PTAB

IPR2014-00751

Hart Communication Foundation v. Sipco LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Monitoring and Controlling Remote Devices
  • Brief Description: The ’661 patent discloses a system for monitoring and controlling remote devices, such as sensors and actuators, in a geographically dispersed area. The system uses a hierarchical network of wireless transceivers that collect data and relay it through at least one gateway to a central computer connected to a wide area network (WAN).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation/Obviousness over a Core Bristol Babcock System - Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 12, and 13 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 or, alternatively, obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Enterprise Server CM in view of Network 3000 CUG.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Enterprise Server CM (Enterprise Server Configuration Manual, June 1992) and Network 3000 CUG (Network 3000 Communications Users Guide, Feb. 1993).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Enterprise Server CM and Network 3000 CUG manuals describe components of a single, integrated Bristol Babcock industrial control system and should be treated as a single reference. This combined reference allegedly discloses all elements of the challenged claims. Specifically, it describes a hierarchical (tree-structure) network of remote nodes (transceivers) for data collection from sensors, a central VAX computer (server) running Enterprise Server software to store and format data for retrieval, and top-level nodes acting as gateways. The system uses a polling protocol (BSAP) where data, including node identification, is passed up the hierarchy. The central computer is connectable to a WAN via dedicated line modems, and remote workstations can access the data.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 ground): As an alternative to the single-reference anticipation argument, Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine these references because they describe products from the same family (Bristol Babcock) that were designed to work together as a cohesive system. The Enterprise Server CM manual explicitly lists the Network 3000 CUG as related documentation for users.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 ground): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the components were commercially available products from the same manufacturer designed for integration.

Ground 2: Obviousness with Addition of Wireless Telemetry - Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 12, and 13 are obvious over Enterprise Server CM and Network 3000 CUG in view of Greeves.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Enterprise Server CM, Network 3000 CUG, and Greeves ("SCADA Uses Radio to Bridge the Gap," Sensor Review, 1994).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the base system disclosed by Enterprise Server CM and Network 3000 CUG. Petitioner argued that Greeves supplies the express teaching of using wireless radio links between remote nodes in a SCADA system, a feature of the challenged claims. Greeves describes a large-scale SCADA system with a central station linked by land lines to gateways, where each gateway communicates with its cluster of "outstations" via radio. Greeves specifically identifies a Bristol Babcock Network 3000 RTU in its example system. This teaching allegedly renders obvious the use of wireless retransmission between the claimed "transceivers."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Greeves with the base system because Greeves explicitly discusses the benefits of radio telemetry (cost, efficiency) in the context of SCADA systems and identifies Bristol Babcock as a "market leader" in this technology. This provided a strong motivation to apply the known technique of radio communication, as taught by Greeves, to the wired Bristol Babcock system described in the other references to achieve a well-understood improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable, as applying radio links to SCADA systems was a known and established practice for replacing wired connections at the time.

Ground 3: Obviousness with Addition of Internet Connectivity - Claims 3, 8, and 14 are obvious over the primary combination in view of Open BSI UM or Günter.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Enterprise Server CM, Network 3000 CUG, and either Open BSI UM (Open Bristol System Interface Utilities Manual, July 1998) or Günter ("Virtual Private Networks over the Internet," white paper, Aug. 1998).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: These grounds address claims requiring the WAN to be the Internet and for gateways to translate data into TCP/IP. Petitioner asserted that Open BSI UM teaches connecting a network of Bristol Babcock RTUs to the Internet using a TCP/IP connection and describes mixed networks where a top-level IP node communicates with a sub-network using the native BSAP protocol. This discloses the claimed translation into TCP/IP. Similarly, Günter teaches the general principle of replacing expensive leased lines and dial-up access with connections over the Internet using the TCP/IP stack.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Open BSI UM or Günter to gain the known benefits of using the public Internet for WAN connectivity, such as increased system flexibility, simplified peer-to-peer communications, and significant cost reductions compared to dedicated lines. Open BSI UM specifically addresses applying IP technology to the same type of Bristol Babcock nodes used in the primary references.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success, as using TCP/IP over the Internet for remote data access was a well-established and growing trend for industrial control systems.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Enterprise OM to explicitly teach control of remote actuators (claims 9-11), and combining Kantronics to teach the modification of a transmitter to include a GPS receiver (claim 4).

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-14 of Patent 7,468,661 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.