PTAB

CBM2014-00155

OPower Inc v. WeiSE Leslie

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Coordinated Energy Resource Generation
  • Brief Description: The ’245 patent relates to a system for reducing energy consumption by aggregating consumer energy use data and providing feedback to consumers regarding their consumption relative to others in a group. The system uses computing and communication devices to analyze and compile energy management acts to generate a tradable "energy resource."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-4 and 6-16 are obvious over Murray.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Murray (Patent 8,176,095).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Murray, which discloses a system for collecting, comparing, and displaying power resource usage data in social network environments, teaches all limitations of the challenged claims. Independent claim 1 recites a system comprising a computing device, a two-way communication device, an information retrieval device, an analysis device, and a compiling device. Petitioner contended that Murray discloses these elements respectively as a "data downloader/report generator," an interactive "dashboard," "resource usage monitoring devices," a "post processing module," and a "processor." Murray's system provides users with consumption data and reduction goals, which Petitioner equated to the claimed "energy resource," and includes features like providing "Tips for maintaining low electricity use," which meets the "advice" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground relied on a single reference.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): This ground relied on a single reference.

Ground 2: Claim 5 is obvious over Murray in view of Con Edison.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Murray (Patent 8,176,095) and Con Edison (a 2008 callable load study).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claim 5, which adds the limitation that the acts of energy management comprise "energy use shifting." Petitioner asserted that Murray discloses the base system of claim 1. The Con Edison reference, a study on demand response (DR) programs, was introduced to teach the specific energy management technique of shifting loads. Con Edison explicitly discusses achieving "substantial benefits by increasing overall market and system efficiency through shifting loads from high priced periods to periods with lower prices." Petitioner argued this directly teaches the "energy use shifting" limitation of claim 5.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Murray’s energy monitoring and social feedback platform with the well-known energy management technique of load shifting taught by Con Edison. The motivation was to enhance the effectiveness of Murray's system by incorporating a proven method for reducing peak system loads and achieving predictable cost savings for consumers.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as combining a data feedback system with an established load management technique was a predictable application of known principles to achieve a known goal.

Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 13-14 are obvious over Brewster in view of Con Edison.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Brewster (Patent 7,142,949) and Con Edison (a 2008 callable load study).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Brewster, which discloses an "energy service infrastructure" for managing distributed generation (DG) systems, teaches most limitations of independent claims 1 and 13. Brewster’s system includes a computing device ("microprocessor"), a two-way communication device ("network operations center"), and methods for aggregating and controlling energy assets to perform peak load reduction. Petitioner contended the primary element missing from Brewster was the specific limitation of providing "advice on ways to increase the level of consumption reduction." This element was allegedly supplied by Con Edison, which teaches providing "materials and methods to assist organizations in identifying the ways in which they can reduce their load during peak periods."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would be motivated to integrate the advisory methods from Con Edison into Brewster's DG management and user interface. This addition would enhance Brewster’s system by educating users on how to contribute to load reduction, thereby improving the overall effectiveness and achieving the system's stated goals of minimizing energy costs and managing peak demand.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Incorporating advisory content into an existing user interface like that in Brewster was a simple, common-sense modification that would have yielded predictable improvements in user engagement and system performance.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claims 1-16 as being directed to an ineligible abstract idea and under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for claims 1 and 13 as being indefinite.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • “energy management”: Petitioner proposed this term be construed as “energy reduction ... used to manage the demands for energy consumption.” This construction was argued to be consistent with the specification and was used to map prior art teaching specific reduction techniques onto the broader claim language.
  • “advice”: Petitioner proposed this term be construed as providing “ways to increase the level of consumption reduction by an individual or group.” This construction was central to the argument for combining Brewster with Con Edison, which explicitly taught providing such methods.
  • “energy resource”: Petitioner proposed a construction that “includes both ‘[d]emand response’ and ‘energy generation’.” This broad interpretation supported Petitioner's arguments that prior art related to either demand management or distributed generation was relevant to the claims.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of a Covered Business Method (CBM) review and cancellation of claims 1-16 of the ’245 patent as unpatentable.