Trials@uspto. gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: April 11, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`iAPARTMENTS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`EDST LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`Before ST. JOHN COURTENAYII, KEVIN W. CHERRY,and
`MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHERRY,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Post-Grant Review
`35 U.S.C. $324, 37 CER. § 42.4
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: April 11, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`iAPARTMENTS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`EDST LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`Before ST. JOHN COURTENAYII, KEVIN W. CHERRY,and
`MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHERRY,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Post-Grant Review
`35 U.S.C. $324, 37 CER. § 42.4
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`iApartments, Inc. (““Petitioner’’) filed a petition for post-grant review
`
`of claims 1—20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,189,118 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the °118
`
`patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). EDST LLC (“Patent Owner’’)filed a Preliminary
`
`Response. Paper 8 (Prelim. Resp.”’).
`
`Wehaveauthority to determine whetherto institute a post-grant
`
`review, under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. A post-grant review
`
`may notbe instituted unless it is determinedthat “the information presented
`
`in the petition filed under section 321, if such informationis not rebutted,
`
`would demonstrate thatit is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324 (2018); see also
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (The Boardinstitutes the trial on behalf of the
`
`Director.’’).
`
`Applying those standards, and upon considering the Petition, the
`
`Preliminary Response,and the evidence of record, we determine the
`
`information presented showsthatit is more likely than not that Petitioner
`
`would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the
`
`challenged claimsof the °118 patent. Accordingly, we determine that
`
`Petitioner hassatisfied the burden under 35 U.S.C. §324(a) to show thatit is
`
`morelikely than not that at least one ofthe challenged claims1s
`
`unpatentable.
`
`A, RelatedMatters
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`The parties identify the following matter related to the °118 patent:
`
`EDST, LLC and Quext loT, LLC v. iApartments, Inc., Civil Action No. 8:22-
`
`cv-00272 (M.D. Fla.) (the “parallel proceeding”). Pet. 1; Paper 4,2. Patent
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`Owneralso identifies the following matter related to the °118 patent: EDST,
`
`LLC et al vy. Huarifu Technology Co., Ltd. et al, Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-
`
`00365 (E.D. Tex. 2022). Paper 4, 2.
`
`Theparties also identify the following Board proceedings involving
`
`the parties: IPR2022-01468 (U.S. Patent No. 10,825,273 B2); IPR2022-
`
`01469 (U.S. Patent No. 10,803,685 B2). Pet. vii; Paper8, 1.
`
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`
`Petitioner identifies itself as the real party in interest. Pet. 1. Patent
`
`Owneridentifies itself and Quext IoT, LLC asreal parties in interest.
`
`Paper4, 1.
`
`C. Overview ofthe ’118 patent
`
`The ’118 patent is entitled “Smart Thermostat Hub,” and “is directed
`
`to an intelligent thermostat that can function as a hub having multi-
`
`band/multi-radio communication capabilities and can be implementedin a
`
`system for controlling and securing offline door locks and other smart
`
`devices within a multifamily property.” Ex. 1001 (7118 patent), code (54),
`
`1:13-19. The patent describes high costs to implement wireless network
`
`infrastructure to use online keyless locks, and security shortcomings for use
`
`of offline keyless locks.
`
`/d. at 1:23-2:20.
`
`The ’118 patent describesthat:
`
`Online door locks may be controlled (e.g., locked and unlocked)
`remotely through an Internet-accessible network connection and
`locally by a device (e.g., a fob, smartphone, smartcard,etc. ) that
`is placed in proximity to a sensor of the online door lock, while
`offline door locks can only be controlled (e.g.,
`locked and
`unlocked) by a device (e.g., a fob, smartphone, smartcard,etc.)
`that is placed in proximity to a sensorof the offline doorlock.
`
`Td. at 1:44—52.
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`Figure 1, reproduced below,is a diagram ofthe system for managing
`
`and securing access credentials for accessing a multi-family residential
`
`property using smart devices, described in embodiments ofthe ’118 patent.
`
`MA Ne % “
`
`i
`t
`‘
`
`fenerema
`a
`Laavavaeananantedininante\tatminiAnttntcentannsnnmansanenennd
`
`
`i
`Dasusennmaneantateere
`
`
`
`Figure 1, showing user devices 140, smart devices 120, server
`130, communication interface
`138, LoRa Gateway 136,
`communication link 112, smart hub 110, and non-LoRa WAN
`communication links 114.
`/d. at 4:21—-7:6.
`
`The ’118 patent describes coupling server 130 to a LoRa gateway 136,
`
`which may communicate information to and from smart hub 110, using
`
`LoRa WAN communication link 112, which could use another low-power
`
`technology.
`
`/d. at6:12—19. Smart hub 110 may be a smart thermostat hub.
`
`Id. at 6:45—46. In addition, another communicationinterface “may
`
`communicatively couple smart hub 110 to one or more smart devices 120
`
`via non-LoRa WAN communication links 114, suchas a Wi-Fi
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`communication link, a ZigBee communication link, a Bluetooth
`
`communication link (e.g., a Bluetooth low energy (BLE) communication
`
`link), and the like.” 6:32—40. The smart hub may provide “improvements
`
`with respect to security and property managementthrough utilization of
`
`smart devices, such as an offline door lock, a thermostat, lights fixtures, and
`
`the like.” /d. at 9:5-11. The patent also describes that “server 130 may
`
`provide a property managementplatform that may be utilized to manage
`
`various aspects of a multi-family residential property.” /d. at 14:1—4.
`
`The *118 patent provides an example, where,
`
`upon receiving the control information from server 130, smart
`hub(s) may identify one or more smart devices(e.g., one or more
`offline door locks) and may derive one or more commandsfor
`controlling the one or more identified smart devices
`in
`accordance with the control information, such as commandsto
`disable access credentials specified in the control information at
`the identified offline door lock. Having determined the one or
`more smart devices to which the received control information
`pertains and deriving appropriate commandsforcontrolling the
`one or more smart devices in accordance with the control
`information, smart hub(s) may initiate transmission of the
`derived commandsto the smart devices via communicationlinks
`provided by second communication interface (e.g., the non-
`LoRaWAN communication interface), and the smart devices
`may execute the commands. For example, upon receiving the
`commands, an offline door lock maydisable the identified access
`credentials.
`
`Id. at 14:30-48.
`
`The patentalso describes that “property managementplatform, on
`
`server 130, may provide user interfaces and databases, and perform
`
`functions “to control and automate various property managementtasks. For
`
`example, the property managementplatform mayperiodically (e.g., daily,
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`weekly, monthly, etc.) analyze the resident databasedto identify move out
`
`dates.” /d. at 15:59-16:5.
`
`D. The Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1—20 of the 7118 patent. Pet. 1. Ofthe
`
`challenged claims, claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced
`
`below with Petitioner’s identifiers for the claim limitations, is illustrative of
`
`the subject matter recited in the challenged claims.
`
`[lpre] A system for controlling and securing a plurality of
`smart devices within a unit of a multi-family residential or
`commercial property, the system comprising:
`[la] a smart hub comprising:
`one or more processors;
`a memory communicatively coupled to the one or more
`processors;
`[1b] a first communication interface configured to
`communicatively couple the one or more processorsto
`a Long Range (LoRa)wide area network (LoRaWAN)
`communication link; and
`[1c] a second communication interface configured to
`communicatively couple the one or more processorsto
`the plurality of smart devices and to a user device
`associated with an occupant of the unit via a non-
`LoRaWAN communicationlink;
`[1d] where the one or more processorsare configuredto:
`receive
`control
`information
`via
`the LoRaWAN
`communication link from a property management
`platform for
`the multi-family
`residential
`or
`commercial
`property,
`the
`control
`information
`including a request for a status check associated with
`an electronic doorlock,
`[le] identify at least one smart device of the plurality of
`smart devices based on the control information, the at
`least one smart device including the electronic door
`lock,
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`transmit a commandderived from the control information
`to the at least one smart device via the non-LoRaWAN
`communication link,
`[1f] receive status information from the electronic door
`lock via the non-LoRaWAN communication link
`based on transmission of the command, and
`property
`transmit
`the
`status
`imformation
`to
`the
`managementplatform for the multi-family residential
`or
`commercial
`property
`via
`the LoRaWAN
`communicationlink.
`
`Ex. 1001, 21:8—44; Pet. 126.
`
`E.. Evidence
`
`Petitioner submits the following evidence:
`
`1006
`
`
`
`1002
`Declaration of Philip C. Dumas (“DumasDecl.”)
`Cahill, US 2019/0043289 A1 (published Feb. 7, 2019, filed|1005
`Jan. 7, 2017
`Kraus,et al., US 2010/0282579 A1 (published
`Nov. 11, 2010, PCT filed Dec. 31, 2008)
`(“Kraus”’
`Deros,et al., US 2018/0110093 A1 (published
`Apr. 19, 2018, filed Oct. 25, 2017)
`“Deros”
`Ho,et al., US 2021/0319639 Al (published Oct. 14,2021,|1008
`PCTfiled June 13, 2019)
`“Ho”
`Michael McCole, “How to Make Nest’s Thermostat Your|1013
`Smart-Home Hub,” Wired, Feb. 11, 2016 (““Wired’’)!
`
`1007
`
`F. Asserted Ground ofUnpatentability
`
`Petitionerasserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
` Written description
`
`' Last retrieved from
`https://www.archive. org/web/20160211091034/https:/www.wired.com/2016
`/02/iot-cookbook-nest/on Aug. 10,2022. Ex. 1014, 2, 4.
`
`7
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`
`
`Kraus, Ho, Wired
`
`1-3, 5-20
`
`Pet. 3. Patent Ownerdisputes Petitioner’s asserted grounds of
`
`unpatentability. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`
`G. Eligibilityfor Post-Grant Review
`
`The post-grant review (“PGR”) provisionsof the Leahy-Smith
`
`America Invents Act (“AIA”)? apply only to patents subject to the first
`
`inventorto file provisions of the AIA. AIA § 6(f)(2)(A). Specifically, the
`
`first inventorto file provisions apply to any application for patent, and to
`
`any patent issuing thereon, that contains or contained at any time a claim to a
`
`claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after
`
`March 16, 2013. AIA § 3(n)(1). Furthermore, “[a] petition for a post-grant
`
`review may only befiled not later than the date that is 9 monthsafter the
`
`date ofthe grant of the patent or of the issuanceof a reissue patent (as the
`
`case may be).” 35 U.S.C. §321(c); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.202(a) (setting
`
`forth the same). Petitioner has the burden of demonstrating eligibility for
`
`post-grant review. See Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Yeda Res. & Dev. Co.,
`
`PGR2016-00010, Paper 9 at 10 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2016).
`
`* The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011)AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. The ’118 patent clamsbenefit
`of a Oct. 16, 2018 filing date, whichis after the effective date of the
`applicable AIA amendments. Ex. 1001, code (60), (63). Thus, we refer to
`the AJA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our decision would be the same were
`weto apply the pre-AIA version ofthe statute.
`> Pub L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011).
`
`8
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`The ’118 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 16/912,370, filed
`
`on June 25, 2020 (“the °370 application”). Ex. 1001, (21), (22).
`
`The *370 application wasfiled as a continuation of U.S. Application No.
`
`16/162,262, filed on October 16, 2018 (“the ’262 application’) and now
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,825,273 B2. /d. at (63).
`
`Petitionerasserts that the °118 patent is available for post-grant
`
`review. Pet. 2. The Petition wasfiled on August 30, 2022, which is within
`
`nine months ofthe November30, 2022 issue date of the ’118 patent.
`
`Ex. 1001, (45); Pet. 2,28. Onthis record, we determine that the ?118 patent
`
`is eligible for post-grant review.
`
`II. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS
`
`Petitioner contendsthat claims 1—20 of the ’118 patent lack written
`
`description support, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
`
`Cahill in view ofDeros, and are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over Krausin view of Deros, claims 1—3 and 5—20 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kraus in view of Ho, and claim 4 1s
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Krausin view of Ho
`
`and Wired. Pet. 3.
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obviousat the time the
`
`invention was madeto a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the priorart;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the priorart;
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
`
`evidence of nonobviousness.* Grahamy. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 17—
`
`18 (1966).
`
`A. Level ofOrdinary Skill in the Art
`
`Weconsiderthe asserted grounds of unpatentability in view of the
`
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art. In assessing the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the
`
`“type of problems encounteredin the art; prior art solutions to those
`
`problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the
`
`technology; and educational level of active workers tn the field.”
`
`Inre GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Custom
`
`Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc. , 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1986)). “[O]ne or more factors may predominate.” /d.
`
`Petitioner contendsthat an ordinarily skilled artisan for the
`
`°118 patent “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering,
`
`Computer Science, or an equivalent field, and two or more years of
`
`experience working in home or commercial security and automation systems
`
`and/or smart homeor smart buildings technology.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002
`
`(DumasDecl.) 9] 55-56). Patent Owner doesnot dispute Petitioner’s
`
`definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`
`Based on this record, we adoptPetitioner’s articulation ofthe level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, whichis consistent with the ’118 patent and the
`
`asserted prior art, and we applyit in our obviousness evaluations below. See
`
`+ Patent Ownerdoesnot present argumentsor evidence of secondary
`considerationsin its Preliminary Response. Therefore, secondary
`considerations do not constitute part of our analysis herein.
`
`10
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the priorart,
`
`itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`Next, we turn to claim construction. In interpreting the claims of the
`
`*118 patent, we “us[e] the same claim construction standard that would be
`
`used to construe the claim[s] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).”
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). The claim construction standard
`
`includes construing claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of such claims as would have been understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. See id.;
`
`Phillipsv. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc).
`
`Petitioner contends two terms require construction: “offline door
`
`lock,” and “credential device.” Pet. 26-28. Patent Owner does not propose
`
`any termsfor construction. See generally Prelim.Resp.
`
`Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim
`
`construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp.v.
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only
`
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy(citing Vivid Techs., Inc.v.
`
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`C. The Prior Art
`
`Before turning to Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability, we
`
`provide brief summaries of the asserted references.
`
`11
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`1. Cahill (Ex. 1005)
`
`Cahill is a published U.S. patent application entitled “Offline Lock
`
`System and Method Thereof,’ and relates to an offline lock system.
`
`Ex. 1005 (Cahill), code (54), 4 2. Cahill “provides an offline lock system
`
`having functionality of an online lock system, while maintaining efficiency
`
`and cost-effectiveness of a conventionaloffline lock system.” /d. ¥ 14.
`
`Figure 1, reproduced below,is a schematic of Cahill’s system.
`- 100
`
`fae
`
`+304 ACCESS CONTROL
`oe
`
`SYSTEM
`
`
`
`OFFLINE LOCK
`
`‘
`
`*
`BLUETOOTH
`LOW
`ENERGY
`
`e
`
`Figure 1, showing access control system (ACS) 110, lock updater 120,
`
`and offline locks 130.
`
`/d. 4/41. The ACS 1s a computer with network
`
`communication capabilities, which receives “commandsto accessthe offline
`
`lock 130, to control the offline lock 130, to update the offline lock 130, to
`
`monitor the offline lock 130, or perform any function desired regarding the
`
`offline lock 130.” /d. 4942-43, 45. Lock updater 120 receives commands
`
`from ACS 110, and sends commandstothe offline locks 130, using
`
`Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE).
`
`/d. 49. The offline lock 130 can also send
`
`information to lock updater 120.
`
`/d. 473.
`
`12
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`2. Kraus (Ex. 1006)
`
`Krausis titled “Method and System for Remotely Controlling Access
`
`to an Access Point,” and “relates to radio frequency mesh networksfor
`
`controlling security and other devices in homes,to a doorlock that can be
`
`monitored and controlled remotely through a mobile device or via a
`
`computer network using a radio frequency mesh network.” Ex. 1006
`
`(Kraus), code (54), § 2.
`
`Figure 2, reproduced below,is a diagram of Kraus’ system.
`
`MOSHE
`server
`
`|
`
`{
`
`Figure 2, showing computerserver 44, networked computer 80, mobile
`device 30, router 46, gateway device 50, door lock 60, electrical controller
`62, and thermostat 64.
`/d. 4959, 64, 80.
`
`In one embodiment, doorlock 60 is controlled by a keypad.
`
`/d. 471.
`
`In other embodiments, a smart card may be usedinstead of the keypad.
`
`/d.
`
`In yet another embodiment, the door lock can be part of networked
`
`system 10, and communicate with other devices via the network.
`
`/d. 473.
`
`13
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`3. Deros (Ex. 1007)
`
`Derosistitled “Systems and Methods for Conserving Guest Room
`
`Resourcesand Utilities Using Internet of Things Devices.” Ex. 1007
`
`(Deros), code (54). Derosrelates to “a Platform as a Service (PaaS) solution
`
`that includes a modular electronics system for interfacing with and
`
`controlling internet-of-things (OT) devicesin a hotel room, timeshare or
`
`rental property to improve guest experiences while reducing energy and
`
`resource consumption.” /d. 2.
`
`Figure 1 of Deros, annotated by Petitioner and reproduced below,
`
`showsa schematic of the Deros system.
`
`GFFLNE DOOR LOCK
`
`
`oe
`~ } Ceeav
`
`S. SS
`CW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Re|z
`$
`ii
`bar
`:
`Saomnnmnannsnd
`
`
`
` o3 BROPERTY
`Thempagat
`rig. §
`OWNER
`a
`SERVER
`
`Annotated Figure 1, showing a schematic of the Deros system.
`
`Figure 1 showsenterprise server 106, including a PaaSplatform,
`
`property ownerserver 108, configured to communicate with facilities
`
`14
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`controller 110, IOT module 102, which is “configured to communicate with
`
`the enterprise server 106 through a gateway 121 (suchasthe internet) using
`
`W1Fi, LoRa, 3G, 4G, LTE,Ethernet, or any suitable wired or wireless
`
`protocol.” /d. J] 37,38. The “in-room IOT module may be configured to
`
`remotely control an access feature such as a doorlock,” and “the hotel
`
`facilities manager can remotely lock, unlock, check the lockedstatus, or
`
`change the access code for IOT connected room doorlocks.” /d. 9] 74-75.
`
`4. Ho (Ex. 1008)
`
`Ho is a published U.S. patent application entitled “System and
`
`Method for Managing Electronic Locks.” Ex. 1008 (Ho), code (54). Ho
`
`“relates to access management systems and methodsand electronic locking
`
`devices with multi-factor authentication.” /d. § 1. Ho “provides for an
`
`access managementsystem for controlling multiple entry points each
`
`secured by an electronic lock with an associated numberof authorized
`
`users.” [d. 442.
`
`Ho describes a system that includes an application server 160 that
`
`communicates over a network 150, with several software modules
`
`“accessible by administrators and authorized users via a mobile application
`
`or web application for configuration, provisioning and deprovisioning of
`
`multiple authorized users for multiple entry points each secured by an
`
`electronic lock.” Jd. ¥§ 48, 50.
`
`Figure 3, reproduced below,is a diagram of one embodimentofthe
`
`Ho system.
`
`15
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`Ho’s Figure 3 shows a high-level overview of the access management
`
`system, with access management system 100, executing on application
`
`server 160, electronic locks 210-213, gateway 170, network 150, and user
`
`devices 310-313. Id. § 62.
`
`Theelectronic locks 210—213 include sensorsor transceiversthat
`are capable of connecting to the network 150 via low power
`wireless transmission standards such as ZWave, Zigbee or
`Bluetooth low energy.
`Theelectronic locks 210-213 include
`sensors equipped with such low powerwireless technology, and
`are connected to the network 150 via the gateway device 170.
`
`Id. Network 150 may be a Low Power Wide Area Network (LP WAN), and
`
`the electronic locks may be capable of using LP-WAN technologies such as
`
`“Lora”to connect to the network 150 with the advantage of lowercost,
`
`longer battery life and higher connection density.
`
`/d. 461.
`
`5. Wired (Ex. 1013)
`
`Wired ts an online article that describes the Nest Learning
`
`Thermostat,titled “How to Make Nest’s Thermostat Your Smart-Home
`
`Hub.” Wired, 1. Thearticle describes how the deviceis not only a
`
`16
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`thermostat, but also connects to other devices to control them, by being
`
`“interoperable with compatible devices.” /d. Described 1s a “service called
`
`If This Then That (IFTTT) has pre-maderecipes that can connect your
`
`devices. You can use the service to program your devices to run routines,
`
`react to triggers, or pass commandsto other devices in your home.” /d. at 2.
`
`D. Alleged Ground of Unpatentability Over Cahill andDeros
`(Ground 2)
`
`Petitioner contendsthat claims 1—20 of the ’118 patent are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cahill in view of Deros.
`
`Pet. 39-81. Patent Owner opposes. Prelim. Resp. 21-39. Having
`
`considered the arguments and evidence before us, we determinethat the
`
`record establishes that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail
`
`on this asserted ground of unpatentability.
`
`With respect to claim 1, Petitioner explains Cahill and Derosdisclose,
`
`to the extent it is limiting, the preamble,limitation [1P]: “[a] system for
`
`controlling and securing a plurality of smart devices within a unit of a multi-
`
`family residential or commercial property, the system comprising,” Pet. 48—
`
`50 (citing Ex. 1005 (Cahill) §] 3, Fig. 5; Ex. 1002 (DumasDecl.) J] 169, 171;
`
`Ex. 1007 (Deros) 4 § 2, ,3, 11, 85). Petitioner contends that Cahill discloses
`
`limitation [1a]: “a smart hub comprising: one or more processors; amemory
`
`communicatively coupled to the one or more processors,” id. at 50-51
`
`(citing Ex. 1002 (DumasDecl.) §] 173; Ex. 1005 (Cahill) 461). Petitioner
`
`relies on the combination of Cahill and Deros to accountforlimitation [1b]:
`
`“a first communication interface configured to communicatively couple the
`
`one or more processors to a Long Range (LoRa) wide area network
`
`(LoRaWAN) communicationlink,” id. at 51-54 (citing Ex. 1005 (Cahill)
`
`17
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`4] 43, 46, Fig. 1,3; Ex. 1002 (DumasDecl.) 9 174-177; Ex. 1007 (Deros),
`
`Fig. 1, § 38). Petitioner contends that the combination of Cahill and Deros
`
`accountsfor limitation [1c]: “a second communication interface configured
`
`to communicatively couple the one or more processorsto the plurality of
`
`smart devices andto a user device associated with an occupantof the unit
`
`via anon-LoRaWAN communicationlink,” id. at 54—58 (citing Ex. 1005
`
`(Cahill) 9] 65, 86, 87, 96; Ex. 1007 (Deros) ff 38, 39; Ex. 1002 (Dumas
`
`Decl.) 4] 179-186). Petitioner asserts that the combination of Cahill and
`
`Deros accounts for limitation [1d]: “where the one or more processorsare
`
`configured to: receive control information via the LOARaWAN
`
`communication link fromaproperty managementplatform for the multi-
`
`family residential or commercial property, the control information including
`
`a request for a status check associated with an electronic doorlock,”id.
`
`at 58-60 (citing Ex. 1005 (Cahill), Figs. 2,3, 4958, 65, 71, 72,91, 95;
`
`Ex. 1007 (Deros) § 75; Ex. 1002 (DumasDecl.) 4] 187-190). Petitioner
`
`argues that Cahill accountsforlimitation [le]: “identify at least one smart
`
`device ofthe plurality of smart devices based on the control information, the
`
`at least one smart device including the electronic doorlock, transmit a
`
`commandderived from the control information to the at least one smart
`
`device via the non-LoRaWAN communicationlink,” id. at 60—61 (citing
`
`Ex. 1005 (Cahill) § 91; Ex. 1002 (Dumas Decl.) {J 191-192). Petitioner
`
`submits that the combination of Cahill and Derosdiscloses limitation [1f]:
`
`“receive status information from the electronic door lock via the non-
`
`LoRaWAN communication link based on transmission of the command, and
`
`transmit the status information to the property managementplatform for the
`
`multi-family residential or commercial property via the LORaWAN
`
`18
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`communication link,” id. at 61—62 (citing Ex. 1005 (Cahill) 4 58, 61, 64,
`
`65, Figs. 3, 4; Ex. 1002 (DumasDecl.) 49 193-194).
`
`With respect to the motivation to combine Cahill and Deros,
`
`Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill “would have been motivated
`
`to modify Cahill’s smart hub (lock updater 120) to incorporate a LoRa
`
`communication link as taught by Deros.” Pet.39. Petitioner notes that
`
`Cahill discloses a non-exhaustive list of short range and long
`range smart hub communication protocols including “wi-fi, wi-
`fi direct,
`infrared (IR) wireless
`communication,
`satellite
`communication, broadcast radio communication, Microwave
`radio communication, Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE),
`Zigbee, near field communication (NFC), and radio frequency
`(RF) communication, USB, Firewire, Ethernet, etc., but are not
`limited thereto,” to communicate with the ACS.
`(Ex.1005
`4[0046].) Cahill
`also discloses
`lock updater 120 “may
`communicate at frequencies ranging from 0.001 MHz through
`3000 MH, butis not limited thereto.” (Id.)
`
`Pet. 39-40.
`
`Petitioner further notes that “Deros discloses that ‘IOT module 102is
`
`configured to communicate with the enterprise server 106 through a gateway
`
`121 (suchasthe internet) usmg W1-F1, LoRa, 3G, 4G, LTE,Ethernet, or any
`
`suitable wiredor wirelessprotocol.”Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1007 (Deros)
`
`438). Petitioner submits that “LoRa networksuse frequency ranges within
`
`the range expressly disclosed in Cahill of 0.001-3000 MHz, namely
`
`LoRaWAN operates in the Sub-GHzfrequency in North America, ranging
`
`from 902MHz-928MHz.” /d. (citing Ex. 1002 (DumasDecl.) 9] 151-154).
`
`Petitioner contendsthat “[u|sing a known LoRaWAN protocol, as disclosed
`
`in Deros, would be a simple substitution of one long range communication
`
`protocol(e.g., satellite, broadcast radio, and/or microwave) for another and
`
`would obtain predictable results of wide area long range communications,
`
`19
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`just like with satellite, broadcast radio, and/or microwave communication
`
`protocols.” /d. at 40-41 (Ex. 1002 (DumasDecl.) 4 155). Petitioner further
`
`contendsthat using LoRaWan “would involve applying a knowntechnique
`
`(use ofLoRa) to a knowndevice (a smart hub with long range
`
`communication abilities) ready for improvementto yield predictable results
`
`of low power, long range communication abilities under a knownstandard
`
`of LoRa.” Jd. at41 (citing Ex. 1002 (Dumas Decl.) 4 155).
`
`Wefind that Petitioner has shownsufficiently that the combination of
`
`Cahill and Deros accounts for the limitations of claim 1, and that Petitioner
`
`has shown a motivation to combine Cahill and Deros. Patent Ownerraises
`
`several arguments why claim 1 would not have been obviousover the
`
`combination of Cahill and Deros. We consider them each in turn.
`
`1.
`
`“property managementplatform”
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthat the combination of Cahill and Derosfails to
`
`accountfor the “property managementplatform”recited in limitation [1d].
`
`Prelim. Resp. 21—28. Patent Ownercontendsthe ’118 patent “is clear that
`
`“property management’ functionsare additional functionality above and
`
`beyond‘security’ functions.” /d. at 23 (citing Ex. 1001 (7118 patent), 8:48,
`
`9:9). Patent Ownerfurther contends “Petitioner has not shown how [the
`
`priorart it relies on] discloses the ‘property management’ aspect ofthe
`
`claimed ‘property managementplatform,’” because, according to Patent
`
`Owner, “Cahill relates solely to security.” /d. Patent Owneralso arguesthat
`
`the Petition is unclear as to what exactly it is mapping to the “property
`
`managementplatform.” /d. at 23-28.
`
`Wefind that Petitioner has shownsufficiently that the combination of
`
`Cahill and Deros accounts for the claimed “property managementplatform.”
`
`20
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`To begin with, on this record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention
`
`that the “property managementplatform”requires additional functionality
`
`above and beyondsecurity functions. Prelim. Resp. 22—23. Patent Owner
`
`provides no constructionfor the term orsufficient justification for limiting
`
`the term in the manner proposed.
`
`/d. In particular, we do not believe, on
`
`this record, that the references in the specification to “security and property
`
`management”justifies reading additional required functionality into the term
`
`“property managementplatform.”
`
`AsPetitioner explains, Cahill discloses that signals and information
`
`are communicated to and from Access Control System (ACS) 110/210 and
`
`lock updater 120/220 via wired or wireless network. Pet. 58 (citing
`
`Ex. 1005 (Cahill), Figs. 2, 3, 99] 65, 71, 72, 91, 95). Petitioner explains that
`
`such signals and information include “information regarding each of the
`
`plurality of offline locks 130... , commandsto controlthe offline locks
`
`130, status types of the offline locks....” /d. (Ex. 1005 (Cahill) 958). Patent
`
`Owner’s argumentsthat Petitioner’s mapping is “unclear” are also
`
`unpersuasive. See Prelim. Resp. 23-24. Wecan readily discern that the
`
`property managementplatform is mapped to ACS 110/220 of Cahill, and
`
`find Cahill sufficiently clear and Mr. Dumas’s testimony understandable.
`
`See Ex. 1002 (DumasDecl.) J] 95, 187. Thus, wefind this sufficient, at this
`
`stage of the proceeding, to show that, at least, Cahill accounts forthis
`
`limitation.
`
`2.
`
`“LoRaWAN”
`
`Patent Owner contendsPetitioner (1) fails to explain why a POSITA
`
`would have been motivated to combine Cahill and Deros to include
`
`LoRaWAN and(2) cannot show that Derosdiscloses the LARaWAN
`
`21
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00059
`Patent 11,189,118 B2
`
`limitation. Prelim. Resp. 28-37. With respect to the motivation to combine,
`
`Patent Ownerasserts that Petitioner’s substitution theory rests on a “false
`
`premise.” /d. at 30. Patent Ownercontendsthat “Cahill’s listing ofsatellite,
`
`broadcast radio, and microwaveis nothing more than a disclosure of
`
`different frequency bands,”and “[t]hey are not types of ‘protocols,’ as
`
`Petitioner’s ‘simple substitution’ theory assumes.” /d. Wedisagree. Patent
`
`Owneris correct that some of the things listed in the passage do not appear
`
`to be protocols, but, at least several of them are, including the well-known
`
`wi-fi and Bluetooth protocols.
`
`Patent Owneralso arguesthat, “[r]egardless, Petitioner’s “simple
`
`substitution’ theory also fails becauseit is not substantiated with evidence
`
`and reasoning.” /d. Patent Ownerasserts that “Petitioner does not
`
`demonstrate or explain why it would have beena‘simple’ substitution to
`
`modify Cahill’s system by employing a LORaWAN mn placeofsatellite,
`
`broadcastradio, and/or microwavetransmissions.” /d. We do notfind this
`
`contention persuasive. Der
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
