UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC
`
`GOOGLE LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.
`
`(record) Patent Owner
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: (Unassigned)
`Patent No. 8,596,550
`IPR2022-00983
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`PETITIONER GOOGLE EX. 1023
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`V.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 7 
`SUMMARY OF THE ’550 PATENT ............................................................. 7 
`A.
`The Claimed Subject Matter ................................................................. 7 
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 12 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE .................................................................. 13 
`III.
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................. 13 
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13 
`A.
`Stipulated Constructions ..................................................................... 13 
`B.
`“database” ............................................................................................ 14 
`DETAILED EXPLANATION OF REASONS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
` ....................................................................................................................... 14 
`Ground 1.  Claims 1-16 are obvious over Ehlers in view of Wruck. .................... 14 
`A.
`Effective Prior Art Dates ..................................................................... 15 
`B.
`Overview of the Ground ...................................................................... 15 
`1. Overview of Ehlers ........................................................................ 16 
`2. Overview of Wruck ........................................................................ 18 
`3. Overview of the Combination ........................................................ 20 
`Graham Factors ................................................................................... 22 
`C.
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................................... 23 
`D.
`Analogous Art ..................................................................................... 23 
`E.
`Claim Mapping .................................................................................... 24 
`F.
`Ground 2.  Claims 9-16 are obvious over Ehlers in view of Wruck and Harter. .. 57 
`A.
`Effective Prior Art Dates ..................................................................... 57 
`B.
`Overview of the Ground ...................................................................... 58 
`1. Overview of Ehlers ........................................................................ 58 
`2. Overview of Wruck ........................................................................ 58 
`3. Overview of Harter ........................................................................ 59 
`4. Overview of the Combination ........................................................ 60 
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`C.  Graham Factors ................................................................................... 61 
`D. 
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................................... 62 
`E. 
`Analogous Art ..................................................................................... 62 
`F. 
`Claim Mapping .................................................................................... 63 
`VI.  THE BOARD SHOULD INSTITUTE UNDER § 314(a) ............................ 68 
`VII.  MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 70 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 74 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 75 
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ...................................................................... 77 
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 7
`II.
`SUMMARY OF THE ’550 PATENT ............................................................. 7
`A.
`The Claimed Subject Matter ................................................................. 7
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 12
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE .................................................................. 13
`III. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................. 13
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13
`A.
`Stipulated Constructions ..................................................................... 13
`B.
`“database” ............................................................................................ 14
`V. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF REASONS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
` ....................................................................................................................... 14
`Ground 1. Claims 1-16 are obvious over Ehlers in view of Wruck. .................... 14
`A.
`Effective Prior Art Dates ..................................................................... 15
`B. Overview of the Ground ...................................................................... 15
`1. Overview of Ehlers ........................................................................ 16
`2. Overview of Wruck ........................................................................ 18
`3. Overview of the Combination ........................................................ 20
`C. Graham Factors ................................................................................... 22
`D.
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................................... 23
`E.
`Analogous Art ..................................................................................... 23
`F.
`Claim Mapping .................................................................................... 24
`Ground 2. Claims 9-16 are obvious over Ehlers in view of Wruck and Harter. .. 57
`A.
`Effective Prior Art Dates ..................................................................... 57
`B. Overview of the Ground ...................................................................... 58
`1. Overview of Ehlers ........................................................................ 58
`2. Overview of Wruck ........................................................................ 58
`3. Overview of Harter ........................................................................ 59
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`4. Overview of the Combination ........................................................ 60
`C. Graham Factors ................................................................................... 61
`D.
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................................... 62
`E.
`Analogous Art ..................................................................................... 62
`F.
`Claim Mapping .................................................................................... 63
`VI. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 70
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 74
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 75
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ...................................................................... 77
`
`
`4
`
`

`

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

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,751,186 B2 (“the ’186 patent”).
`
`Excerpt from McDaniel, G, IBM Dictionary of Computing,
`McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993, p. 165.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,784,704 (“Harter”).
`
`Excerpt from Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 5th
`ed., McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994, p. 62.
`
`Excerpt from The Industrial Electronics Handbook, Irwin, J.D.
`ed. CRC Press and IEEE Press, 1997, pp. 59-60.
`
`Exhibit number not used.
`
`Comparison Document – ecobee Petition filed in IPR2022-
`00983 vs. Present Petition
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`claims 1-16 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,596,550 (“the ’550 patent”).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’550 PATENT
`A. The Claimed Subject Matter
`
`The ’550 patent relates to controlling climate control systems, such as heating
`
`and cooling (“HVAC”) systems. (Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:18-2:18, 3:48-67, 4:8-
`
`32)(Ex. 1002, ¶28). HVAC systems have, for decades, been controlled by
`
`thermostats. (Ex. 1001, 1:18-2:17)(Ex. 1002, ¶29). Thermostats are typically wall-
`
`mounted units with internal temperature sensors, which allow a user to set a target
`
`temperature. (Ex. 1002, ¶29). The target temperature, or “setpoint,” is compared
`
`against the actual temperature, and the HVAC system is essentially switched on or
`
`off to maintain the setpoint temperature. (Ex. 1002, ¶29).
`
`“Programmable thermostats have been available for more than 20 years,” as
`
`the ’550 patent notes. (Ex. 1001, 1:18-19). They “offer two types of advantages”
`
`over non-programmable devices. (Ex. 1001, 1:19-41)(Ex. 1002, ¶30). First,
`
`“programmable thermostats can save energy ... because they automate the process
`
`of reducing conditioning during times when the space is unoccupied, or while
`
`occupants are sleeping, and thus reduce energy consumption.” (Ex. 1001, 1:19-25).
`
`Second, “programmable thermostats can also enhance comfort…. For example.... A
`
`programmable thermostat allows homeowners to anticipate [a] desired result by
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`programming a pre-conditioning of the home. So, for example, if the homeowner
`
`gets out of bed at 7 AM, setting the thermostat to change from the overnight setpoint
`
`of 64 degrees to 70 at 6 AM can make the house comfortable when the consumer
`
`gets up.” (Ex. 1001, 1:26-41).
`
`According to the ’550 patent, however, “all of the advantages of a
`
`programmable thermostat depend on the match between the preferences of the
`
`occupants and the actual settings employed.” (Ex. 1001, 1:45-47)(Ex. 1002, ¶31).
`
`“If the temperatures programmed into a thermostat do not accurately reflect the
`
`preferences of the occupants, those occupants are likely to resort to manual overrides
`
`of the programmed settings.” (Ex. 1001, 1:64-67)(Ex. 1002, ¶31).
`
`The ’550 patent discusses “adapting to signaling from occupants in the form
`
`of manual temperature changes and incorporating the information contained in such
`
`gestures into long-term programming.” (Ex. 1001, 2:10-12)(Ex. 1002, ¶32). In other
`
`words, the ’550 patent suggests detecting user-initiated manual changes to
`
`temperature settings (e.g., programmed setpoints) and then using that information to
`
`make changes to long-term programming of a thermostat. (Ex. 1002, ¶32). It also
`
`discusses using inside temperature, outside temperature, and other factors in the
`
`programming. (Ex. 1001, 2:12-17, 5:17-34)(Ex. 1002, ¶32). As the ’550 patent
`
`notes, such calculations might involve the rate at which an HVAC system heats or
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`cools a building to reach or maintain a setpoint at the desired time. (Ex. 1001, 5:5-
`
`40, 3:48-67, claim 17)(Ex. 1002, ¶32).
`
`However, these features were already known in the field. The difference
`
`between the indoor and outdoor temperature was known to affect the rate at which a
`
`building loses or gains heat. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶33-34). For example, on a hot summer
`
`afternoon, a building will gain heat (incur a rise in temperature) faster than on a cool
`
`day, placing greater demand on the air conditioning system on a hot day. (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶34). Similarly, on a cold winter day, the building will lose heat more quickly than
`
`on a warmer day, placing greater demand on the heating system. (Ex. 1002, ¶34).
`
`The ability of the HVAC system to change the temperature of the house (and thus
`
`affect the rate of change of temperature) was known to depend on the outside
`
`temperature. (Ex. 1002, ¶34).
`
`One common prior art application of this principle relates to, for example,
`
`“setback and recovery” schedules. Such schedules change the setpoint of a
`
`thermostat at different times of day, in order to save energy when the building is
`
`unoccupied. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶33, 35). For example, a workplace thermostat could be
`
`programmed during the winter to have a daytime (8 AM to 5 PM) setpoint of 70º F,
`
`and an evening setpoint of 50 F (when the building is expected to be unoccupied).
`
`Allowing the building to cool down to 50 F in the evening is called “setback,” while
`
`heating the building back up to 70 F in the morning is called “recovery.” (Ex. 1002,
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`¶35). As discussed below, the time needed for recovery was known to be calculated
`
`based on the rate of change possible given, e.g., the outside temperature.
`
`It was also known to use user-initiated manual changes to temperature settings
`
`to improve thermostat programming and reduce the need for users to make manual
`
`setpoint adjustments. For instance, Ehlers, discussed below, explains that the system
`
`may perform “set point pattern change tracking,” where manual changes by the user
`
`may be tracked and utilized (with artificial learning and execution routines) in order
`
`to improve the operation of a thermostat control system. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0268, 0308,
`
`0309)(Ex. 1002, ¶37). It was also known that the manner of detecting a change in
`
`temperature was a matter of design choice (e.g., which mathematical construct
`
`and/or programming operation), as discussed in more detail below. (Ex. 1002, ¶37)
`
`Thus, the claims of the ’550 patent simply recite a combination of well-known
`
`HVAC control features. (Ex. 1002, ¶36). Independent claim 1 of the ’550 patent
`
`reads as follows:
`
`1. A method for detecting manual changes to the setpoint for a thermostatic
`controller comprising:
`
`accessing 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;
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`using the stored data to predict a rate of change of temperatures inside the
`structure in response to at least changes in outside temperatures;
`
`calculating with one or more computer processors, scheduled programming
`of the thermostatic controller for one or more times based on the predicted
`rate of change, the scheduled programming comprising at least a first
`automated setpoint at a first time;
`
`generating with one or more computer processors, a difference value based on
`comparing an actual setpoint at the first time for said thermostatic controller
`to the first automated setpoint for said thermostatic controller;
`
`detecting a manual change to the first automated setpoint by determining
`whether said actual setpoint and said first automated setpoint are the same or
`different based on said difference value; and
`
`logging said manual change to a database associated with the thermostatic
`controller.
`
`(Ex. 1001, claim 1).
`
`Independent claim 9 of the ’550 patent reads as follows:
`
`9. A method for incorporating manual changes to the setpoint for a
`thermostatic controller into long-term programming of said thermostatic
`controller comprising:
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`accessing 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;
`
`calculating scheduled programming of setpoints in the thermostatic controller
`based on the predicted rate of change, the scheduled programming comprising
`at least a first automated setpoint at a first time and a second automated
`setpoint at a second time;
`
`comparing the actual setpoint at the first time for said thermostatic controller
`to the first automated setpoint for said thermostatic controller; detecting a
`manual change to the first automated setpoint by determining whether said
`actual setpoint and said first automated setpoint are the same or different;
`
`changing the second automated setpoint at the second time based on at least
`one rule for the interpretation of said manual change.
`
`(Ex. 1001, claim 9).
`Prosecution History
`B.
`
`The application that would become the ’550 patent was filed on May 11, 2010.
`
`(Ex. 1001). The application claimed priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application
`
`No. 61/215999, which was filed on May 12, 2009. (Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`III. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner respectfully requests that claims 1-16 of the ’550 patent be canceled
`
`based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-16 are obvious over Ehlers in view of Wruck.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 9-16 are obvious over Ehlers in view of Wruck and Harter.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Stipulated Constructions
`A.
`
`This Petition should be considered using claim constructions Patent Owner
`
`itself agreed to in the ITC investigation captioned Certain Smart Thermostat
`
`Systems.1 (Ex. 1012, 16-17). “In an inter partes review proceeding, a claim of a
`
`patent … shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would
`
`be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b) ….” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b).
`
`’550 Patent Term
`
`Stipulated Construction
`
`“compare”/“comparing”
`
`“rate of change of temperatures inside
`the structure”
`
`“analyze/analyzing to determine one or
`more similarities or differences
`between”
`“the difference between inside
`temperature measurements divided by
`
`
`
` 1
`
` There, claim 9 was found invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Claim 1 was not
`asserted.
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`the span of time between the
`measurements”
`“a temperature setting for a thermostat
`to achieve or maintain”
`“a computer-calculated temperature
`setting for a thermostat to achieve or
`maintain”
`“a value indicating the difference
`between at least one of the actual
`setpoints at the first time and the first
`automated setpoint for the thermostatic
`controller”
`
`“setpoint”
`
`“automated setpoint”
`
`“difference value based on comparing
`an actual setpoint at the first time
`for said thermostatic controller to the
`first automated setpoint for said
`thermostatic controller”
`
`B.
`
`“database”
`
`The ’550 patent describes multiple databases stored on a “database structure
`
`300,” as shown in Fig. 5. (Ex. 1001, 4:33-42, 5:55-58). A POSITA would have
`
`understood that a database, in the context of the ’550 patent, is a collection of data
`
`stored on a data structure, where multiple databases can be stored on one data
`
`structure. (Ex. 1002, ¶43)(Ex. 1018, 165). Further, the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`of database is “an organized collection of data.” (Ex. 1002, ¶43)(Ex. 1018, 165).
`
`V. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF REASONS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY
`Ground 1. Claims 1-16 are obvious over Ehlers in view of Wruck.
`Claims 1-16 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. Pat.
`
`App. Pub. 2004/0117330 (“Ehlers”)(Ex. 1004) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub.
`
`2005/0040250 (“Wruck”)(Ex. 1005).
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`A. Effective Prior Art Dates
`
`Ehlers was published on June 17, 2004, and is therefore prior art under pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Ehlers was not of record during the prosecution of the application leading to
`
`the ’550 patent, although a different Ehlers (U.S. Pat. No. 7,130,719 (“Ehlers
`
`’719”)), from a different patent family and having a different disclosure, was cited
`
`in a 78-reference IDS. (Ex. 1008, p. 253). Ehlers ’719 was not 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).
`
`Wruck was published on February 24, 2005 and is therefore prior art under at
`
`least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Wruck was not of record during the prosecution
`
`of the application leading to the ’550 patent.
`
`B. Overview of the Ground
`
`While Ehlers suggests all elements of the claims, Wruck reinforces the
`
`obviousness cases with respect to, at least, the limitations directed to “detecting a
`
`manual change” using a “difference value,” as described in more detail below.
`
`Wruck also describes other features of the claim.
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`1. Overview of Ehlers
`
`Ehlers is similar to the ’550 patent. (Ex. 1004, Fig. 1B, ¶¶0072-0079,
`
`0099)(Ex. 1002, ¶50). Shown below are Fig. 1B of Ehlers (left side), compared with
`
`Fig. 2 of the ’550 patent (right side):
`
`
`
`
`
`Ehlers, Fig. 1B
`
`’550 patent, Fig. 2
`
`(Ex. 1004, Fig. 1B, ¶¶0072-0079)(Ex. 1002, ¶50). In both systems there are
`
`conditioned spaces having thermostats. (Ex. 1004, ¶0076)(Ex. 1001, 3:48-67, 4:8-
`
`32)(Ex. 1002, ¶51). The thermostats in each system are connected to gateways,
`
`specifically gateway 1.10D in Ehlers (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0061-0062) and gateways 112 in
`
`the ’550 patent. (Ex. 1001, 3:48-67, 7:54-61)(Ex. 1002, ¶51). The gateways connect
`
`the thermostats in each system over networks to servers. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0072-
`
`0073)(Ex. 1001, 3:48-67)(Ex. 1002, ¶51).
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`Both systems collect and store information relevant to the conditioning of a
`
`building. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0088, 0151, 0268-0309)(Ex. 1001, 4:33-42)(Ex. 1002, ¶52).
`
`In Ehlers, for example:
`
`“[T]he system 1.02 may have the ability to sense the current indoor
`temperature and could be enhanced to include at a minimum, humidity
`sensing, outside temperature, ... dew point and local weather forecast
`data or encoded signals ... .”
`
`(Ex. 1004, ¶0088)(Ex. 1002, ¶52).
`
`Ehlers’s thermostat uses various scheduled 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, ¶53).
`
`Ehlers also teaches using rates of changes in temperatures, including
`
`calculating the rate at which inside temperature changes at any given outside
`
`temperature (“thermal gain rate”) for a given setpoint, in order to predict how long
`
`it will take for the HVAC system to heat or cool the building from one setpoint to
`
`another. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0253-0254, 0256, 0295, Fig. 3D)(Ex. 1002, ¶54). Ehlers can
`
`use this thermal gain rate to “compute[] the required effective set point offset needed
`
`to keep the HVAC cycle run time at [a] specified trigger level.” (Ex. 1004, ¶0256).
`
`Thus, by utilizing effect thermal gain rate has on HVAC run time, the system of
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`Ehlers determines what future setpoint would minimize run time. (Ex. 1004,
`
`¶0256)(Ex. 1002, ¶54).
`
`Ehlers also teaches detecting and implementing a user’s manual changes to a
`
`setpoint. (Ex. 1004, ¶0242 (“the system 3.08 manages comfort for the customer site
`
`1.04 by learning from the user’s inputs or adjustments to the system 3.08 to change
`
`or modify indoor air temperature”), ¶0243 (controls are “modified as needed based
`
`on the user’s changes to the set point at the thermostat 1.30D” and that a “control
`
`algorithm [] learn[s] the user’s individual preferences and over time, eliminat[es] the
`
`need for the site 1.04 occupant to make any changes”))(Ex. 1002, ¶55).
`
`Ehlers further teaches that its system performs “set point pattern change
`
`tracking,” in which the system tracks and learns from a user’s changes to setpoints.
`
`(Ex. 1004, ¶¶0268, 0308, 0309)(Ex. 1002, ¶56). Thus, Ehlers describes that its
`
`system detects manual changes to HVAC setpoints, and uses such changes to alter
`
`the HVAC setpoint control algorithms, as claimed in the ’550 patent. (Ex. 1004,
`
`¶¶0242-0243, 0268, 0308, 0309)(Ex. 1002, ¶57).
`
`2. Overview of Wruck
`
`Wruck teaches a system that allows a wireless device such as a PDA to control
`
`a thermostat. (Ex. 1005, ¶¶0002-0005)(Ex. 1002, ¶58). The thermostat can be
`
`programmed with a schedule to save energy, as shown, for example, in Figs. 9G and
`
`9I of Wruck, reproduced here:
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1005, Figs. 9G and 9I, ¶0098)(Ex. 1002, ¶58). As shown in the figures, the user
`
`can enter times of the day when periods of occupancy and non-occupancy begin
`
`(Fig. 9G and Fig. 9I), and associated heating and cooling setpoints. (Id.). Thus,
`
`Wruck teaches a system with “scheduled programming of the thermostatic
`
`controller,” similar to that of the ’550 patent. (Ex. 1002, ¶58).
`
`Wruck further teaches that the user can temporarily override scheduled
`
`setpoints. (Ex. 1005, ¶¶0005, 0014-0015, 0104, 0125, 0150, 0198, 0231, Figs. 14s-
`
`14z, 20b, Tables 28, 31, 36)(Ex. 1002, ¶59). This can be accomplished, for example,
`
`by pressing the up and down keys on the thermostat. (Ex. 1005, Table 36, Table 38,
`
`items 96 and 97, ¶0150)(Ex. 1002, ¶59).
`
`Wruck further explains that manual changes may be detected using a “delta”
`
`between an actual temporary setpoint and a scheduled setpoint. Specifically, Wruck
`
`teaches that if the user enters a new “temporary setpoint,” that new, user-entered
`
`19
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`setpoint will be displayed on the thermostat if it is different from the scheduled
`
`setpoint, as shown in Table 28 of Wruck, reproduced in relevant part below, with
`
`highlighting added:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1005, Table 28, ¶0110)(Ex. 1002, ¶60). Wruck describes checking whether the
`
`difference between the temporary setpoint and the scheduled setpoint is not equal to
`
`zero, and if so, to display the temporary setpoint. (Ex. 1002, ¶61).
`
`3. Overview of the Combination
`
`As noted above, Ehlers teaches and/or suggests all of the features of claims 1-
`
`16.2 With respect to claimed features directed to “detecting a manual change” using
`
`a “difference value,” Ehlers describes generating an automatic thermostatic control
`
`schedule, having automated setpoints. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0231-0234, 0239)(Ex. 1002,
`
`¶62). Ehlers further teaches adjusting its schedule by “learning” from a user’s
`
`setpoint changes that depart from the schedule. (Ex. 1004, ¶0242 (“system 3.08
`
`
`
` Petitioners rely upon the combination out of an abundance of caution.
`
` 2
`
`20
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`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. 1002,
`
`¶62).
`
`Based on Ehlers alone, it would have been obvious to determine a “difference
`
`value” (as claimed) based on comparing an actual setpoint (at a first time) to a first
`
`automated setpoint. (Ex. 1002, ¶63). This would have allowed the system to
`
`determine whether a manual change occurred, how far off the automated setpoints
`
`were from the user’s desired setpoint, and to eliminate cases where manual changes
`
`were made that resulted in no difference between the user’s setpoint and the
`
`automated setpoint (e.g., where the user increases and then decreases the setpoint by
`
`one degree). (Ex. 1002, ¶63). Indeed, for Ehlers’ system to “learn” from user changes
`
`to the setpoint, it would be helpful to know what the difference was between the
`
`automated setpoint and the actual setpoint. Moreover, forming a difference value
`
`simply means subtracting one value from another, which was well-understood in the
`
`relevant timeframe. (Ex. 1002, ¶63).
`
`Furthermore, it would have been obvious based on Wruck and the knowledge
`
`of a POSITA to use a difference value between a user’s manually-entered setpoint
`
`and an automated setpoint to detect the manual setpoint change. A POSITA would
`
`21
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`have understood from Ehlers that comparing entered and automated setpoints would
`
`be beneficial to the described “learning from the user’s inputs or adjustments to the
`
`system 3.08 to change or modify indoor air temperature.” (Ex. 1004, ¶0242)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶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. 1021, 60)(Ex. 1002, ¶64). Indeed, this would be
`
`a simple mathematical operation to provide the relevant information. Wruck
`
`provides an example of how the manually entered setpoint override may be
`
`determined—by comparing a user desired setpoint with a calculated setpoint—such
`
`that if the difference in setpoints is not equal to zero, the system may display the new
`
`setpoint. (Ex. 105, Table 28, ¶0110)(Ex. 1002, ¶65). Further, to determine whether
`
`a value is not equal to zero, it would have been obvious to first determine what value
`
`is being compared to zero.
`
`C. Graham Factors
`
`The level of ordinary skill encompassed a (1) Bachelor’s degree in
`
`engineering, computer science, or a comparable field of study, and (2) at least five
`
`years of (i) professional experience in building energy management and controls, or
`
`(ii) relevant industry experience. Additional relevant industry experience may
`
`compensate for lack of formal education or vice versa.. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶23-25).
`
`The scope and content of the prior art are discussed throughout the Ground.
`
`22
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`The differences between the prior art and the claims are discussed in the
`
`“Overview of the Combination” and in the claim mapping, below.
`
`Petitioner is not aware of any secondary considerations that would make an
`
`inference of non-obviousness more likely.
`
`D. Reasonable Expectation of Success
`
`A POSITA in the relevant timeframe would have had a reasonable expectation
`
`of success in implementing the combination (as described with particularity below
`
`in the claim mapping section) of Ehlers and Wruck. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶67). As Dr.
`
`Auslander explains, the art was relatively predictable in the relevant timeframe
`
`(early 2009). (Ex. 1002, ¶67). A POSITA would have been able to make any
`
`necessary modifications to implement this Ground. (Ex. 1002, ¶67). This is
`
`discussed in more detail in the claim mapping section, where appropriate.
`
`E. Analogous Art
`
`Ehlers and Wruck are in the same field as the ’550 patent (building energy
`
`management and controls). (Ex. 1001, 1:18-2:17, 3:48-67, claim 1)(“An apparatus
`
`for detecting manual changes to the setpoint for a thermostatic controller
`
`comprising….”)(Ex. 1004, Abstract, Title)(Ex. 1005, Abstract, Title, ¶¶0002-
`
`0008)(Ex. 1002, ¶68). Specifically, these references address controlling heating and
`
`cooling systems, implementation of setpoints, and HVAC control in view of outdoor
`
`temperatures. (Ex. 1001, claim 1, Abstract, 1:18-2:17, 3:48-67, 4:62-5:40)(Ex. 1005,
`
`23
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`Abstract, ¶¶0062, 0120, 0183)(Ex. 1004, ¶¶0090, 0092, 0095, 0137, 0141, 0145,
`
`0147, 0167, 0182, 0204, 0239, 0244-0247, 0252-0256 an