Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper9
`Entered: December 24, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INSPECTIONLOGIC CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`LDARTOOLS,INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 B1
`
`Before JAMESB. ARPIN, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper9
`Entered: December 24, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INSPECTIONLOGIC CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`LDARTOOLS,INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 B1
`
`Before JAMESB. ARPIN, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 BL
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`InspectionLogic Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper1;
`
`“Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1-6, 19-21, and 24—28 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,386,164 B1 (Ex. 1001; “the ’164 patent”). LDARtools,
`Inc. (“Patent Owner”) waivedits Preliminary Responseto the Petition.
`Paper 8. We-havejurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which providesthat
`
`. there is a reasonable
`an inter partes review maynotbeinstituted “unless. .
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 ofthe
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Forthe reasonsset forth below, we are persuaded, on this record, that
`Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood ofprevailing in showing the
`unpatentability of claims 1-6, 19-21, and 24—28 of the ’164 patent.
`Accordingly, we institute inter partes review as to claims 1-6, 19-21, and
`24-28 of the ’164 patent on the groundsspecified below.
`
`- A.
`
`Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’164 patent is the subject ofthe following
`co-pending district court case: LDARtools, Inc. v. InspectionLogic Corp.,
`No.3:14-cv-00012 (S.D. Tex.). Pet. 2; Paper 5,2. The parties also indicate
`that a decision in this inter partes review could affect or be affected by the
`prosecution of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/776,386, which claims
`priority to the °164 patent. Pet. 2—3; Paper 5, 2.
`B.
`The ’164 Patent
`
`The ’164 patent relates to creating, encrypting, and updating a
`
`database of position coordinates for leak detection and repair (“LDAR”)
`components. Ex. 1001, col. 1, Il. 35-44. According to the ’164 patent,
`industrial plants that handle volatile organic compounds sometimes
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 Bl
`
`experience unwantedfugitive emissions of those compounds from LDAR
`
`components, such as valves and pumps,dueto leaksin joints or seals. Jd. at
`col. 1, Il. 15-23. Manyindustrial plants have an LDAR program to detect
`fugitive emissions, but, given the obscure location of manyofthe potential
`
`sources, technicians often experiencedifficulty in locating all of the LDAR
`
`components. /d. at col. 1, Il. 24-28.
`
`To make the LDAR componentseasierto locate, the ’164 patent
`describes using a handheld computer deviceto createa databaseofposition
`
`coordinates for each LDAR component.
`
`/d. at col. 1, ll. 38-44. According
`
`to the ’164 patent, after a technician completes maintenance work on an
`LDAR component, the technician may input an accountof that work into a
`
`handheld computer device, such as a personaldigital assistant (“PDA”). Id.
`at col.3, IL 11-15. Upon receiving information about a specific LDAR
`component, the PDA may obtainits current position coordinates, associate
`
`—
`
`those coordinates with the specified LDAR component, and store them in a
`database. /d. at col. 3, ll. 15—19. In orderto protect this information, the
`position coordinates may be encrypted prior to storage in the database.
`/d. at
`col. 3, Il. 19-22.
`
`C.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1, 19, and 25 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is
`reproduced below.
`|
`1. A method for creating a database of coordinates of
`leak detection and repair (LDAR) components, comprising:
`
`receiving an input pertaining to an LDAR component;
`obtaining position coordinates of a handheld computer
`device in response to receiving the input;
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 B1
`
`_ associating the position coordinates of the handheld
`computer device with the LDAR component; and
`
`storing the position coordinates in association with the
`LDAR componentinto a database.
`Ex. 1001, col. 9, Il. 35-43.
`D.
`References
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references and declarations (Pet. 5):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,588,726 B1 (“Mouradian”
`U.S. Patent No. 7,482,973 B2 (“Tucker”
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E._Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`
`following grounds(Pet. 5-6):
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`,
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`| Mouradian and Fu
`25 and 28
`
`
`,
`u
`
`
`19, 20, and 24 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)|F and Scanlon
`
`
`
`19, 20, and 24 § 103(a)|Mouradian and Scanlon35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`Il.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`Weinterpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). On this record and for
`.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 B1
`
`purposesof this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express
`
`construction.
`
`B._Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`1._Anticipation ofClaims 1-4, 19, 20, and 24-28 by Furry
`Petitioner argues that claims 1-4, 19, 20, and 24—28 are anticipated by
`
`Furry. Pet. 5. Furry relates to an infrared camera system for detecting and
`
`identifying chemical, gas, and petroleum productleaks. Ex. 1005, col. 1,
`ll. 25-27. We have reviewedPetitioner’s assertions and supporting
`evidence, and, for the reasons discussed below, we are persuadedonthis
`record that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood ofprevailing in
`showing that Furry discloses each and every limitation of claims 1-4, 19,20, »
`
`and 24-28. See Pet. 19-30; Ex. 1003 J 79-89.
`a.
`Independent Claims 1, 19, and 25
`
`Thefirst limitation of independentclaim 1 recites “receiving an input
`
`pertaining to an LDAR component.” Furry discloses that “[a]n inspector
`
`aims the infrared camera system 22 toward the component or components of
`
`interest,” and “[i]nfrared images of the componentand backgroundenter the
`
`camera system 22 via the lens assembly 40.” Ex. 1005, col. 13, ll. 6-9.
`
`Petitioner argues that these infrared images of an LDAR componentare
`
`received as an input, and, thus, Furry disclosesthefirst limitation of claim 1.
`
`Pet. 19-20. On this record, we are persuaded Petitioner has shown
`
`sufficiently that Furry discloses the first limitationof claim 1.
`
`The secondlimitation of claim 1 recites “obtaining position
`
`coordinates of a handheld computer device in responseto receiving the
`
`input.” Furry discloses an infrared camera system with handlesthat“aid in
`
`holding the system” during an inspection. Ex. 1005, col. 4, Il. 58-60. Furry
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 Bl
`
`also discloses that GPS coordinates maybe stored with images of an LDAR
`
`component taken during an inspection. Jd. at col. 15, ll. 9-12. Petitioner
`
`argues that the GPS coordinates are position coordinates obtained in
`
`responseto receiving images of the LDAR component. Pet. 20. On this
`
`record, we are persuadedPetitioner has shown sufficiently that Furry
`discloses the secondlimitation of claim‘1.
`.
`|
`Thethird limitation of claim 1 recites “associating the position
`coordinates of the handheld computer device with the LDAR component.”
`
`Furry discloses that inspection information, including component
`
`identification information and global -position coordinates, may be stored
`along with images of the LDAR component. Ex. 1005, col. 15,ll. 18-28.
`
`Petitioner argues that, because the componentidentification information and
`
`global position coordinates are stored together with images of the LDAR’
`
`component, the position coordinates are associated with the LDAR
`component. Pet. 20. On this record, we are persuadedPetitioner has shown
`sufficiently that Furry discloses the third limitation of claim 1.
`The fourth limitation of claim 1 recites “storing the position
`
`coordinates in association with the LDAR componentinto a database.”
`Furry discloses that the images of the LDAR componentandthe global
`position coordinates are stored in a database. Ex. 1005, col. 15, Il. 9-17. On
`this record, we are persuaded Petitioner has shownsufficiently that Furry
`
`discloses the fourth limitation of claim 1.
`
`Independentclaim 19 recites limitations similar to those in claim 1.
`
`Claim 19 further recites “one or more position coordinatessatellites.” As
`discussed above,Furry discloses storing GPS coordinates. Petitioner’s
`declarant, Donald D.BradleyIII, P.E., testifies that any reference to GPS or
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 BI
`
`global position systems necessarily teachesthe useofsatellites to obtain
`
`position coordinates. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 § 82). On this record, we are
`
`persuaded Petitioner has shownsufficiently that Furry discloses each and
`
`every limitation of claim 19.
`Independent claim 25 recites limitations similar to those in claim 1.
`Claim 25, however, recites “associating the one or moresets of position
`
`coordinates with the technician,” rather than associating the position
`
`coordinates with the LDAR component. As discussed above, Furry
`
`discloses storing inspection information together with images of the LDAR
`
`component. Furry further discloses that the inspection information includes
`
`global positioning coordinates and “an inspector’s name.” Ex. 1005, col. 15,
`ll. 21-28. Therefore, Petitioner argues that Furry discloses associating the
`position coordinates with the inspector. Pet. 27-28. On this record, we are
`
`persuaded Petitioner has shownsufficiently that Furry discloses each and
`
`every limitation of claim 25.
`
`b.
`
`Dependent Claims 2-4, 20, 24, and 26-28
`
`Dependent claim 2 recites “associating the position coordinates of the
`
`handheld computer device with a unique identifier of the LDAR
`
`component.” Furry discloses that the inspection information stored with the
`
`images of the LDAR componentcan include “inspection location name,
`
`inspection location address,component name, [and] component
`identification information.” Ex. 1005, col. 15, ll. 18-28. Mr. Bradley
`testifies “that the term ‘component name’ is a term ofart used in the LDAR
`
`industry to refer to a ‘unique identifier’ of an LDAR component.” Ex. 1003
`
`4 80. Mr. Bradley furthertestifies “that the combination of ‘component
`
`identification information’ with the ‘inspection location name, inspection
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 Bl
`location address, [and] component name,’ would uniquely identify an LDAR
`‘ component.” Jd. On this record, we are persuaded Petitioner has shown
`
`sufficiently that Furry discloses the limitations of claim 2.
`Dependent claims 3, 4, 20, and 24 recite limitations that relate to
`-détermining position coordinates from one or more position coordinates
`satellites. For the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 19, we are
`
`persuadedPetitioner has shown sufficiently that Furry discloses such
`
`limitations. See supra Section II.B.1.a.
`
`Dependentclaim 26recites “displaying a representation of the one or
`
`moresets of position coordinates on a computer screen.” Furry discloses
`
`that “inspection information may be displayed and/or recorded along with
`
`the recording/displaying of the visible image representing the filtered
`infrared image”and that the inspection information includes global
`
`positioning coordinates. Ex. 1005, col. 15, ll. 18-28. Petitioner argues that
`
`_
`
`this portion of Furry discloses displaying a representation of the one or more
`sets of position coordinates on a computer screen. Pet. 29. On this record,
`
`weare persuaded Petitioner has shownsufficiently that Furry discloses the
`
`limitations of claim 26.
`Dependent claim 27 recites “‘a first set of position coordinates and a
`
`second set of position coordinates, wherein the secondset of position
`
`coordinatesis receivedafterthe first set of position coordinates is received,
`
`and further comprising displaying a first representation of thefirst set of
`
`position coordinates and a secondrepresentation of the secondset of
`position coordinates, wherein the secondset ofposition coordinates is
`different from the first set of position coordinates.” Furry discloses that an
`
`inspector can use the disclosed camera system to inspect various LDAR
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 Bl
`
`components as the inspector walks arounda plantor otherfacility.
`Ex. 1005, col. 4, ll. 60-63. Therefore, according to Petitioner, Furry
`
`discloses receiving and displaying sets of position coordinates for different
`
`LDAR componentsinspected at different times. Pet. 29. On this record, we
`
`are persuadedPetitioner has shownsufficiently that Furry discloses the
`
`limitations of claim 27.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Dependentclaim 28 recites a task comprising “monitoring the LDAR
`
`component, servicing the LDAR component,collecting data from the LDAR
`
`component, documenting the LDAR componentor combinationsthereof.”
`
`Furry discloses taking images of an LDAR component. Ex. 1005, col. 13,
`
`ll. 3-10. Petitioner argues that, as a result, Furry discloses monitoring or
`
`documenting the LDAR component. Pet. 30. On this record, we are
`
`persuaded Petitioner has shownsufficiently that Furry discloses the
`
`limitations of claim 28.
`
`Anticipation of Claims 1-6, 19-21, 24, 25, and 28 by Scanlon
`2.
`Petitioner argues that claims 1-6, 19-21, 24, 25, and 28 are
`anticipated by Scanlon. Pet. 5. Scanlonrelates to a secure infrared
`inspection and recordation system. Ex. 1006 § 1. We have reviewed
`Petitioner’s assertions and supporting evidence, and, for the reasons
`
`discussed below, we are persuaded onthis record that Petitioner
`
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that Scanlon
`discloses each and every limitation ofclaims 1-6, 19-21, 24, 25, and 28.
`See Pet. 30-42; Ex. 1003 Ff 90-102.
`
`a.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 19, and 25
`
`Thefirst limitation of independentclaim 1 recites “receiving an input
`
`pertaining to an LDAR component.” Scanlon discloses capturing an image
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 Bl
`
`of an inspection target, such as a componentin a productionfacility.
`
`Ex. 1006 Jf 21, 44. Petitioner argues that this image of an LDAR
`
`componentis received as an input, and, thus, Scanlon disclosesthefirst
`
`limitation of claim 1. Pet. 31-32. On this record, we are persuaded
`
`Petitioner has shownsufficiently that Scanlon disclosesthe first limitation of
`claim 1.
`
`The secondlimitation of claim 1 recites “obtaining position
`
`coordinates of a handheld computer device:in response to receiving the
`
`input.” Scanlon discloses a portable inspection system that receives
`
`inspection data and then determinesits current location. Ex. 1006, claim 16,
`
`- Fig. 1. Petitioner argues that this current location includes position
`coordinates obtained in response to receiving the input. Pet. 32. On this
`record, we are persuaded Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Scanlon
`
`discloses the second limitation of claim 1.
`
`Thethird limitation of claim 1 recites “associating the position
`
`coordinates of the handheld computer device with the LDAR component.”
`
`Scanlon discloses that target identification and location information can be
`~ embeddedin the image of the LDAR component. Ex. 1006 Ff 35, 42.
`
`Petitioner argues that, because the target identification and location
`information are stored together with the image ofthe LDAR component, the
`position coordinates are associated with the LDAR component. Pet. 32-33.
`
`Onthis record, we are persuaded Petitioner has shown sufficiently that
`
`Scanlon discloses the third limitation of claim 1.
`
`The fourth limitation of claim 1 recites “storing the position
`
`coordinates in association with the LDAR componentinto a database.”
`Scanlon discloses that the image ofthe LDAR component with embedded
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 Bl
`
`location informationis stored in a serveror other type of datastation.
`Ex. 1006
`42. On this record, we are persuaded Petitioner has shown
`sufficiently that Scanlon discloses the fourth limitation of claim 1.
`Independent claim 19 recites limitations similar to those in claim 1.
`
`Claim 19 further recites “one or more position coordinatessatellites.”
`Scanlon disclosesa location determination unitthat caninclude a “Global
`Positioning Satellite (GPS) unit.” Ex. 1006 § 28. On this record, we are
`persuadedPetitioner has shownsufficiently that Scanlon discloses each and
`every limitation of claim 19.
`Independentclaim 25 recites limitations similar to those in claim 1.
`Claim 25, however, recites “associating the one or moresets ofposition
`coordinates with the technician,” rather than associating the position
`coordinates with the LDAR component. Scanlon discloses storing both
`location and operator information together with the image of the LDAR
`
`component. Ex. 1006 | 42. Therefore, Petitioner argues that Scanlon
`
`discloses associating the location with the operator. Pet. 41. On this record,
`
`we are persuadedPetitioner has shownsufficiently that Scanlon discloses
`
`each and every limitation of claim 25.
`
`b.
`
`Dependent Claims 2-6, 20, 21, 24, and 28
`
`Dependent claim 2 recites “associating the position coordinates of the
`
`handheld computer device with a unique identifier of the LDAR
`
`component.” Scanlon disclosesthat “target identifier 114 can include an
`
`active device such as a Radio Frequency (RFID)tag .
`.
`. to identify the
`inspection target.” Ex. 1006 { 30. According to Scanlon, “RFID units
`respondto a radio frequency (RF) query from an RFID readerand reply with
`
`tag information that is used to identify the inspection target.” Jd. Onthis
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`‘Patent 8,386,164 Bl
`
`record, we are persuadedPetitioner has shown sufficiently that Scanlon
`
`discloses the limitations of claim 2.
`
`Dependentclaims 3, 4, 20, and 24 recite limitations that relate to
`
`determining position coordinates from one or more position coordinates
`satellites. For the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 19, we are
`persuaded Petitioner has shownsufficiently that Scanlon discloses such
`
`limitations. See supra Section II.B.2.a.
`
`Dependentclaims5, 6, and 21 recite limitations relating to encrypting
`position coordinates or encrypting an association between position
`|
`coordinates and an LDAR component. Scanlon discloses encrypting. the
`target identification and location information using an algorithm. Ex. 1006
`4 37, claim 16. On this record, we are persuaded Petitioner has shown
`sufficiently that Scanlon discloses the limitations ofclaims 5, 6, and 21.
`Dependent claim 28 recites a task comprising “monitoring the LDAR
`
`component, servicing the LDAR component, collecting data from the LDAR
`
`component, documenting the LDAR component or combinationsthereof.”
`
`Scanlon discloses taking images of an LDAR component. Ex. 1006 ff 21,
`
`44. Petitioner argues that, as a result, Scanlon discloses monitoring or
`documenting the LDAR component. Pet. 41-42. On this record, we are
`
`persuadedPetitioner has shownsufficiently that Scanlon discloses the
`
`limitations of claim 28.
`
`.
`
`3.
`
`Anticipation of Claims 1-4, 19, 20, and 24 by Mouradian
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1-4, 19, 20, and 24 are anticipated by
`Mouradian. Pet. 5. Mouradian relates to a system that detects the presence
`of certain compounds in gas samples. Ex. 1007, col. 1, ll. 6-9. We have
`
`reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and supporting evidence, and, for the
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 Bl
`reasons discussed below, we are persuadedonthis record that Petitioner
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that
`Mouradian discloses each and every limitation of claims 1-4, 19, 20, and 24.
`
`See Pet. 42-49; Ex. 1003 {J 103-109.
`
`a.
`
`Independent Claims 1 and 19
`
`Thefirst limitation of independent claim 1 recites “receiving an input
`
`pertaining to an LDAR component.” Mouradiandisclosesthat “the control
`
`program 122 receives a current detected concentration level 132 ofa
`
`compoundfrom the vaporanalyzer 130.” Ex. 1007, col. 29,Il. 25-27.
`
`Petitioner argues that the received concentration level is an input pertaining
`
`to an LDAR component. Pet. 44. Onthis record, we are persuaded
`
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Mouradian disclosesthefirst limitation
`
`of claim 1.
`The secondlimitation of claim 1 recites “obtaining position
`coordinates of a handheld computer device in responseto receiving the
`
`input.” Mouradian discloses a handheld sample probe (Ex. 1007,col. 11,
`
`|. 7) that includes a global positioning system transceiver for detecting a
`
`global position location value (Ex. 1007, col. 21, ll. 54-58). Petitioner
`argues that the global position location value includes position coordinates
`obtained in responseto receiving the input. Pet, 44. On this record, we are
`persuadedPetitioner has shownsufficiently that Mouradian discloses the
`second limitation of claim 1.
`
`.
`
`The third limitation of claim | recites “associating the position
`
`coordinates of the handheld computer device with the LDAR component.”
`Mouradian disclosesthat a global position location value is provided to a
`controller so it can be stored in a route entry for the leak point from which
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 Bl
`
`the vapor sample wascollected. Ex. 1007, col. 21, Il. 58-63. Petitioner
`
`argues that, because the global position location value is stored in a route
`
`entry for a leak point, the global position location value is associated with
`
`the leak point. Pet. 44. On this record, we are persuaded Petitioner has
`
`shownsufficiently that Mouradiandiscloses the third limitation of claim 1.
`
`—
`
`The fourth limitation of claim 1 recites “storing the position
`
`coordinates in association with the LDAR componentinto a database.” As
`
`discussed above, Mouradian discloses storing the global position location
`value in a route entry for a specific leak point. Mouradianfurther discloses a
`route entry database for storing the route entries. Ex. 1007, col. 10, Il. 47—
`
`56. On this record, we are persuaded Petitioner has shownsufficiently that
`
`Mouradian discloses the fourth limitation of claim 1.
`
`Independent claim 19 recites limitations similarto those in claim 1.
`
`Claim 19 further recites “one or more position coordinates satellites.” As
`
`discussed above, Mouradian discloses a global positioning system
`
`transceiver capable of detecting a global position location value. Petitioner’s
`
`declarant, Mr. Bradley,testifies that any reference to GPS or global position
`
`systems necessarily teachesthe use ofsatellites to obtain position
`
`coordinates. Ex. 1003 ff 82, 107. On this record, we are persuaded
`
`Petitioner has shownsufficiently that Mouradian discloses each and every
`
`limitation of claim 19.
`
`b.
`
`Dependent Claims 2-4, 20, and 24
`
`Dependentclaim 2 recites “associating the position coordinates of the
`handheld computer device with a unique identifier of the LDAR
`component.” Mouradian discloses that each route entry can contain a leak
`
`point identification field, such as a number, bar code pattern, or tag identity
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 Bl
`
`associated with a specific leak point. Ex. 1007, col. 20, Il. 39-46. Petitioner
`
`arguesthat the leak point identification field in each route entry uniquely
`
`identifies a specific leak point. Pet. 45. On this record, we are persuaded
`Petitioner has shownsufficiently that Mouradian disclosesthe limitations of
`claim 2.
`|
`
`Dependentclaims3, 4, 20, and 24 recite limitations that relate to
`determining position coordinates from one or more position coordinates
`
`satellites. For the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 19, we are
`persuaded Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Mouradiandiscloses such
`limitations. See supra Section I.B.3.a.
`
`4.
`
`Obviousness of Claims 5, 6, and 21 over Furry and Scanlon
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 5, 6, and 21 would have been obvious
`
`over Furry and Scanlon. Pet. 5. The question of obviousnessis resolved on
`
`the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and
`contentofthe prior art; (2) the differences betweenthe claimed subject
`
`matter andthe priorart; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) the
`secondary considerations of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`
`383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). Petitioner identifies the level of ordinary skill in
`the art (Pet. 11), the claim limitations missing from Furry (id. at 50), and
`how Scanlon compensatesfor the deficiencies in Furry (id). We have
`reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and supporting evidence, and, for the
`reasons discussed below, we are persuaded onthis record that Petitioner
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood ofprevailing in showingthat claims5,
`
`6, and 21 would have been obvious over Furry and Scanlon.
`Claims 5, 6, and 21 recite limitationsrelating to encrypting position
`coordinates or encrypting an association between position coordinates and
`
`15.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 Bl
`
`an LDAR component. Petitioner states that Furry does not teach this
`
`feature, but argues Scanlon compensates for that deficiency. Pet. 34-35.
`
`Specifically, Scanlon teaches encrypting componentidentification and
`
`location information using an algorithm. Ex. 1006 4 37, claim 16. Onthis
`
`record, we are persuadedPetitioner has shown sufficiently that Scanlon
`teaches or suggests the additional limitations of claims 5, 6, and 21.
`
`Petitioneralso articulates a rationale for combining the cited teachings
`
`of Furry and Scanlon. Pet. 50-51. Specifically, Petitioner argues that it
`
`would have been obvious to combinethe teachings of Furry with those of
`Scanlon, as doing so would have been combining familiar elements
`according to known methods to yield predictable results. Id.; see KSR Int'l
`Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The known elementsare the
`
`|
`
`componentidentification and location information in Furry and the
`encryption algorithm in Scanlon. Pet. 51. Scanlon teaches a methodfor
`combining these two known elements because Scanlon teaches encrypting
`
`componentidentification and location information in the context of a leak
`
`detection system, similar to the one taught by Furry. /d. On this record, we
`
`are persuaded Petitioner has shownsufficiently a rationale for combining the
`
`cited teachings of Furry and Scanlon.
`
`J.
`
`Obviousness of Claims 5, 6, and 21 over Mouradian and
`Scanlon
`Petitioner argues that claims 5, 6, and 21 would have been obvious
`
`over Mouradian and Scanlon. Pet. 6. Petitioner relies on the same teachings
`
`in Scanlon discussed above in Section II.B.4. Pet. 52. Petitioner also relies
`onasimilarrationale for combining the teachings of Mouradian and Scanlon
`
`as that discussed abovein Section II.B.4, with respect to the combination of
`
`Furry and Scanlon. Pet. 52-53. On this record, we are persuaded that
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 Bl
`
`Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that
`claims 5, 6, and 21 would have been obvious over Mouradian and Scanton.
`
`See supra Section II.B.4.
`
`6.
`
`Obviousness of Claims 26 and 27 over Furry and Tucker
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 26 and 27 would have been obvious over
`Furry and Tucker. Pet. 6. Petitioner identifies the level of ordinary skill in’
`
`the art (id. at 11), the claim limitations missing from Furry (id. at 53), and
`how Tucker compensatesfor the deficiencies in Furry (id. at 54). We have
`reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and supporting evidence, and, for the
`
`reasons discussed below,weare persuadedon this record thatPetitioner
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 26
`
`and 27 would have been obvious over Furry and Tucker.
`Asdiscussed above, dependent claims 26 and 27 recite limitations
`relating to displaying a representation of position coordinates. See supra
`
`Section II.B.1.b. Tucker teaches:
`
`.
`
`Referring to FIG. 16, a fourth step involves: using scrolling
`display 116 to display GPS co-ordinates of GPS co-ordinate
`device 114 ona display 122 of global positioning system co-
`ordinates, together with a series of GPS co-ordinates 118 for
`one or moreof selected utilities 120, such that the relative
`position of GPS co-ordinate device 114 to one or moreselected
`utilities 118 is always known.
`Ex. 1008, col. 19, Il. 55-61. On this record, we are persuaded Petitioner has
`shown sufficiently that the combination of Furry and Tuckerteaches or
`
`suggests the limitations of claims 26 and 27.
`
`Petitioner also articulates a rationale for combining the cited teachings
`ofFurry and Tucker. Pet. 54-55. Specifically, Petitioner argues that it
`would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Furry with those of
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 Bl
`Tucker, as doing so would have been combining familiar elements according
`to known methodsto yield predictable results. Jd.; see KSR, 550 U.S. at
`
`416. The known elements are the display screen in Furry and the GPS
`
`coordinate display in Tucker. Pet. 54. Furry teaches a method for
`
`combining these two known elements because Furry teaches a display screen
`
`capable of achieving the predictable result of displaying GPS coordinates as
`
`taught by Tucker. Jd. On this record, we are persuaded Petitioner has
`
`shown sufficiently a rationale for combining the cited teachings of Furry and
`
`Tucker.
`
`7.
`Obviousness of Claims 25 and 28 over Mouradian and Furry
`Petitioner arguesthat claims 25 and 28 would have been obvious over
`Mouradian and Furry. Pet. 6. Petitioner identifies the level of ordinary skill
`in the art (id. at 11), the claim limitations missing from Mouradian (id. at
`57), and how Furry compensatesfor the deficiencies in Mouradian (id.). We
`have reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and supporting evidence, and, for the
`reasons discussed below, we are persuadedonthis record that Petitioner
`
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 25
`and 28 would have been obvious over Mouradian and Furry.
`.
`Independentclaim 25 recites limitations similar to those in claim 1.
`
`Claim 25, however,recites “associating the one or moresets of position
`
`coordinates with the technician,” rather than associating the position
`
`coordinates with the LDAR component. Petitioner states that Mouradian
`
`does notteach this feature, but Furry compensatesfor that deficiency. Pet.
`
`57. Specifically, as discussed above, Furry teachesstoring global
`
`positioning coordinates and the inspector’s name together with imagesof the
`
`LDAR component. See ‘supra Section II.B.1.a. On this record, we are
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 Bl
`
`persuaded Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of
`
`Mouradian and Furry teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 25.
`Dependent claim 28 depends from claim 25 andfurther recites a task
`
`comprising “monitoring the LDAR component, servicing the LDAR
`
`component, collecting data from the LDAR component, documenting the
`
`LDAR componentor combinationsthereof.” Mouradian teaches monitoring
`or documenting an LDAR componentby conducting a vaporanalysis of a
`
`leak point. Pet. 58 (citing Ex. 1007, col. 23, ll. 50-53). On this record, we
`
`are persuaded Petitioner has shownsufficiently that the combination of
`Mouradian and Furry teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 28.
`Petitioner also articulates a rationale for combining the cited teachings
`
`of Mouradian and Furry. Pet. 57-58. Specifically, Petitioner arguesit
`
`would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Mouradian with those
`
`of Furry, as doing so would have been combining familiar elements
`
`according to known methodsto yield predictable results. Id.; see KSR, 550
`U.S. at 416. The known elements are the position coordinates in Mouradian
`and the association of position coordinates with a technician in Furry. Pet.
`57-58. Furry teaches a method for combining these two known elements
`
`because Furry teachesassociating position coordinates with a technician in
`the context of a leak detection system, similar to the one taught by
`Mouradian. Jd. On this record, we are persuaded Petitioner has shown
`
`sufficiently a rationale for combining the cited teachings of Mouradian and
`
`Furry.
`
`Obviousness.ofClaims 19, 20, and 24 over Furry and Scanlon
`8.
`Petitioner argues that claims 19, 20, and 24 would have been obvious
`
`over Furry and Scanlon. Pet. 6. Petitioner explains that this groundis
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 Bl
`
`applicable ifFurry is found not to teach position coordinatessatellites, as
`
`recited in claims 19, 20, or 24. Jd. at 59. As discussed above, we are
`
`persuadedonthis record that Petitioner has shownsufficiently that Furry
`discloses position coordinatessatellites. See supra Section II.B.1.
`
`Accordingly, we do notinstitute an inter partes review on this alternative’
`
`ground proposedby Petitioner. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`9.
`
`Obviousness ofClaims 19, 20, and 24 over Mouradian and
`Scanlon
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 19, 20,
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
