PTAB

IPR2021-01218

Google LLC v. EcoFactor Inc

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Evaluating Changes in the Operational Efficiency of an HVAC System
  • Brief Description: The ’567 patent discloses a system for evaluating the operational efficiency of an HVAC system over time. The system collects temperature data from inside and outside a structure, derives an estimation for the rate of temperature change, and compares this data over time to determine if efficiency has decreased and suggest a cause for the degradation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 5-7, 15-16, and 19-20 are obvious over Hildebrand in view of Van Ostrand

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hildebrand (Patent 5,729,474) and Van Ostrand (Application # 2005/0159846).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hildebrand taught most elements of the challenged claims, including a system for monitoring HVAC operational efficiency over time. Hildebrand’s system collects indoor and outdoor temperatures, repeatedly computes an efficiency value (equivalent to a rate of change), and compares current and previous values to detect deterioration. However, Petitioner contended Hildebrand did not teach analyzing the changes to suggest a specific cause of degradation. Van Ostrand was introduced to remedy this deficiency, as it taught using the rate of change of inside temperature to diagnose failures of specific components in multi-stage HVAC systems.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Van Ostrand’s diagnostic technique with Hildebrand’s monitoring system. This combination would improve Hildebrand by providing users with more useful information concerning the specific source of a detected efficiency failure, moving beyond a simple maintenance alert.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references described predictable, software-based systems using well-known components in the field of building energy management.

Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 5-7, 15-17, and 19-20 are obvious over Hildebrand and Van Ostrand, in further view of Rosen

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hildebrand (Patent 5,729,474), Van Ostrand (Application # 2005/0159846), and Rosen (Patent 6,789,739).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Hildebrand and Van Ostrand from Ground 1. The incremental teaching was supplied by Rosen, which disclosed an HVAC control system within a programmable thermostat that could obtain outside temperature data from an internet-based weather service provider, localized to a geographic region (e.g., by ZIP code). This contrasted with Hildebrand’s use of a physical, on-site outdoor temperature sensor.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have been motivated to substitute Hildebrand's physical outdoor sensor with Rosen’s internet-based data source to avoid the expense and effort of installing, wiring, and servicing an external hardware sensor. Petitioner asserted this was a simple substitution of one known data source for another to achieve the same result more efficiently.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success was predictable, as network communications and computer programming for such tasks were well-established at the time.

Ground 3: Claims 8-9 and 14 are obvious over Spalink

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Spalink (Application # 2006/0111816).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Spalink taught a system for detecting and correcting anomalous behavior in HVAC systems, directly mapping to the preamble of independent claim 8. Spalink’s system included a central processor connected to multiple different buildings, each with its own local HVAC controller and sensors. The central processor collected performance data (including inside/outside temperatures) from these different structures, compared their relative energy efficiencies over time, identified systemic problems in underperforming buildings, and corrected them by adjusting control parameters or scheduling maintenance. This disclosure was alleged to meet the claim 8 limitation of comparing data between a first and second structure to determine relative efficiency.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): The motivation was inherent in Spalink's disclosure, which explained that comparing the performance of climate control systems in similar buildings is an effective way to identify and correct systemic problems that might not be apparent at a local level.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have expected success in implementing Spalink’s software-based system, which used well-known components and predictable control logic.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Hildebrand and Van Ostrand with Ehlers ’330 (Application # 2004/0117330) to add a networked electricity meter (Ground 3); combining Spalink with Rosen to add internet-based weather data (Ground 5); and combining Spalink with Ehlers ’330 to add a networked electricity meter to the multi-building comparison system (Ground 6).

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The core reasons were that there was no co-pending district court case litigating the ’567 patent’s validity, and the only other proceeding, an ITC investigation, was in its early stages. Petitioner further argued that ITC validity determinations are not binding on other forums and that the merits of the petition were strong, weighing against denial.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 8,019,567 as unpatentable.