehlers ’330’s thermostatic controller contains various temperature set
`
`points for the HVAC system. (See, e.g., Ex. 1004, ¶¶0153-0160, 0253-0256, 0281,
`
`0320). These temperature set points are manually changeable. (Ex. 1002, ¶76).
`
`For example, a user may set a desired temperature set point for the thermostat
`
`1.30D. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0012, 0013, 0153-0160, 0228, 0239, 0244, 0253-0256, 0278,
`
`0281, 0308-0309, 0316-0324, 0320). A user can also “override” a scheduled
`
`setpoint. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0116, 0118, 0156, 0316, 0354, Fig. 4C)(Ex. 1002, ¶76).
`
`Ehlers ’330 renders obvious a method for detecting manual changes to the
`
`setpoint for a thermostatic controller. (Ex. 1002, ¶77). Ehlers ’330 explains that
`
`“[i]n one aspect of the invention, the system 3.08 manages comfort for the customer
`
`site 1.04 by learning from the user’s inputs or adjustments to the system 3.08 to
`
`change or modify indoor air temperature.” (Ex. 1004, ¶0242)(See also Ex. 1004,
`
`¶0243)(noting that controls are “modified as needed based on the user’s changes to
`
`the set point at the thermostat 1.30D” and that a “control algorithm [] learn[s] the
`
`user’s individual preferences and over time, eliminat[es] the need for the site 1.04
`
`
`
`26
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`occupant to make any changes”)(Emphasis added)(Ex. 1002, ¶77). Ehlers ’330
`
`further teaches that its system also performs “set point pattern change tracking.” (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶78). For example, Ehlers ’330 discloses that the “following data may be
`
`maintained or stored by the system 1.02. . . .
`
`“[0308] 40. Set point pattern change tracking tables to reflect
`specific day, time and day type setting changes to be used with
`‘follow my lead’ artificial intelligence learning and execution
`routines.
`
`[0309] 41. Set point pattern change tracking tables to reflect
`specific outside weather conditions in relations
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
