PTAB

IPR2016-01911

SecureNet Technologies LLC v. iControl Networks Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Forming a Security Network Including Integrated Security System Components and Network Devices
  • Brief Description: The ’844 patent discloses integrated security systems capable of being remotely accessed and controlled. The technology involves a gateway at a user's location that discovers and integrates various security components (e.g., sensors) and network devices (e.g., cameras) into a unified security network, which can be monitored and controlled via a remote security server.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 6-17, and 21 are obvious over Wimsatt in view of Johnson and Severson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wimsatt (Application # 2004/0260427), Johnson (Patent 6,580,950), and Severson (Patent 4,951,029).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these references taught every limitation of the challenged claims. Wimsatt disclosed a home automation system with a central control panel (the claimed "gateway") capable of discovering and integrating various co-located devices, including a security system and IP cameras, over a local area network (LAN). However, Wimsatt did not explicitly teach remote access via a dedicated security server or the automatic discovery of individual security sensors. Johnson addressed the remote access limitation by disclosing an internet-based system where a homeowner can monitor and control home systems from a distant location via a remote data center (the claimed "security server"). Severson addressed the sensor discovery limitation by teaching a security system controller that automatically "self-learns" newly-added sensors without human intervention. Petitioner contended that combining Johnson's remote server with Wimsatt's gateway, and further incorporating Severson's sensor auto-discovery, rendered the method of independent claim 1 obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Johnson with Wimsatt to satisfy the known and growing need for remote monitoring and control of home systems, an improvement Johnson explicitly provided. Wimsatt's control panel was already internet-connected, making the integration straightforward. A POSITA would incorporate Severson's "self-learn" feature to improve Wimsatt's system by simplifying the installation process for security sensors and reducing the likelihood of installer error, a predictable improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making these combinations. Integrating a remote server for internet-based control was a known design choice, and implementing auto-discovery protocols like those in Severson was a well-understood method for streamlining device integration in network environments.

Ground 2: Claims 18-20, 23-24, and 41 are obvious over Wimsatt in view of Johnson, Severson, and Naidoo.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wimsatt (Application # 2004/0260427), Johnson (Patent 6,580,950), Severson (Patent 4,951,029), and Naidoo (Application # 2003/0062997).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1, adding Naidoo to teach the transmission of specific event data to a central monitoring station. Claims 18 and 20 require transmitting event data from security components and network devices to a central monitoring station. Petitioner argued that Naidoo explicitly taught this functionality, disclosing a security gateway that, upon an alarm event, sends a notification—which may include alarm video—to a central monitoring station. This directly mapped to the claimed limitation of sending combined sensor and device (e.g., camera) data.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Naidoo's teachings with the Wimsatt/Johnson/Severson system to enhance its security capabilities. Naidoo explained that providing both sensor alarm data and video data to a central station allows an operator to quickly verify if an alarm is real, thereby improving first-responder response times and reducing false alarms. This provided a clear motivation to add this verification functionality to the base system.
    • Expectation of Success: Implementing this feature would have been predictable. The base system already established communication channels between the gateway, the remote server, and a monitoring station (via Johnson). Transmitting additional data types like video over these established internet-based channels was a routine task for a POSITA.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claim 22, adding Anthony (Application # 2003/0137426) to the combination of Wimsatt, Johnson, Severson, and Naidoo to teach the use of a General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) coupling as the communication channel.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 6-24, and 41 of the ’844 patent as unpatentable.