PTAB

IPR2016-00741

ADT LLC v. Script Security Solutions LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Portable security alarm system with remote security administration system
  • Brief Description: The ’091 patent discloses a security network comprising a portable alarm system (with wireless sensors and a local receiver) and a remote security administration system. The remote system is programmed to respond to security alerts from the portable system and can also provide non-security information, such as governmental alerts or commercial advertising, to the local receiver for display.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Script - Claim 2 is obvious over Script.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Script (Application # 2003/0020611).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Script, a prior published application from the same inventors as the ’091 patent, discloses every element of challenged claim 2. Script explicitly teaches a security network with a remote administration system and a portable alarm system having a wireless receiver and wireless movement detectors. It also discloses that the remote computer host is programmed to respond to security alerts from the portable system.
    • For the final limitation—being programmed to provide information like governmental alerts or "commercial information"—Petitioner contended that an embodiment in Script for "industrial process monitoring" meets this requirement. In that embodiment, a remote host sends "response instructions" or a "customized message" back to the local receiver. Petitioner asserted this constitutes "commercial information" under the Patent Owner's own broad construction used in parallel district court litigation, which encompasses information related to commerce such as news, sports, and weather.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued that although Script does not explicitly use the industrial monitoring sensor with the main security network, a POSITA would find it obvious to do so. The necessary infrastructure (receiver, remote host, communication links) is already disclosed, and adding another type of sensor for monitoring would be a predictable and simple modification.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because Script’s system already used unique identifiers to distinguish between different security sensors, meaning adding an industrial sensor would require no significant system modification.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Script in view of Peterson - Claim 2 is obvious over Script in view of Peterson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Script (Application # 2003/0020611), Peterson (WO 98/49663).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to Ground 1, specifically addressing the final limitation of providing non-security information. Petitioner argued that Script teaches all elements of claim 2 except for the explicit disclosure of providing governmental security alerts or commercial information. Peterson was cited to supply this missing element.
    • Peterson discloses a security system with a controller that displays information unrelated to security, including "news, sports, business information, stock market quotes, weather, etc." Peterson further teaches providing a "weather advisory" or school closing notices, which Petitioner contended satisfies the claim limitation of "security alert notifications from a governmental agency," as weather alerts originate from agencies like the National Weather Service. This information directly maps to the claim’s requirements for commercial and governmental information.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Peterson’s information display features with Script’s system to enhance its value. Script’s system already included a local receiver with an LCD display and was based on a "subscriber" model for multiple users. A POSITA would have recognized that adding Peterson's data features (e.g., news, weather, sports) would be a valuable add-on service, creating an additional revenue stream for a subscription-based security product.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success would be expected, as combining the references would be a routine task. Since the receiver in Script already connected to a remote host and displayed downloaded information, a POSITA would find it straightforward to modify the host's software to download and display additional, publicly available information from the internet as taught by Peterson.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "commercial information": Petitioner argued that the Board should adopt the Patent Owner's own broad construction from related litigation. In that litigation, Patent Owner contended that "commercial information" was not limited to advertisements but also included "news, sports, traffic, and weather." This construction was critical for Petitioner's argument in Ground 1, as it allowed "response instructions" from Script's industrial embodiment to be classified as commercial.
  • Means-Plus-Function Terms: Petitioner asserted that "a wireless receiver means" and "wireless movement detecting and signal transmitting means" are means-plus-function terms under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6. The corresponding structures disclosed in the ’091 patent were identified as receiver 30 and movement detecting means 20, respectively. Since Script discloses the exact same structures, Petitioner argued these limitations were met.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claim 2 of the ’091 patent as unpatentable.