PTAB

IPR2016-00161

AlARmCom Inc v. Vivint Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Electronic Message Delivery System Utilizable in the Monitoring of Remote Equipment and Method of Same
  • Brief Description: The ’654 patent describes systems for monitoring remote equipment, such as HVAC systems. An interface unit connected to the equipment communicates with a remote computer server, which sends notifications to user-specified devices based on a configurable message profile if an abnormality is detected or if a periodic status message is not received.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 9-14 and 27 over Shetty, Garton, and Levac

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shetty (Patent 5,808,907), Garton (Patent 5,134,644), and Levac (Patent 6,034,970).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Shetty disclosed the core architecture of the challenged claims, including an "information manager" (interface unit) on a remote machine that sends event signals to a remote "data manager" (computer server). Shetty's server compares these events against a user profile to determine if and how a user should be notified via devices like email or a pager. Petitioner contended that to the extent Shetty did not explicitly teach remote configuration of these profiles over a network like the Internet, Levac supplied this teaching. Levac described a message server that receives message files remotely (e.g., via TCP/IP) which define notification triggers and destination devices, analogous to Shetty’s user profile. Finally, Petitioner asserted that Garton disclosed the claimed "message generating mechanism," specifically the multiplexer component, by teaching a "relay" in a control processor that selectively routes output between different communication paths, such as a radio modem or a telephone line.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Levac with Shetty to implement the well-known benefit of remote user access and configuration, a natural extension of Shetty's customizable user profiles. Levac provided a detailed implementation for this functionality. Garton would be combined to add communication redundancy, a known and desirable feature for improving the reliability of a remote monitoring system, by providing a choice of communication paths.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying known technologies (remote configuration, communication path switching) for their intended purposes to achieve predictable results and improve a known system type.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 15-26 and 28 over Shetty, Garton, Levac, and Britton

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shetty (Patent 5,808,907), Garton (Patent 5,134,644), Levac (Patent 6,034,970), and Britton (Patent 6,040,770).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Ground 1 and addressed claims requiring the generation of "normal status messages" to confirm system integrity and the generation of an alert if such messages are not received. Petitioner argued that Britton supplied this teaching. Britton disclosed a "communication path integrity supervision system" where a remote "premise panel" sends periodic "check-in" messages to a central monitoring station. If the central station fails to receive a scheduled check-in message, it generates an "alert" signal. Petitioner asserted this directly maps to the claimed functionality of monitoring for a lack of a normal status message and generating an exception message in response. The combination of Shetty, Levac, and Garton provided the other system elements, as argued in Ground 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Britton's teachings into the Shetty system to solve the well-known problem of distinguishing between a silent system (due to no alarm events) and a failed system (due to a communication link failure). Britton's "check-in" system provided a direct and known solution to improve the reliability of the monitoring system described by Shetty. This combination was argued to be a straightforward application of a known integrity-monitoring technique to a known remote alert system.
    • Expectation of Success: Implementing a periodic "heartbeat" or "check-in" message as taught by Britton into the event-based system of Shetty was a simple and predictable modification for a POSITA seeking to enhance system reliability.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "[M]message profile containing outgoing message routing instructions" (claims 9-28): Petitioner proposed the construction "information identifying a communications device or devices to receive an outgoing message from the computer server." This construction was argued to be consistent with the specification's description of the profile as a list of who to contact and by what means, without being limited to other details like exception type.
  • "[M]message generating mechanism" (claims 9-28): Petitioner argued this term should be treated as a means-plus-function term under §112, ¶ 6.
    • Function: Generating and forwarding messages.
    • Corresponding Structure: "CPU 804, multiplexer 805, and radio 801," where the CPU executes an algorithm to generate and format the message for transmission. This construction was central to mapping Garton's "relay" to the claimed "multiplexer."
  • "[M]eans for comparing the normal status memory with the main list..." (claims 16 & 24): Petitioner identified this as a means-plus-function term.
    • Function: Comparing a list of expected check-ins with actual check-ins to identify units that failed to communicate a normal status message within a set time.
    • Corresponding Structure: A CPU on the computer server executing a "missing message subroutine" as described in the specification.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the grounds in this petition were not cumulative of the grounds stated in a co-pending petition, IPR2015-02003. It was asserted that the prior petition relied primarily on a different reference (Scadaware) which disclosed the claimed limitations differently and with varying levels of detail compared to the primary reference in this petition (Shetty).

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 9-28 of the ’654 patent as unpatentable.