U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2023-00626
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................... IV 
`LIST OF EXHIBITS ............................................................................................. VI 
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ..................................................................................... X 
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES (§42.8) ............................................................... 3 
`A. 
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 3 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 3 
`C. 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information .......................... 4 
`III.  PAYMENT OF FEES ................................................................................... 5 
`IV.  REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW............................... 5 
`A.  Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 5 
`B. 
`Identification of Challenge .................................................................... 5 
`1. 
`The Specific Art on Which the Challenge Is Based ................... 5 
`2. 
`Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge Is Based ................ 6 
`3. 
`How the Claims Are Unpatentable ............................................. 8 
`’887 PATENT ................................................................................................. 8 
`V. 
`’887 PROSECUTION HISTORY ................................................................ 9 
`VI. 
`VII.  THE BOARD SHOULD NOT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION
`TO DENY INSTITUTION ......................................................................... 11 
`A. 
`§325(d) ................................................................................................ 11 
`B. 
`§314(a) ................................................................................................. 13 
`VIII.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ............................................................... 13 
`IX.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 14 
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`Preamble ([1.pre]) ............................................................................... 15 
`“information associated reading of the indicator” (claim
`limitation [1.c]) .................................................................................... 15 
`X.  GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ..................................................... 15 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1, 3-8, and 18 Are Rendered Obvious by
`Kates-711 ............................................................................................. 16 
`1. 
`Overview of Kates-711 ............................................................. 16 
`2. 
`Claim Chart ............................................................................... 19 
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 3-8, and 18 Are Rendered Obvious by
`Kates-711 in view of Hitt .................................................................... 42 
`1. 
`Overview of Hitt and Motivation to Modify Kates-711
`with Hitt’s Teachings ................................................................ 42 
`Hitt Discloses Memory Elements ([1.d]-[1.e], [5]) .................. 45 
`2. 
`Grounds 3-4: Claims 1, 3-8, 14-15, and 18 Are Rendered
`Obvious by Kates-711 in view of Littrell, and Kates-711 in
`view of Hitt and Littrell ....................................................................... 47 
`1. 
`Overview of Littrell .................................................................. 47 
`2.  Motivation to Modify Kates-711 (and Kates-711 in view
`of Hitt) with Littrell’s Teachings .............................................. 52 
`Littrell Further Discloses “information associated reading
`of the indicator” ([1.e]) (Claims 1, 3-8, 18) .............................. 56 
`Littrell Further Discloses both that “an upper limit and a
`lower limit of the predetermined range may be varied”
`and a “band limit” (Claims 3-7) ................................................ 57 
`Claim Chart (Claims 14-15) ...................................................... 58 
`5. 
`D.  Grounds 5-8: Claims 1, 3-8, and 18 Are Rendered Obvious by
`Kates-505 alone (Ground 5) and in view of Hitt (Ground 6),
`and Claims 1, 3-8, 14-15, and 18 Are Rendered Obvious by
`Kates-505 in view of Littrell (Ground 7) and in view of Hitt and
`Littrell (Ground 8) ............................................................................... 61 
`1. 
`Kates-505’s Substantially Similar Disclosures to Kates-
`711 ............................................................................................. 61 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`E. 
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`2. 
`Chart Comparing Kates-711 with Kates-505............................ 64 
`Grounds 9-12: Claims 1, 3-8, and 18 Are Rendered Obvious by
`Kates-505 in View of Mueller (Ground 9) and in View of Hitt
`(Ground 10), and Claims 1, 3-8, 14-15, and 18 Are Rendered
`Obvious by Kates-505 in View of Mueller and Littrell (Ground
`11) and in Vie of Mueller, Hitt, and Littrell (Ground 12) ................... 69 
`1. 
`Overview of Mueller ................................................................. 69 
`2.  Motivation to Modify Kates-505 (and Kates-505 in view
`of Hitt and/or Littrell) with Mueller’s Teachings ..................... 69 
`3.  Mueller Further Discloses “transmit[ting] a most recent
`reading … in response to detecting a change in the
`sensed condition outside a predetermined range and …
`[suspending transmission] in response to detecting a
`change in the sensed condition within the predetermined
`range” ([1.e]) and a “band limit” (Claim 5) .............................. 72 
`XI.  SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................ 74 
`XII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 75 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Abbreviation
`’887
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`
`’887FH
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`
`Boaz
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0270173
`
`Carrier
`Litigation
`
`Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Carrier Global Corp., No. 9-22-
`cv-80388 (S.D. Fla., filed March 11, 2022)
`
`Claims
`
`Claims 1, 3-8, 14-15, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`
`Cunningham U.S. Patent No. 6,124,806
`
`ecobee
`Litigation
`
`Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. ecobee, Inc., No. 2-22-cv-00072
`(E.D. Tex., filed March 8, 2022)
`
`Ehlers
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,696,695
`
`Emerson
`Litigation
`
`Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Emerson Electric Co. et al., No.
`4-22-cv-01387 (E.D. Mo.) (transferred to E.D. Mo. December
`29, 2022 after originally being filed April 5, 2022 in W.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Garrod
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0174070
`
`Hitt
`
`IPR
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0100394
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`Kates-505
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,102,505
`
`Kates-528
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,230,528
`
`Kates-711
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,528,711
`
`Lareau
`
`Littrell
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0137968
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0246593
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`
`Mueller
`
`Neikirk
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,513,723
`
`Declaration of Dr. Dean P. Neikirk
`
`Petitioner
`
`Emerson Electric Co.
`
`PMU
`
`PO
`
`Portable monitoring unit
`
`Patent Owner; Ollnova Technologies Ltd.
`
`POSITA
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`PTAB
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`USPTO
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`(“Ex.”)
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`
`Declaration of Dr. Dean P. Neikirk
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,528,711 to Kates
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0100394 to Hitt
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0246593 to Littrell
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,696,695 to Ehlers
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0270173 to Boaz
`
`Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Emerson Electric Co., 4:22-cv-01387
`(E.D. Mo.) Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief (October
`27, 2022)
`
`Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Emerson Electric Co., 4:22-cv-01387
`(E.D. Mo.) Plaintiff Ollnova Technologies Ltd.’s Responsive Claim
`Construction Brief (November 17, 2022)
`
`Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Emerson Electric Co., 4:22-cv-01387
`(E.D. Mo.) Defendants’ Reply Claim Construction Brief (December
`1, 2022)
`
`Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Emerson Electric Co., 4:22-cv-01387
`(E.D. Mo.) Plaintiff Ollnova Technologies Ltd.’s Sur-Reply Claim
`Construction Brief (December 15, 2022)
`
`Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Emerson Electric Co., 4:22-cv-01387
`(E.D. Mo.) Joint Claim Construction Statement (December 20,
`2022)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`
`Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Carrier Global Corp., 9:22-cv-80388
`(S.D. Fla.) Plaintiff Ollnova Technologies Ltd.’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief (November 4, 2022)
`
`Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Carrier Global Corp., 9:22-cv-80388
`(S.D. Fla.) Carrier Global Corp.’s Responsive Claim Construction
`and Indefiniteness Brief (November 18, 2022)
`
`Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Carrier Global Corp., 9:22-cv-80388
`(S.D. Fla.) Plaintiff Ollnova Technologies Ltd.’s Reply Claim
`Construction Brief (November 30, 2022)
`
`Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Carrier Global Corp., 9:22-cv-80388
`(S.D. Fla.) Joint Claim Construction Chart (December 5, 2022)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,124,806 to Cunningham
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0174070 to Garrod
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0137968 to Lareau
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,230,528 to Kates
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,102,505 to Kates
`
`Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. ecobee Technologies, ULC, 2:22-cv-
`00072 (E.D. Tex.) P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`Statement (January 10, 2023)
`
`Standing Order Governing Proceedings (OGP) 4.1—Patent Cases
`(W.D. Tex.) (April 14, 2022)
`
`Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Emerson Electric Co., 4:22-cv-01387
`(E.D. Mo.) Plaintiff’s Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted Claims
`and Infringement Contentions (July 7, 2022)
`
`Redline comparison between the specifications of U.S. Patent No.
`7,746,887 and U.S. Patent No. 7,102,505
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`Reserved
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,513,723 to Mueller
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Lex Machina: Overview for E.D. Mo. (Jan. 29, 2023) (retrieved
`from https://law.lexmachina.com/court/moed)
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,268,581 to Trimberger
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,254,691 to Ebeling
`
`Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Emerson Electric Co., 6:22-cv-00358-
`ADA (W.D. Tex.) Declaration of Erik De La Iglesia in Support of
`Plaintiff Ollnova Technologies Ltd.’s Responsive Claim
`Construction Brief
`
`Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. ecobee Technologies, ULC, 2:22-cv-
`00072 (E.D. Tex.) Ollnova Technologies Ltd.’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief (January 31, 2023)
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`Reserved
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`
`1046
`
`M. R. Barbacci, C. B. Weinstock and J. M. Wing, “Programming at
`the processor-memory-switch level,” Proc. [1989] 11th Int. Conf. on
`Software Eng’g, Singapore, 1988, pp. 19-28
`
`1047
`
`Declaration of Jonathan Bradford
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`Claim Text
`[1.pre] A wireless automation device, comprising:
`
`[1.a]
`
`a transceiver operable to wirelessly communicate packets of information
`over a wireless network;
`
`[1.b]
`
`a sensor operable to generate a indicator for a sensed condition;
`
`[1.c]
`
`[1.d]
`
`a controller configured to poll the sensor at a polling interval to read the
`indicator during a current period of the polling interval and to
`selectively operate the transceiver to communicate information
`associated with the reading of the indicator; and
`
`a memory, the controller storing a reading of the indicator during the
`current period in the memory, where the memory stores at least one
`prior reading of the indicator, the prior reading of the indicator made
`during a prior period of the polling interval,
`
`[1.e] wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit a most recent reading
`of the indicator stored in the memory during a period of a transmission
`interval in response to detecting a change in the sensed condition outside
`a predetermined range and wherein transmission of the most recent
`reading of the indicator stored in the memory during the period of the
`transmission interval is suspended in response to detecting a change in
`the sensed condition within the predetermined range.
`
`[3]
`
`[4]
`
`The wireless automation device of claim 1 where an upper limit and a
`lower limit of the predetermined range may be varied.
`
`The wireless automation device of claim 3 where the upper limit and
`lower limit may be varied according to an analysis of the most current
`reading of the indicator and the at least one prior reading of the
`indicator.
`
`[5]
`
`The wireless automation device of claim 1 where the transceiver is
`configured to transmit the most recent reading of the indicator stored in
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`
`the memory during a period of the transmission interval in response to
`detecting a sensed condition beyond a band limit.
`
`[6]
`
`[7]
`
`[8]
`
`The wireless automation device of claim 5 where an upper band limit
`and a lower band limit may be varied.
`
`The wireless automation device of claim 5 where the upper band limit
`and lower band limit may be varied according to an analysis of the most
`current reading of the indicator and the at least one prior reading of the
`indicator.
`
`The wireless automation device of claim 1 where the transceiver is
`configured to transmit the most recent reading of the indicator stored in
`the memory in response to an externally-received transmission control
`signal received over the wireless network.
`
`[14] The wireless automation device of claim 1 where the memory stores
`timing data associated with the most recent reading and the at least one
`prior reading of the indicator.
`
`[15] The wireless automation device of claim 1 where the transceiver is
`configured to transmit the timing data.
`
`[18] The wireless automation device of claim 1, where the sensor is
`configured to sense an environmental condition.
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`Pursuant to §§311-319 and §42.1, Emerson Electric Co. (“Petitioner”)
`
`petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 3-8, 14-15, and 18 (“Claims”)
`
`of U.S. Patent 7,746,887 (“’887”) (Ex. 1001), assigned to Ollnova Technologies Ltd.
`
`(“PO”).1 There is a reasonable likelihood–and it is highly likely—that at least one
`
`challenged claim is unpatentable as explained herein. Petitioner requests review of
`
`the Claims, and judgment finding them unpatentable under §103.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’887 is directed to systems and methods for wirelessly reporting sensed
`
`conditions. ’887, Abstract, 1:6-7. The problem purportedly addressed by the ’887
`
`is the “need for a system for reducing an amount of communication over a wireless
`
`automated system using dynamic value reporting.” ’887, 1:47-49. The Claims are
`
`directed to a “wireless automation device” within such a system that comprises well-
`
`known components configured to perform well-known functions. See ’887, claim
`
`1. During prosecution, the Examiner stated in the reasons for allowance that the
`
`Claims were allowable based on the amendment of claim 1 to recite a “wherein”
`
`
`1 Section cites are to 35 U.S.C. (pre-AIA) or 37 C.F.R. as context indicates. All
`
`emphasis/annotations added unless noted. Annotations added to the figures herein
`
`generally quote the language of the Challenged Claims for reference. All citations
`
`herein are exemplary and not meant to be limiting.
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`clause requiring a transceiver to be configured to “suspend[]” the transmission of a
`
`
`
`“most recent reading of” a sensor indicator when the reading is “within [a]
`
`predetermined range”—i.e., sensor readings that are not outside a predetermined
`
`range are not transmitted. ’887, claim 1; see §VI below. Neikirk, ¶32.
`
`Yet this process of transmitting only sensor data that is outside a
`
`“predetermined range” was well-known in the art. For example, Kates-711 (Ex.
`
`1004) and Kates-505 (Ex. 1022) each disclose conserving power by transmitting
`
`sensor data in response to a sensor condition being outside a predetermined range,
`
`and not transmitting data when it falls within that range. Mueller (Ex. 1031) likewise
`
`discloses transmitting sensor data when a change in sensor conditions exceeds a
`
`predetermined value, and Littrell (Ex. 1006) teaches specific formulas for
`
`calculating such thresholds. Neikirk, ¶¶33-34
`
`As demonstrated herein, the prior art renders obvious the Claims, which are
`
`directed to a simple combination of well-known prior art elements combined
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results. The claimed elements and
`
`the claimed arrangement of elements are rendered obvious by Kates-711 in view of
`
`Hitt (which provides teachings of memory in a wireless node) and/or Littrell, and
`
`by Kates-505 in view of Hitt, Littrell, and/or Mueller. At most, the combination
`
`amounts to nothing more than a “predictable use of prior art elements according to
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`their established functions.” KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
`
`
`
`(2007). Neikirk, ¶35.
`
`The USPTO did not consider Kates-711, Kates-505, Hitt, Littrell, Mueller,
`
`or any other reference providing analogous disclosures during the ’887’s
`
`prosecution.
`
`Petitioner requests that the Board institute trial and find the Claims
`
`unpatentable.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (§42.8)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Pursuant to §42.8(b)(1), Petitioner identifies Emerson Electric Co. and
`
`Verdant Environmental Technologies Inc. as real parties-in-interest.
`
`No other party had access to or control over the present Petition, and no other
`
`party funded or participated in preparation of the present Petition.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’887
`is currently
`
`the subject of
`
`the following district court
`
`litigations: Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. ecobee, Inc., No. 2-22-cv-00072 (E.D.
`
`Tex., filed 3/8/2022) (“ecobee Litigation”), Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Carrier
`
`Global Corp., No. 9-22-cv-80388 (S.D. Fla., filed 3/11/2022) (“Carrier Litigation”),
`
`and Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Emerson Electric Co. et al., No. 4-22-cv-01387
`
`(E.D. Mo.) (transferred to E.D. Mo. 12/29/2022 after originally being filed 4/5/2022
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`in W.D. Tex.) (“Emerson Litigation”). None of the parties in the ecobee Litigation
`
`
`
`or the Carrier Litigation had any involvement in, funded, or participated in the
`
`preparation of the present Petition.
`
`Petitioner is filing an IPR petition against another unrelated patent asserted in
`
`the Emerson Litigation: U.S. 8,224,282 (IPR2023-00624).
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`James L. Davis, Jr.
`Reg. No. 57,325
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`P: 650-617-4794 / F: 617-235-9492
`james.l.davis@ropesgray.com
`
`Emerson-Ollnova-Ropes-IPR-
`Service@ropesgray.com
`
`Customer No. 28120
`
`Mailing address for all PTAB
`correspondence:
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`IPRM—Floor 43
`Prudential Tower
`800 Boylston Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02199-3600
`
`
`
`Backup Counsel
`Scott A. McKeown
`Reg. No. 42,866
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006-6807
`P: 202-508-4740 / F: 617-235-9492
`scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`
`Daniel W. Richards
`Reg. No. 69,652
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`P: 650-617-4028 / F: 617-235-9492
`daniel.richards@ropesgray.com
`
`Victor Cheung
`Reg. No. 66,229
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006-6807
`P: 202-508-4641 / F: 617-235-9492
`victor.cheung@ropesgray.com
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service of documents to the email addresses
`
`of the counsel identified above.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee required by §42.15(a)
`
`and any additional fees that might be due to Deposit Account No. 18-1945, under
`
`Order No. 001264-0145-652.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Pursuant to §42.104(a), Petitioner certifies the ’887 is available for IPR.
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of
`
`the ’887 on the grounds identified herein.
`
`B.
`Identification of Challenge
`Pursuant to §42.104(b), Petitioner requests IPR of the Claims, and that the
`
`Board cancel the same as unpatentable.
`
`1.
`The Specific Art on Which the Challenge Is Based
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art:
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`
`Name
`
`Ex.
`
`Patent /
`Publication
`
`Priority
`Date
`
`Issued /
`Published
`
`Prior
`Art
`Under at
`Least
`§102
`(e)
`(b)
`(a)/(e)
`(e)
`(b)
`
`Kates-711 1004
`12/19/2005
`U.S. 7,528,711
`Hitt
`1005 U.S. 2004/0100394 10/28/2002
`Littrell
`1006 U.S. 2005/0246593
`4/19/2004
`Kates-505 1022
`U.S. 7,102,505
`5/27/2004
`Mueller
`1031
`U.S. 6,513,723
`9/28/2000
`
`
`5/5/2009
`5/27/2004
`11/3/2005
`9/5/2006
`2/4/2003
`
`2.
`Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge Is Based
`Petitioner respectfully requests cancellation of the Claims on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`
`Claims
`
`Prior Art
`
`1, 3-8, 18
`
`Kates-711
`
`1, 3-8, 18
`
`Kates-711 in view of Hitt
`
`1, 3-8, 14-15, 18 Kates-711 in view of Littrell
`
`1, 3-8, 14-15, 18 Kates-711 in view of Hitt and Littrell
`
`1, 3-8, 18
`
`Kates-5052
`
`1, 3-8, 18
`
`Kates-505 in view of Hitt
`
`1, 3-8, 14-15, 18 Kates-505 in view of Littrell
`
`1, 3-8, 14-15, 18 Kates-505 in view of Hitt and Littrell
`
`1, 3-8, 18
`
`Kates-505 in view of Mueller
`
`1, 3-8, 18
`Kates-505 in view of Mueller and Hitt
`1, 3-8, 14-15, 18 Kates-505 in view of Mueller and
`Littrell
`1, 3-8, 14-15, 18 Kates-505 in view of Mueller, Hitt, and
`Littrell
`
`§103
`Grounds
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`
`
`2 While PO has taken the position that the ’887 is entitled to a priority date of
`
`4/12/2006 (see §X.D), to the extent PO argues that the ’887’s priority date predates
`
`Kates-711 (it does not), Grounds 5-12 rely instead on Kates-505, which is entitled
`
`to an earlier priority date. Kates-505 shares the same core critical disclosures with
`
`Kates-711.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`
`3. How the Claims Are Unpatentable
`Petitioner provides the information required under §§42.104(b)(4)-(5) in §X.
`
`V.
`
`’887 PATENT
`The Claims generally recite a wireless automation device that transmits a
`
`sensor reading in response to a sensed condition being outside a predetermined
`
`range. ’887, Abstract, claim 1. Fig. 2 shows an embodiment of the device (’887,
`
`6:58-65, Fig. 2):
`
`As shown, the device of Fig. 2 comprises a “transceiver,” “sensor,”
`
`“processor,” and “memory.” ’887, Fig. 2. The sensor may be configured as a
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`combination of a temperature and humidity sensor, and senses conditions,
`
`
`
`parameters, and/or events and generates information or data in response. ’887, 8:46-
`
`65. The memory stores programs that are executed by the processor and readings
`
`from the sensor. ’887, 7:30-34, 7:65-66, 9:51-67. The processor reads information
`
`generated by the sensor and processes it according to a control process. Id., 7:48-
`
`66, 8:50-51, 8:66-9:4. When the processor determines that a change in a sensed
`
`condition is beyond a limit or outside a range, it controls transceiver 216 to
`
`communicate over a “network” information including, e.g., the triggering event,
`
`values or “indicators,” and timing data. 10:57-11:44.
`
`The limits or range used to determine whether the transceiver communicates
`
`information may be varied. Id., Abstract, 3:40-44. For example, when sensed
`
`conditions show little change over time, a limit may be reduced so that smaller
`
`changes may be detected; and conversely, when sensed conditions show large
`
`changes over time, a limit may be increased. Id., 12:11-13:35. Neikirk, ¶¶36-37.
`
`VI.
`
`’887 PROSECUTION HISTORY
`Application 11/402,743, which matured into the ’887, was filed 4/12/2006.
`
`Ex. 1003 (“’877FH”), 3-37. In a Non-Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected all
`
`pending claims as being anticipated by Garrod (U.S. 2003/0174070) (Ex. 1019).
`
`’877FH, 59-71. In response, Applicant amended the independent claims to
`
`incorporate claim elements from several dependent claims, including limitations
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`directed to a memory storing “at least one prior reading of the indicator” and
`
`
`
`“selectively communicating information … in response to detecting a change in the
`
`sensed condition outside a variable range,” and argued that Garrod did not disclose
`
`the same. ’877FH, 72-83.
`
`In a Final Office Action, the Examiner indicated that pending dependent
`
`claims 7-10 contained allowable subject matter, but otherwise maintained the
`
`previous rejections over Garrod. ’877FH, 91-103. Pending claim 7 recited that “a
`
`transmission of the most recent reading of the indicator stored in the memory during
`
`a period of the transmission interval is suspended in response to detecting a change
`
`in the sensed condition within the predetermined range,” and pending claims 8-10
`
`depended on claim 7. ’877FH, 74. The Examiner did not provide any explanation
`
`as to why he withdrew the anticipation rejection of claims 7-10, nor did Applicant
`
`previously present any arguments with respect to claims 7-10.
`
`In an After-Final Response, Applicant amended independent claim 1 to
`
`incorporate the limitations of pending claim 7 and its intervening pending claims 4-
`
`6 in element [1.e], and canceled all other independent claims and their dependents.
`
`’877FH, 116-122. The Examiner then issued a Notice of Allowance, in which the
`
`Examiner cited to the Applicant’s remarks adding this language from pending claim
`
`7 as the basis for allowance. ’877FH, 126-131, 117, 121.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`More than a decade after the ’887 patent issued (and just prior to filing its
`
`complaints in the district courts), Applicant submitted two requests for certificates
`
`of correction, one under §1.322 (alleging Examiner’s mistake; amending claim
`
`limitation “chance” to “change”) and one under §1.323 (alleging Applicant’s
`
`Mistake; amending element reciting “associated reading of the indicator” to
`
`“associated with the reading of the indicator”). Both were approved. ’877FH, 153-
`
`173, 176. Neikirk, ¶¶38-42.3
`
`VII. THE BOARD SHOULD NOT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO
`DENY INSTITUTION
`A.
`§325(d)
`
`Considering the two-part framework discussed in Advanced Bionics, LLC v.
`
`Med-El Elektromedizinische Gerate GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Pap. 6, *8-9, the
`
`Board should not exercise its §325(d) discretion to deny institution.
`
`The grounds raised by this Petition are not the same or substantially the
`
`same as the art and arguments raised during ’887’s prosecution. The Examiner
`
`did not consider Kates-711, Kates-505, Hitt, Littrell, or Mueller, or art with
`
`
`3 The parties agree that “chance” in [1.e] means “change.” Ex. 1013, 1. Neikirk,
`
`¶42. While not an issue considered in IPRs, the second amendment impermissibly
`
`broadened the Claims; Petitioner is raising this issue in district court.
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`substantially the same disclosures (or the same or substantially the same arguments)
`
`
`
`as those herein. Although the Examiner initially cited Garrod “par [23, 28-29]” as
`
`disclosing the limitations of then-pending claim 7 that were subsequently
`
`incorporated into element [1.e], the Examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection
`
`over Garrod without any explanation or discussion with/to/from Applicant. ’887FH,
`
`63, 101.
`
`The cited paragraphs from Garrod do not include the disclosure of at least
`
`suspending transmission as required by [1.e]. See Ex. 1019. This feature is disclosed
`
`by the art cited in this Petition as discussed in detail below. See §X.
`
`Even if the art and arguments were substantially the same, the Examiner
`
`erred in a manner material to the patentability of the Claims. Where the
`
`“Examiner did not expressly consider” Kates-711, Kates-505, Hitt, Littrell, and
`
`Mueller, it is difficult, if not impossible, to explain “why the Examiner allowed the
`
`claims” or “how the Examiner might have considered the arguments presented in the
`
`Petition.” Bowtech, Inc. v. MCP IP, LLC, IPR2019-00379, Pap. 14, *20 (declining
`
`to exercise §325(d) discretion). Even if the Examiner had considered substantially
`
`the same art as that relied on herein, the Examiner would have erred in allowing the
`
`claims. Specifically, to the extent the Examiner considered references (including
`
`Garrod) that purportedly teach suspending transmission when a change in a sensed
`
`condition is in a predetermined range, the Examiner erred in failing to reject the
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887
`Petition for Inter Partes Review - IPR2023-00626
`
`Claims over a combination of any of those references and art teaching wireless
`
`
`
`automation devices with sensors.
`
`The Board should not exercise its §325(d) discretion to deny institution.
`
`B.
`§314(a)
`Discretionary denial based on the six factors in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.
`
`IPR2020-00019, Pap. 11, is not warranted.
`
`1: Petitioner intends to seek a stay of the Emerson Litigation pending the
`
`outcome of this IPR and No. IPR2023-00624.
`
`2: E.D. Mo.’s median time to trial is approximately 665 days (see Ex. 1035,
`
`3)—putting the approximate trial date four months after a final written decision is
`
`expected in this IPR.
`
`3: To date, the court has not issued any substantive orders regarding the ’887.
`
`4: After the final written decision, the same grounds and arguments could not
`
`be presented in the litigation.
`
`5: The litigation and PTAB parties are the same.
`
`6: Petitioner is highly likely to prevail with respect to the Claims as shown
`
`herein. See §X.
`
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A perso