PTAB

IPR2015-00663

Fieldcomm Group v. Sipco LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wireless Communication Networks For Providing Remote Monitoring Of Devices
  • Brief Description: The ’511 patent discloses a wireless network designed for monitoring and controlling remote devices. The system comprises multiple wireless transceivers, each assigned a unique identifier, which can receive sensor data, transmit data messages, and function as repeaters to extend network range. The network architecture also includes site controllers that receive these data messages, parse them, and route the information to a host computer via a wide area network (WAN).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 6-11, 27-47, and 51-64 are obvious over Kantronics in view of AX.25 Protocol and Ultrix under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kantronics (a 1997 user guide for a terminal node controller), AX.25 Protocol (a 1984 amateur packet-radio protocol specification), and Ultrix (a 1987 technical report).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these references taught every limitation of the challenged claims. Kantronics was asserted to disclose an automated remote monitoring system using packet radio transceivers, known as Terminal Node Controllers (TNCs), to communicate signals and sensor data. Petitioner mapped the claimed "plurality of wireless transceivers" to the TNCs in Kantronics and the "unique identifiers" to the source and destination addresses used by the system. The AX.25 Protocol, which Kantronics explicitly incorporates, was cited to teach the claimed "predefined wireless communication protocol," including the format of data packets ("frames") containing address fields, control information, and a data field for the sensor signal. AX.25 Protocol also explicitly described the use of repeaters to forward messages beyond the range of the originating station, meeting limitations related to receiving and transmitting a "repeated data message." Finally, Petitioner contended that Ultrix taught how to connect an AX.25 packet radio network to a host computer on an IP-based WAN through a gateway. This combination allegedly disclosed the claimed "site controller" configured to receive messages and provide information to a host computer via a WAN.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references because they all address the same field of AX.25 packet radio networks. Kantronics provides a specific implementation for remote monitoring, AX.25 Protocol provides the underlying communication standard it uses, and Ultrix provides a known method for bridging such a network to a modern IP network. The combination was presented as a commonsense amalgamation of complementary features: adding the IP-bridging capability of Ultrix to the remote monitoring system of Kantronics to enable control and data analysis from a host computer on a WAN.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because the combination involved integrating known systems for their intended and well-understood purposes. Combining a packet radio system (Kantronics) with a standard protocol (AX.25 Protocol) and a known gateway technology (Ultrix) was a predictable application of existing technologies.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner presented proposed constructions for several key terms, aligning with a claim construction order from a related district court case, to support its obviousness arguments.
  • "unique identifier": Construed as "an identifier suitable to identify one from another." This construction allowed Petitioner to map the term to the source and destination addresses disclosed in the AX.25 Protocol.
  • "repeated data message": Construed as "a message transmitted from the repeater containing the sensor data signal from the original data message and the unique identifier corresponding to the repeater." This supported the argument that the prior art's repeater function, which forwarded original message contents, met the claim limitation.
  • "site controller": Construed as "a device that manages and relays data between the wireless transceivers and the wide area network." This construction enabled Petitioner to map the term to the combination of a local TNC from Kantronics and the IP gateway functionality from Ultrix.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-4, 6-11, 27-47, and 51-64 of Patent 7,103,511 as unpatentable.