FieldComm Groupv.Sipco, LLC

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2015

09439059 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 13
571-272-7822 Date: August 11, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

FIELDCOMM GROUP,
Petitioner,

v.

SIPCO, LLC,
Patent Owner.

Case IPR2015-00668
Patent 6,437,692 B1

Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.

FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108

IPR2015-00668
Patent 6,437,692 B1

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner, FieldComm Group, filed a Petition to institute an inter
partes review of claims 1–64 of U.S. Patent No. 6,437,692 B1 (“the ’692
patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311(a). Paper 1, “Pet.” Patent Owner,
Sipco, LLC, filed a Preliminary Response pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313.
Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”
We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of the
Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below,
we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable
likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to any claim. See 35
U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we deny the Petition.
A. Related Matters
The parties identify, as related matters, the following lawsuits:
Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO LLC, No 1:13-CV-02528 (N.D. Ga.);
SIPCO, LLC v. ADT Security Services, No 9:11-CV-80521 (S.D. Fla.);
SIPCO, LLC v. ABB, Inc., No 6:11-CV-00048 (E.D. Tex.); SIPCO, LLC v.
Datamativ, Ltd., No 6:09-CV-00532 (E.D. Tex); Silver Spring Networks, Inc
v. SIPCO, LLC, No 1:09-CV-02215 (N.D. Ga.); SIPCO, LLC v. Florida
Power & Light Co., No 1:09-CV-22209 (S.D. Fla.). Pet. 2; Paper 4, 1–2.
The parties also identify, as related matters, petitions filed by Petitioner for
inter partes reviews of related U.S. Patent No. 7,697,492 and U.S. Patent
No. 7,103,511. Pet. 2; Paper 4, 2.
IPR2015-00668
Patent 6,437,692 B1

3
B. The Asserted Ground
Petitioner challenges all claims, 1–64, of the ’692 patent as obvious
over Kantronics (Ex. 1002),
1
AX.25 Protocol (Ex. 1003),
2
and Ultrix
(Ex. 1004).
3
Pet. 4.
C. The ’692 Patent
The ’692 patent “generally relates to remotely operated systems, and
more particularly to a computerized system for monitoring, reporting on, and
controlling remote systems” such as for “manufacturing processes, inventory
systems, and emergency control systems, and the like.” Ex. 1001, 1:25–28,
33–35. It does so “by transferring information signals through a wide area
network (WAN) and using software applications hosted on a connected
server to appropriately process the information.” Ex. 1001, 1:28–31.
A prior art structure for monitoring, reporting on, and controlling
remote systems is illustrated conceptually (via block diagram) in Figure 1,
which is reproduced below.

1
KPC-3 Plus Users Guide: Introduction, Getting Started, Modes of
Operation, Command Reference, and Hardware Specifications (1997).
2
AX.25 Amateur Packet-Radio Link-Layer Protocol, Version 2.0
(Oct. 1984).
3
Clifford Neuman et al., Adding Packet Radio to Ultrix Kernel (1987).
IPR2015-00668
Patent 6,437,692 B1

4

Figure 1 shows a plurality of sensors/actuators 111–117 hardwired to
local controller 110, which in turn is connected to remotely-located central
controller 130 via publicly switched telephone network (PSTN) 120.
Ex. 1001, 5:14–29.
Figure 2 illustrates a block diagram of the invention and is reproduced
below.
IPR2015-00668
Patent 6,437,692 B1

5

Figure 2 shows a plurality of sensors/actuators 212, 214, 216, 222,
and 224 integrated with transceivers, which are preferably low power radio
frequency transceivers. Ex. 1001, 5:45–53. Figure 2 also illustrates stand-
alone transceivers 211, 213, 215, and 221, which can receive and transmit
signals between the integrated transceivers and local gateways 210 and 220.
Id. at 5:54–66. The stand-alone transceivers are dispersed sufficiently to
provide adequate coverage in, for example, an industrial plant. Id. at 6:63–
66. “Local gateways 210 and 220 analyze the transmissions received,
convert the transmissions into TCP/IP format and further communicate the
remote data signal transmissions via WAN 230.” Id. at 6:20–23. Thus, the
IPR2015-00668
Patent 6,437,692 B1

6
gateways “may communicate information, service requests, control signals,
etc. to remote sensor/actuator transceiver combinations 212, 214, 216, 222,
and 224 from server 260, laptop computer 240, and workstation 250 across
WAN 230.” Id. at 6:25–29. Notably, gateways 210 and 220 are connected
to the various computers 240, 250, and 260 via the WAN.
D. The Challenged Claims
Claims 1, 18, 24, 32, 42, 49, 55, and 60 are independent. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A system for remote data collection, assembly, and
storage comprising:
a computer configured to execute at least one computer
program that formats and stores select information for retrieval
upon demand from a remotely located device, said computer
integrated with a wide area network (WAN);
at least one wireless transmitter configured to transmit
select information and transmitter identification information;
a plurality of relatively low-power radio-frequency (RF)
transceivers dispersed geographically at defined locations
configured to receive select information transmitted from at
least one nearby wireless transmitter and further configured to
transmit the select information,
the transmitter identification information and transceiver
identification information; and
at least one gateway connected to the wide area network
configured to receive and translate the select information, the
transmitter identification information,
and transceiver identification information, said gateway
further configured to farther transmit the translated information
to the computer over the WAN.
IPR2015-00668
Patent 6,437,692 B1

7
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
“A claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”
37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Pursuant to that standard, the claim language should
be read in light of the specification, as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260
(Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and
customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning is the meaning that
the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.”)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Petitioner proposes express constructions for four terms, three of
which we discuss below. Pet. 5–6. Patent Owner proposes an alternative
construction for the fourth term—“select information”—but construing this
term is not necessary for purposes of this decision.
1. “wireless transmitter”
Petitioner proposes that this term be construed “as a wireless device
that transmits information.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:65–6:14). This
proposed construction is supported by the relied-upon intrinsic evidence, and
Patent Owner has not opposed the construction. We adopt it.
IPR2015-00668
Patent 6,437,692 B1

8
2. “low-power radio-frequency”
Petitioner proposes that this term be construed “as power having
limited transmission range.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:59–7:16; Ex. 1005
4

¶ 18; Ex. 1006,
5
44). This proposed construction is supported by the relied-
upon intrinsic evidence, and Patent Owner has not opposed the construction.
We adopt it.
3. “transceivers”
Petitioner proposes that this term be construed “as devices that
transmit and/or receive data.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:54–65). This
proposed construction is consistent with the text of the relied-upon intrinsic
evidence, which refers to “transceivers that transmit and/or receive data.”
Ex. 1001, 2:58–59 (emphasis added). But, and although Patent Owner has
not opposed the construction, we do not adopt it because it would cover
devices that merely can transmit data as well as devices that merely can
receive data. The term “transceivers,” as read in light of the specification, as
it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, means devices
capable of both transmitting and receiving data. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:59–62
(“transceivers may relay information”); id. at 3:7–10 (“The system also
includes a plurality of transceivers that act as signal repeaters that are
dispersed throughout the nearby geographic region at defined locations.”).

4
Exhibit 1005 is a declaration of Fred Goldstein.
5
Exhibit 1006 is a claim construction Order from SIPCO, LLC v. ABB, Inc.,
No 6:11-CV-00048 (E.D. Tex.).
IPR2015-00668
Patent 6,437,692 B1

9
B. Analysis of the Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
Petitioner asserts that all claims, i.e., claims 1–64, of the ’692 patent
would have been obvious over Kantronics, AX.25 Protocol, and Ultrix.
Pet. 7.
1. Claims 1–23 and 32–59
Independent claim 1 recites “said computer integrated with a wide
area network (WAN)” and “at least one gateway connected to the wide area
network . . . said gateway further configured to farther transmit the translated
information to the computer over the WAN.” Independent claims 18, 32,
42, 49, and 55 recite similar limitations, which Petitioner has not
distinguished from those of claim 1. See Pet. 40–41, 45–46, 49–50, 52–54,
55–56.
Petitioner asserts it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary
skill in the art to combine hardware disclosed by Kantronics and Ultrix as
depicted in Petitioner’s “combined annotated figure,” which is reproduced
below.
IPR2015-00668
Patent 6,437,692 B1

10

Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1002, 167; Ex. 1004, 2).
Patent Owner argues that the Petition fails to show unpatentability of
claims 1–23 and 32–59 because the proposed combination, even if it would
have been obvious to construct, does not have a WAN between the asserted
gateway and the asserted computer. Prelim. Reps. 31–32.
6

Petitioner’s “combined annotated figure” shows the asserted gateway
(TNC labeled 800 by Petitioner) communicating through a serial connection
with the asserted computer (labeled 900 by Petitioner). Petitioner notes that
the asserted computer would be “further connected to a WAN.” Pet. 15–16

6
Patent Owner advances this argument for all claims, but independent
claims 24 and 60 lack corresponding limitations directed to a WAN.
IPR2015-00668
Patent 6,437,692 B1

11
(citing Ex. 1004, 3 (“One advantage of TCP/IP … is that the user’s computer
becomes part of the network”)). Thus, Petitioner adequately accounts for the
limitation of “said computer integrated with a wide area network (WAN).”
Claim 1, however, also requires a gateway connected to the WAN and
that the gateway is “further configured to farther transmit the translated
information to the computer over the WAN.” Petitioner does not show these
additional limitations of claim 1 or the corresponding limitations of
independent claims 18, 32, 42, 49, and 55.
Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing in showing that any of independent claims 1, 18, 32, 42, 49, and
55, or dependent claims 2–17, 19–23, 33–41, 43–48, 50–54, and 56–59,
would have been obvious over Kantronics, AX.25 Protocol, and Ultrix.
2. Claims 24–31 and 60–64
Each of independent claims 24 and 60 recites “translating the data in
the RF signal into a network transfer protocol” and “translating the control
signal from a network transfer protocol into a RF control signal.” To meet
these limitations, the Petition refers to its analysis of independent claim 1
and dependent claim 12. Pet. 43, 57–58. In doing so, Petitioner relies, in
part, on the prior art’s teaching of converting data from analog to digital and
vice versa. Pet. 21 (quoting Ex. 1002, 19 (“The TNC (Terminal Node
Controller): (1) translates audio signals into digital information and vice
versa.”)). That teaching, however, does not meet the limitations in question.
In addition to the limitations in question, claim 24 additionally recites
“translating the received RF control signal into an analog signal.” Similarly,
claim 60 additionally recites “translating the received RF control signal into
IPR2015-00668
Patent 6,437,692 B1

12
a local controller recognized control signal.” Accordingly, we construe the
other translating limitations to require something beyond digital-to-analog or
analog-to-digital conversion. The specification repeatedly describes
translating received data signals into Transmission Control Protocol/Internet
Protocol (TCP/IP) format for transfer across the WAN. Ex. 1001, 12:9–11,
12:34–38, 13:13–16. It is this translation (and a reverse translation) to
which the limitations in question pertain.
Petitioner does additionally rely on the fact that the Ultrix computer
may be connected to a WAN and asserts that “a person of ordinary skill in
the art would recognize that [the required] information could be relayed over
the WAN as the payload of the TCP/IP communication.” Pet. 21, 34. But,
this asserted translation also does not meet the limitations in question. For
example, claim 24 recites “translating the data in the RF signal into a
network transfer protocol” and then “sending the translated data to a
computer.” (Emphasis added). Thus, the computer must receive data from
the RF signal that is already translated; the computer does not perform the
translating of the RF signal data.
Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing in showing that any of independent claims 24 and 60, or
dependent claims 25–31 and 61–64, would have been obvious over
Kantronics, AX.25 Protocol, and Ultrix.
III. CONCLUSION
The Petition fails to show there is a reasonable likelihood that
Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged
in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
IPR2015-00668
Patent 6,437,692 B1

13
IV. ORDER
Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.
IPR2015-00668
Patent 6,437,692 B1

14
Petitioner:

Alfred Zaher
Alfred.Zaher@bipc.com

Jonathan Bowser
jon.bowser@bipc.com

Shawn Li
shawn.li@bipc.com

Patent Owner:

Gregory Gonsalves
gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com