PTAB

IPR2017-01932

Unified Patents Inc. v. FIRST CLASS MONITORING, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method for Transmitting Data Using a Digital Control Channel of a Wireless Network
  • Brief Description: The ’089 patent describes a method for two-way data transmission for telemetry applications using conventional Short Message Service (SMS) protocols over a wireless network’s control channel, such as a Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) network. The invention covers a remote "access point" requesting data from a "data collection unit," which then compiles and transmits the requested data back to the access point via SMS.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Unpatentability of Claims 1-10 and 16-22 over Serbetciouglu

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Serbetciouglu (Patent 5,719,918).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that all challenged claims are either anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 or rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 by Serbetciouglu. The core argument rests on two primary modes of operation disclosed in Serbetciouglu, which allegedly map directly to the claimed method.
    • Prior Art Mapping: Serbetciouglu disclosed a system with a central Transaction Handling System (THS) and a remote terminal that exchange data via SMS messages over a GSM network. Petitioner argued this system meets all limitations of independent claims 1 and 7.
      • In a first mode, the terminal (acting as the claimed "access point") sends a data request to the THS (acting as the "data collection unit"), which then compiles and returns the requested data.
      • In a second mode, the roles are reversed: the THS ("access point") requests data from the terminal ("data collection unit"), which collects data from attached devices (e.g., utility meters) and transmits it back.
      • Petitioner asserted that Serbetciouglu's disclosure of using conventional SMS over a network's signaling (control) channel for these bi-directional communications teaches every step of the challenged independent claims. Dependent claims were allegedly met by Serbetciouglu's incorporation of the full GSM standard (which uses SDCCH and SACCH channels for SMS, meeting claims 3 and 4) and its teachings of collecting data from utility meters and accelerometers (meeting claims 5, 17, and 18).
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): To the extent any limitation was viewed as not explicitly disclosed, Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Serbetciouglu’s teachings with well-known telemetry and SMS standards. For example, for claim 6 (date/time stamping), a POSITA would be motivated to add a conventional time stamp to telemetry data to permit correlation and analysis, a known method with predictable results. The general motivation was to implement Serbetciouglu’s system using the very GSM standards it incorporates by reference to ensure functionality and interoperability.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the arguments rely on implementing Serbetciouglu’s disclosed system using conventional, standardized components and known telemetry techniques, which would yield predictable results.

Ground 2: Unpatentability of Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 18, and 20 over Lahtinen

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lahtinen (Patent 5,351,235).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner asserted that Lahtinen, which predates the ’089 patent, discloses the same fundamental invention of using SMS for telemetry and therefore anticipates or renders obvious the challenged claims.
    • Prior Art Mapping: Lahtinen taught a system for exchanging data between two terminals via SMS messages over the signaling channel of a GSM network. Petitioner argued this directly maps to the claims: a first terminal ("access point") sends an "information request" via SMS to a second terminal ("data collection unit"). The second terminal then automatically fetches the requested data (e.g., from memory, an information system, or a sensor) and transmits it back as an SMS reply.
      • Lahtinen provided specific telemetry examples, such as automatically inquiring about the amount of oil in a tank using a sensor, which Petitioner equated to the method of the ’089 patent. This bi-directional SMS communication for data retrieval was argued to meet all limitations of independent claims 1 and 7.
      • Dependent claims were allegedly met by Lahtinen’s explicit use of the GSM standard (teaching the use of control channels like SDCCH/SACCH) and its disclosure of sensing analog data (oil level), converting it to digital for SMS transmission, and processing it.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to apply Lahtinen's teachings to the specific applications recited in the dependent claims. For instance, since Lahtinen taught using its system to monitor heating oil levels to optimize distribution, it would have been obvious to apply the same method to other types of utility meter information (claim 18) for the same purpose of reducing labor costs and improving efficiency.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success in applying Lahtinen’s methods, as it involved using a standard communication protocol (SMS) for its intended purpose of data transmission in a well-understood application (telemetry).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "access point": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a device capable of transmitting or receiving data over a network." This broad construction was based on the specification's generic description of a "remote device" and was critical for mapping either the THS or the terminal in Serbetciouglu to this role.
  • "data collection unit": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a device capable of collecting or receiving data." This construction was based on the specification describing the unit as collecting data from various sources. This broad interpretation allowed Petitioner to map whichever device was responding to a data request (e.g., the THS or the terminal) to this claimed element.
  • "automatically collecting data": Petitioner proposed this term mean "collecting data without an individual manually entering the data." This construction was derived from the prosecution history, where applicants added the term to distinguish over prior art requiring manual data entry.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-10 and 16-22 of Patent 6,014,089 as unpatentable.