PTAB

IPR2020-00946

Google LLC v. EcoFactor Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Calculating Operational Efficiency of an HVAC System
  • Brief Description: The ’497 patent discloses a system for improving HVAC efficiency by using a server to analyze inside temperature, outside temperature, and other factors. The system calculates rates of temperature change when the HVAC is 'on' and 'off' to predict a building's thermal characteristics and performance.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 are anticipated by Ehlers.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ehlers (Patent 6,216,956).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ehlers, which teaches an "environmental condition control and energy management system," discloses every limitation of the challenged independent claims. Ehlers allegedly teaches a system with processors that calculates an "operational efficiency factor" for an HVAC system. The system receives indoor temperature measurements from a thermostat-like unit, stores this data over time in a storage function, and receives outside temperature measurements from external sources like a weather service. Petitioner contended that Ehlers explicitly teaches calculating the "average thermal degree gain or loss per unit of time" (rate of change when HVAC is 'off') and the "average thermal recovery time per degree" (rate of change when HVAC is 'on'), and further teaches relating these calculations to external temperature to improve efficiency. For dependent claims 4 and 10, Ehlers was alleged to teach communication with an electricity meter.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 4-7, and 10-12 are obvious over Ehlers in view of Barnard.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ehlers (Patent 6,216,956) and Barnard (Patent 4,660,759).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that while Ehlers taught the general concept of calculating rates of temperature change, it did not disclose a specific method for doing so. Barnard remedies this alleged deficiency by teaching a specific technique for calculating "optimum start/stop" times for HVAC systems based on temperature "drift rates"—the rate of change of temperature when the system is 'on' and 'off'. Barnard provides an explicit equation for this calculation (e.g., ΔT/Δt) and teaches relating this rate to outside temperature. Petitioner asserted that combining Barnard's specific calculation method with Ehlers's comprehensive energy management framework would have been obvious. For the "database" limitation of claim 1, Petitioner argued that even if Ehlers's "storage function" is not considered a formal database, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement it using a standard commercial or relational database for its known benefits of advanced storage and retrieval.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Ehlers and Barnard because both operate in the same field of HVAC energy management with the shared goal of conserving energy while maintaining comfort. Ehlers taught a system that uses setback and recovery schedules, and Barnard provided a well-known technique (optimum start/stop) to improve the efficiency of precisely those schedules. Implementing Barnard's specific calculations would allow Ehlers's system to achieve its stated goals more effectively.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references, as the art was predictable and Barnard's technique was a known, suitable method for improving the type of system disclosed in Ehlers.

Ground 3: Claims 2-3 and 8-9 are obvious over Ehlers and Barnard, in further view of Rosen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ehlers (Patent 6,216,956), Barnard (Patent 4,660,759), and Rosen (Patent 6,789,739).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims requiring more specific functionality. Claims 2 and 8 require receiving outside temperatures for "geographic regions based on ZIP codes." Claims 3 and 9 require communicating with the HVAC system "using the Internet." Petitioner argued that while Ehlers taught receiving "localized" weather data, it did not specify the method. Rosen allegedly supplies this missing detail by teaching a thermostat that obtains location-specific weather data from a service over the Internet by providing a ZIP code. Similarly, while Ehlers taught communication over a generic "data link," Rosen explicitly disclosed using the Internet for its state-of-the-art availability and accessibility.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to implement the "localized" weather data feature of Ehlers would have naturally looked for a known, simple method. Rosen provided such a method by using ZIP codes, a common and familiar way to specify location. Similarly, a POSITA implementing Ehlers's "data link" in the relevant timeframe would have found it obvious to use the Internet, as taught by Rosen, for its ubiquity and reliability in connecting remote digital systems.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in integrating Rosen's use of ZIP codes and the Internet into the Ehlers system, as these were common, predictable technologies for achieving the functions already contemplated by Ehlers.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed that the claim term "HVAC system" (and its longer variant) should be construed to mean "devices for transferring heat into or out of a building." This construction was argued to be consistent with the patent's specification, which describes HVAC units as including conventional air conditioners, heat pumps, or other similar devices.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’497 patent as unpatentable.