PTAB

IPR2021-00982

Google LLC v. EcoFactor Inc

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: HVAC Control System
  • Brief Description: The ’983 patent describes a system for controlling a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. The system uses processors to receive data from sensors within a building, data from an external network source, and a user-defined temperature setpoint. Based on this data, it predicts the necessary HVAC operating time to reach the target temperature by a specified time and controls the HVAC system accordingly.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Wedekind and Ehlers - Claims 1-7, 11-23, and 25-26 are obvious over Wedekind in view of Ehlers.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wedekind (Patent 5,197,666) and Ehlers (Patent 6,216,956).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wedekind taught nearly all limitations of the challenged claims. Wedekind disclosed an HVAC control system that used a non-linear efficiency model to predict the optimal start time ("recovery time") for an HVAC system to reach a desired setpoint. This prediction was based on building characteristics (e.g., internal load from sensors), outside temperatures, and a user-provided setpoint schedule. However, Wedekind taught using a physical, on-site sensor to measure the outside temperature. Petitioner asserted that Ehlers remedied this deficiency by teaching an HVAC management system that receives weather data, including outside temperature, from an external source (e.g., a weather service) via a network connection like a phone line or communications link.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references to improve Wedekind’s system. Petitioner contended it was well-known to receive weather data via a network, and doing so would be a simple and predictable substitution for Wedekind’s physical outdoor sensor. This modification would reduce the cost, installation complexity, and potential unreliability associated with physical on-site sensors. Because both references address optimizing HVAC control, a POSITA would naturally look to Ehlers to incorporate a known, superior method for obtaining external temperature data into Wedekind’s predictive model.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as combining a network-based data source with an HVAC controller was a common and predictable implementation with known benefits.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Wedekind, Ehlers, and Jenkins - Claim 10 is obvious over Wedekind and Ehlers in view of Jenkins.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wedekind (Patent 5,197,666), Ehlers (Patent 6,216,956), and Jenkins (Application # 2007/0114295).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Wedekind and Ehlers, which established the use of a network connection for receiving external data. Claim 10 further requires this network connection to be based on the IEEE 802.11 wireless protocol (Wi-Fi). Petitioner argued that Jenkins taught this specific limitation by disclosing an HVAC control system where a thermostat retrieves current weather conditions from the internet via a wireless router using an embedded Wi-Fi card.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA developing the system taught by Wedekind and Ehlers would have been motivated to implement the network connection using a wireless protocol as taught by Jenkins. The primary motivation was to eliminate the need for physical network cables within the building, a well-understood advantage of Wi-Fi technology. This would simplify installation and increase placement flexibility for system components.
    • Expectation of Success: Using a standard wireless protocol like IEEE 802.11 to transmit data to a thermostat was a known and predictable design choice with a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Anticipation by Wedekind - Claims 24 and 27-30 are anticipated by Wedekind.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wedekind (Patent 5,197,666).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Wedekind, by itself, disclosed every element of independent claim 24. Wedekind’s thermostat assembly, with its processing means and registers, was argued to be the claimed "system" with a "processor" and "memory." The processor received "first data" (internal load or inside temperature) from a "first sensor device" (internal sensors). Crucially, Petitioner argued that Wedekind’s "outside 36 air temperature sensors" met the limitation of a "second sensor device located external to the system," which provided the "second data." The system also received a user setpoint, stored all data in memory, predicted the necessary run time based on analyzing this data, and sent operational instructions to control the HVAC system. Dependent claims 27-30 were also allegedly taught by Wedekind’s disclosures regarding storing and analyzing historical data to calculate performance characteristics.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 24 and 27-30 based on Wedekind alone, arguing that to the extent any limitation was not expressly disclosed, it would have been an obvious modification.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under Fintiv. The core arguments were that the merits of the petition are strong and that a parallel proceeding at the International Trade Commission (ITC) was still in its early stages. Furthermore, Petitioner contended that because ITC validity determinations are not binding outside of the ITC, the PTAB remains the only forum that can issue a dispositive validity ruling on the ’983 patent claims, weighing against denial.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-7 and 10-30 of the ’983 patent as unpatentable.