Genscape Intangible Holding, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 27, 2020

IPR2019-00189 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2020)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 14
571.272.7822 Date: May 27, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

LIVE POWER INTELLIGENCE COMPANY NA, LLC,
Petitioner,

v.

GENSCAPE INTANGIBLE HOLDING, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2
____________

Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Final Written Decision
Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
35 U.S.C. § 318(a)

IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
We have jurisdiction to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6. This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner has not
shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 9, and 11 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,714,000 B2 (“the ’000 patent”) are unpatentable.
A. Procedural History
Petitioner Live Power Intelligence Company NA, LLC, filed a
Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 9, and 11 of the
’000 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Petitioner also filed the supporting
Declaration of Robert G. Olsen, Ph.D., a technical declarant retained for this
proceeding. Ex. 1007. Patent Owner Genscape Intangible Holding, Inc.,
declined to file a Patent Owner Preliminary Response.
On May 30, 2019, upon consideration of the Petition, applying the
standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we instituted an inter partes review
of all challenged claims on all grounds asserted. Paper 7 (“Dec.”).
In the Scheduling Order, which sets times for taking action in this
proceeding, we cautioned Patent Owner that “any arguments for
patentability not raised in the [Patent Owner] response may be deemed
waived.” Paper 8, 7. Patent Owner declined to file a Patent Owner
Response, and, following a conference call with counsel on January 22,
2020, we determined that there was no need for an oral hearing. Paper 13.
We have before us, therefore, the Petition and no Patent Owner
Response. Nonetheless, Petitioner bears the burden to show, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

3
For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not
shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 9, and 11 of the
’000 patent are unpatentable.
B. Real Parties in Interest
Petitioner identifies Scottsdale Insurance Company as an additional
real party-in-interest. Pet. 1. Patent Owner identifies itself as the real party-
in-interest. Paper 3, 1.
C. Related Proceedings
Petitioner identifies a now-dismissed lawsuit as a related matter:
Genscape Intangible Holding, Inc. v. Live Power Intelligence Co. NA, LLC,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02452-PAB-SKC (D. Colo.). Pet. 1.
D. The ’000 Patent
The ’000 patent is titled “Method for Monitoring Power and Current
Flow” and is directed to a method for monitoring the magnitude and
direction of net electrical power and current flow that relies on detecting and
measuring the magnetic field emanating from monitored line(s) and
detecting an electrical field signal emanating from the monitored line(s).
Ex. 1002, codes (54), (57). The ’000 patent explains that it discloses “a
method for determining in real-time the net electric power and current either
generated or consumed by a facility or substation, and the electric power and
current transported by an electric transmission line.” Id. at 1:63–66. To
accomplish this, the ’000 patent discloses the use of apparatus including “a
magnetic transducer to convert the magnetic field of the current at a remote
location, into a magnetically transduced signal” (id. at 3:54–56), “an
electrical transducer to convert the electric field . . . at [a] remote location
into a reference signal” (id. at 3:65–66), and a central computing facility in
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

4
communication with the remote apparatus (id. at 3:8–11). The ’000 patent
further discloses the use of the computing facility to process data, and to
provide information to an end-user of information about the power flows or
net power. Id. at 7:40–54. The ’000 patent sets forth that “[t]he end-user
includes anyone for whom information about the power flows in [monitored]
lines . . . or the net power use of [a monitored] facility . . . is useful” (id. at
7:54–56), listing, as examples, “power marketers, energy traders, energy
producers, or energy consumers” (id. at 7:57–58).
E. Challenged Claims
Petitioner challenges claims 1, 9, and 11 of the ’000 patent,
reproduced below.
1. A method for measuring electrical power dynamics of a
facility, comprising:
placing at least one apparatus comprising a magnetic transducer
and an electric transducer in proximity to and not connected
to at least one electrical line connected to the facility;
receiving electric and magnetic fields of said at least one
electrical line with said at least one apparatus;
processing said electric and magnetic fields to obtain
information representative of magnitude and relative phase
of said electric and magnetic fields;
transmitting said information to a central computing site;
determining said electrical power dynamics of said facility from
said information at said central computing site; and
relaying data regarding said electrical power dynamics to an
end-user.
Ex. 1002, 79:2–19.
9. A method for remotely delivering real-time information
regarding operational status of a power system, said method
comprising:
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

5
converting magnetic field of current at a location remote to a
plurality of electrical lines of said power system into
magnetically transduced signals;
conditioning said magnetically transduced signals into
conditioned magnetically transduced signals;
conditioning a reference signal for each of said conditioned
magnetically transduced signals into conditioned reference
signals;
measuring magnitude of each of said conditioned magnetically
transduced signals;
measuring a phase angle between respective said conditioned
magnetically transduced signals and said conditioned
reference signals;
transmitting said magnitudes and said phase angles to a central
facility;
determining said real-time information from said magnitudes
and said phase angles, at said central facility;
relaying said real-time information to an end user.
Id. at 79:42–80:16.
11. A method for providing information relating to current in
an electrical line to a remote end user, comprising:
placing an apparatus comprising a magnetic transducer in
proximity of and not connected to said electrical line;
receiving magnetic field emanating from said electrical line
with said magnetic transducer;
receiving an electrical signal synchronized to power system
frequency with said apparatus;
processing said magnetic field and said electrical signal to
determine said information relating to said current in the
line; and
transmitting said information to said remote end user.
Id. at 80:21–34.
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

6
F. Asserted Prior Art and Grounds
We instituted review of claims 1, 9, and 11 of the ’000 patent on the
following asserted grounds:
Claim(s) 35 U.S.C. §1 Reference(s)/Basis
1, 9, 11 103 Libove,2 Blatt,3 Fernandes4
1, 9, 11 103 Libove, Fernandes, IEEE Std 644-19945
Dec. 7.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Principles
A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which that
subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;

1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29,
125 Stat. 284, 285–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because
the ’000 patent was filed before March 16, 2013 (the effective date of the
relevant amendment), the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies.
2 Libove & Singer, U.S. Patent No. 5,473,244, issued December 5, 1995
(“Libove”) (Ex. 1003).
3 Blatt, U.S. Patent No. 5,408,176, issued April 18, 1995 (“Blatt”)
(Ex. 1004).
4 Fernandes, U.S. Patent No. 4,709,339, issued November 24, 1987
(“Fernandes”) (Ex. 1005).
5 IEEE Standard Procedures for Measurement of Power Frequency Electric
and Magnetic Fields From AC Power Lines, IEEE Std 644-1994 (“IEEE Std
644-1994”) (Ex. 1006).
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

7
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) if in evidence, objective
evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
Additionally, the obviousness inquiry typically requires an analysis of
“whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness”)); see In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 832 F.3d 1327, 1333
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG
v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Petition guides the proceeding. See Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.
Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Our reviewing court
explains that “[f]rom the outset, we see that Congress chose to structure a
process in which it’s the petitioner, . . . who gets to define the contours of
the proceeding,” and that “the statute envisions that a petitioner will seek an
inter partes review of a particular kind—one guided by a petition describing
each claim challenged and the ground on which the challenge to each claim
is based.” Id. at 1335 (quoting SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355
(2018) (internal quotations omitted)). “Although the Board is not limited by
the exact language of the petition, see, e.g., Sirona Dental Sys. GmbH v.
Institut Straumann AG, 892 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Board
does not ‘enjoy[] a license to depart from the petition and institute a different
inter partes review of his own design.’” Id. at 1336 (quoting SAS, 138 S. Ct.
at 1356).
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

8
To prevail, Petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the
evidence that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.1(d). “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from
the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review
petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the
grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never shifts to
Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.,
800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v.
Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the
burden of proof in inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner does not
satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory
statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). A petitioner must show that “a skilled artisan would have been
motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the
claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable
expectation of success in doing so.” Id. at 1381 (internal quotations and
citations omitted); see also Belden Inc. v. Berk–Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064,
1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not
only could have made but would have been motivated to make the
combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention.”).
B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art for the
’000 patent would have had “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering or
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

9
applied physics with a focus in power transmission, or a Bachelor’s degree
in electrical engineering or applied physics, or a similar field, with
approximately two years of experience relating to power transmission.”
Pet. 12. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional graduate education
might substitute for experience” and that “significant experience in the field
of power transmission might substitute for formal education.” Id.
Absent opposition from Patent Owner, we adopt Petitioner’s
description of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent
with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and the asserted prior art
references. In that regard, and supporting our determination of the level of
ordinary skill in the art, we determine that the prior art itself is sufficient to
demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See
Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that
“specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where
the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is
not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755
F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).
C. Claim Construction
It is uncontested that the ’000 patent has expired. Pet. 12; Paper 6. In
this proceeding, in requesting a district court-type claim construction
approach be applied, Petitioner set forth that the involved patent was
expiring August 21, 2019. Pet. 12; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018)
(“A party may request a district court-type claim construction approach to be
applied if a party certifies that the involved patent will expire within 18
months from the entry of the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition.”).
We deemed Petitioner’s request set forth in the Petition was sufficient for us
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

10
to conditionally grant the request, which was perfected in the absence of
opposition by Patent Owner within the specified time period for such. See
Paper 6. Accordingly, we apply the claim construction standard used by
district courts in this proceeding.
In district court, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary
meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure.
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “In
determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look
principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language
itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.”
DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). There is a “heavy
presumption,” however, “that a claim term carries its ordinary and
customary meaning.” CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359,
1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Only those terms which are in
controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve
the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor
Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also U.S. Surgical Corp. v.
Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding claim
construction is not necessary when it is not “directed to, or has been shown
reasonably to affect, the determination of obviousness”).
In the following discussion, we address claim terms as required in this
decision. In our decision instituting review, we addressed the meaning of a
number of claim terms for which Petitioner proposed a claim construction.
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

11
Dec. 7–12. We do so again for a subset of those as necessary, or instructive,
for this decision.
1. “central computing site” and “central facility”
Petitioner argues that the terms “central computing site” and “central
facility” would mean a “single physical location distinct from monitors” and
that this “is consistent with the specification.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1002,
3:35–36, 4:8–11, 4:17–26; 7:10–52, Fig. 3). In the Institution Decision, we
adopted Petitioner’s construction of these terms. Dec. 7–8.
The cited portions of the Specification are generally consistent with
Petitioner’s position. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[T]he specification ‘is
always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually it is
dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’”).
For example, the ’000 patent states that “[t]he central computing facility
receives communications from all of the remote apparatuses monitoring a
facility, facilities, line, or lines under measurement,” which is consistent
with a “central computing site” or “central facility” being a single location.
Ex. 1002, 3:35–36.
The prosecution history includes limited discussion of the concept of a
central station. Ex. 1010, 120–121, 134, 146, 163, 169–170. For example,
the Examiner determines that a “ground station [disclosed in cited prior art]
includes provisions for conversion of data to the form and parameters
required by the central station” (id. at 120–121, 146, 163) and applicant
contests the Examiner’s position (id. at 134, 169–170), but the limited
discussion is not particularly directed to the meaning of “central station” as
being a single location.
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

12
For purposes of this Decision, we maintain our construction from the
Institution Decision—construing the terms “central computing site” and
“central facility” to mean a “single physical location distinct from
monitors”—as this construction is consistent with the ordinary meaning of
these terms, the portions of the written description of the ’000 patent cited
by Petitioner, and the prosecution history of the ’000 patent.
2. “remote,” “remotely,” and “in proximity of/to”
Petitioner argues that the terms “remote,” “remotely,” and “in
proximity of/to,” as applied to a monitor in relation to a power line, mean
“in the vicinity of a power line, but also where someone does not need to
climb a power line tower, or have access to a power line facility.” Pet. 14–
15 (citing Ex. 1002, 12:31–33, 14:27–30); see also id. at 8–9 (citing
Ex. 1010, 132–133, 143–146, 162–165, 169–170). Petitioner also cites to
the prosecution history in a grandchild of the ’000 patent. Id. at 9–10 (citing
Ex. 1009, 22–23, 73–75, 56–58, 42–44, 22–26). The ’000 patent states that
in “[t]he present invention . . . [the] apparatus . . . may be located a distance
from a transmission line . . . to measure remotely the current or power flow.”
Ex. 1002, 5:2–6; see also id. at 7:5–10. The ’000 patent also refers more
precisely to sensor locations that are in the vicinity of, but not in contact
with, lines. See, e.g., id. at 12:19–25, 12:33–36.6

6 We note that claims 9 and 11 also include the term “remote” / “remotely”
in the context of indicating the location of an “end user” to whom
information relating to current in an electrical line is provided or to whom
the real-time information is relayed. We do not understand Petitioner’s
proposed claim construction to apply to these portions of the claims. See
Pet. 14–15 (discussing proposed construction only with respect to monitor
location relative to the power lines).
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

13
As in the Institution Decision, we determine that the terms “remote,”
“remotely,” and “in proximity of/to,” as to a monitor in relation to a power
line, mean in the vicinity of a power line and physically separated from the
power line. See Dec. 8–9. Specifically, the apparatus for sensing magnetic
and electric fields is placed in proximity to the electrical line or plurality of
electrical lines, but is in neither direct nor indirect physical contact. Id. This
construction is consistent with the ordinary meaning of these terms, the
written description of the ’000 patent cited by Petitioner, and the prosecution
history of the ’000 patent.
3. “apparatus”
Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
understood [‘apparatus’] to mean ‘monitor’” and that a “monitor” is “not a
‘system’ but a device” that is “equipped to measure magnetic and electrical
fields emanating from an overhead power line.” Pet. 15. Petitioner also
argues that “[t]his construction is consistent with the ’000 patent’s
specification.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 2:23–24, 2:30–33, 5:34–39, 5:44–48,
5:50-53, 5:59–61, 6:58–63, 7:2–5, 8:2–6, 14:32–36, 16:15–16, 16:18, 16:20,
19:42).
The claims reciting an apparatus—claims 1 and 11—indicate that the
apparatus is placed “in proximity [to/of]” electrical line(s) and that data
about the electrical line(s) is transmitted to a “central facility” and an “end-
user”—claim 1—or to a “remote end user”—claim 11. This, coupled with
the plain and ordinary meaning of “remote,” discussed above, makes plain
that the meaning of “apparatus,” consistent with Petitioner’s contentions, is
something akin to what Petitioner describes as a monitor. The prosecution
history of the ’000 patent is, similarly, not manifestly inconsistent with
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

14
Petitioner’s contentions. See generally Ex. 1010. Taking into account the
usage of the relevant terms in the claims themselves, the plain and ordinary
meaning of the terms, and the written description of the ’000 patent cited by
Petitioner, as in the Institution Decision, we determine that the “apparatus”
does not encompass the entire system for measuring fields, computing
signals, and reporting these to an end user, but only the device placed in
proximity to the electrical line(s). See Dec. 9. Further, as expressly recited,
the “apparatus” of claim 1 includes “a magnetic transducer and an electric
transducer” and is equipped to “receiv[e] electric and magnetic fields of [an]
electrical line.” Similarly, the “apparatus” of claim 11 expressly includes “a
magnetic transducer” and is equipped to “receiv[e] magnetic field emanating
from [an] electrical line” and to “receiv[e] an electrical signal synchronized
to power system frequency.”
D. Obviousness of Claims 1, 9, and 11 Over the Combination of
Libove, Blatt, and Fernandes
Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 9, and 11 of the ’000 patent are
unpatentable as obvious over Libove in view of Blatt and Fernandes.
Pet. 21–50.
1. Libove (Ex. 1003)
Libove is titled “Apparatus for Measuring Voltages and Currents
Using Non-Contacting Sensors” and discloses “[a]n apparatus for
performing non-contacting measurements of the voltage, current and power
levels of conductive elements such as wires, cables and the like.” Ex. 1003,
codes (54), (57). Libove discloses “[a] non-contacting voltage measurement
system . . . includ[ing] an arrangement of capacitive sensors for generating a
first current in response to variation in voltage of a conductive element” (id.
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

15
at 2:2–6) and a non-contacting current measurement system “wherein the
composite current [through the conductor] induces a measurement current to
flow within a set of coils positioned in a predetermined manner proximate
[to] the conductor” (id. at 2:17–20). Libove further discloses that “the
measurements of both voltage and current can be combined in one
instrument . . . [with] two sensors, one for voltage and one for current
act[ing] independently of each other.” Id. at 14:18–21. Libove also
discloses that voltage and current “parameters can be sensed, scaled,
subjected to rectification, and then transmitted to a meter, a computer, a
recording instrument or a control system.” Id. at 14:23–26. Libove also
discloses that “[i]n the case of complex cables and multi-phase currents the
electric and magnetic field configurations are such that a microcomputer
integrated circuit chip can sort the electric and magnetic fields out and
attribute the correct value to each conductor.” Id. at 4:54–58.
2. Blatt (Ex. 1004)
Blatt is titled “Monitoring and Fault Protection of High Voltage
Switch Yards” and discloses the use of magnetic field sensors located a safe
distance away from high voltage conductors to monitor currents flowing
through the conductors. Ex. 1004, codes (54), (57). Blatt further discloses a
control center including a central control computer that is connected to
radially remote stations near the magnetic field sensors. Id. at 2:3–5, 2:10–
11, 2:17–20, 3:25–27, 3:36–37.
3. Fernandes (Ex. 1005)
Fernandes is titled “Electrical Power Line Parameter Measurement
Apparatus and Systems, Including Compact Line-Mounted Modules” and
discloses sensor modules for mounting directly upon electrical power lines
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

16
and measuring both voltage and current on the associated conductor, and
determining their phase relationships. Ex. 1005, codes (54), (57), 2:45–46,
4:38–40. Fernandes also discloses transmission of sampled values from the
sensors to ground stations, which include a microprocessor for calculations,
and transmission of “[t]he data . . . to a central data receiving and control
facility.” Id. at 5:15–21; see also id. at 1:35–40 (“Data from several ground
stations is then transmitted to a central control station where it is processed
and used to assist in control of the power supplied to the various
transmission lines in accordance with the measured parameters.”).
Fernandes also discloses use of “a conventional [Supervisory Control and
Data Acquisition (SCADA)] system . . . at a power substation to monitor
alarm status, receive control signal inputs from a central SCADA master
computer or Energy Management System (EMS),” and that system at the
power substation and the computer at its central control station in two-way
communication. Id. at 11:30–31, 11:33–41, 12:3–25.
4. Analysis
Petitioner relies on Libove as “teach[ing] virtually all of the elements
and features recited in the challenged claim[s].” Pet. 21. Petitioner relies on
Blatt as supporting the obviousness of “positioning the monitor at a location
that is ‘remote to’/‘not connected to’/‘in proximity to/of’ the transmission
line” and “transmitting the processed data from the monitor to a central
control site,” to the extent that the Board determines that Libove does not
teach these features. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 1:35–41, 3:29–44, 4:45–56, 5:32–
45; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 97–99, 122–125). Petitioner relies on Fernandes for
supporting the obviousness of “transmitting,” including “transmitting
‘real-time information’/‘electrical power dynamics’/‘information relating to
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

17
current in the line’ to an ‘end user.’” Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:67–
2:3, 5:19–23, 11:33–41; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 78–83).
Petitioner contends that “Libove, Blatt and Fernandes are all generally
directed to systems and methods for measuring fields around a conductor,
such as a power transmission line,” and that they “share common goals, such
as doing so while avoiding contact with the conductors” and “measuring
power transmission line information, and providing it to central stations so
they can control the power systems in response to the measured data.” Id.
at 23, 26; see also id. at 22–26 (discussing reasons to combine). Petitioner
further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to apply both Blatt’s teaching to make measurements from a safe
distance and to transmit measurement data to a central control computer and
Fernandes’ teaching to use a central control computer to transmit control
information to a substation to the power measuring apparatus of Libove. Id.
at 22–26.
Petitioner identifies what it contends are corresponding limitations of
claims 1, 9, and 11, and sets these forth in a chart, reproduced below.
Claim 1 Claim 9 Claim 11
[Pre] A method for
measuring electrical
power dynamics of a
facility, comprising:
A method for
remotely delivering
real-time information
regarding operational
status of a power
system, said method
comprising:
A method for
providing
information relating
to current in an
electrical line to a
remote end user,
comprising
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

18
Claim 1 Claim 9 Claim 11
[A] placing at least one
apparatus comprising
a magnetic
transducer and an
electric transducer in
proximity to and not
connected to at least
one electrical line
connected to the
facility;
converting magnetic
field of current at a
location remote to a
plurality of electrical
lines of said power
system into
magnetically
transduced signals;
placing an apparatus
comprising a
magnetic transducer
in proximity of and
not connected to said
electrical line;
[B] receiving electric and
magnetic fields of
said at least one
electrical line with
said at least one
apparatus;
conditioning said
magnetically
transduced signals
into conditioned
magnetically
transduced signals;
receiving magnetic
field emanating from
said electrical line
with said magnetic
transducer;
[C] conditioning a
reference signal for
each of said
conditioned
magnetically
transduced signals
into conditioned
reference signals;
receiving an
electrical signal
synchronized to
power system
frequency with said
apparatus;
[D1] processing said
electric and magnetic
fields to obtain
information
representative of
magnitude and
measuring magnitude
of each of said
conditioned
magnetically
transduced signals;

IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

19
Claim 1 Claim 9 Claim 11
[D2] relative phase of said
electric and magnetic
fields;
measuring a phase
angle between
respective said
conditioned
magnetically
transduced signals
and said conditioned
reference signals;

[E] transmitting said
information to a
central computing
site;
transmitting said
magnitudes and said
phase angles to a
central facility;

[F] determining said
electrical power
dynamics of said
facility from said
information at said
central computing
site; and
determining said
real-time information
from said magnitudes
and said phase
angles, at said central
facility;
processing said
magnetic field and
said electrical signal
to determine said
information relating
to said current in the
line; and
[G] relaying data
regarding said
electrical power
dynamics to an end-
user.
relaying said real-
time information to
an end user.
transmitting said
information to said
remote end user.
Pet. 10–11.
Each of the claims requires providing data or information obtained in
accordance with the method to an end user. Claim 1 sets forth “[a] method
for measuring electrical power dynamics of a facility, comprising[] . . .
relaying data regarding said electrical power dynamics to an end user.”
Claim 9 sets forth “[a] method for remotely delivering real-time information
regarding operational status of a power system, said method comprising[]
. . . relaying said real-time information to an end user.” Claim 11 sets forth
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

20
“[a] method for providing information relating to current in an electrical line
to a remote end user, comprising . . . transmitting said information to said
remote end user.”
Petitioner contends that Libove in view of Blatt and Fernandes teaches
limitations 1[G], 9[G], and 11[G] of claims 1, 9, and 11, respectively. Id. at
47–50.
For each of the claims, the data or information that is relayed or
transmitted is that determined in accordance with the corresponding
limitation [F]. Petitioner relies on the combination of Libove and Blatt for
the power calculations of Libove being “performed at the central computing
site/facility.” Id. at 47; see id. at 46 (“Because the currents and power
calculations are calculated at the central computer of Blatt, Libove in view
of Blatt teaches the ‘electrical power dynamics’ and ‘real-time information’
are determined at the central computing site/facility as recited in 1[F], 9[F],
and 11[F].”).
Petitioner then expressly relies on Fernandes for the further
limitations 1[G], 9[G], and 11[G] “that the calculations and other
information determined at the central computing site/facility are transmitted
or relayed to an end user.” Id. at 48 (stating that “this feature is obvious in
view of Fernandes”). Petitioner does so despite having also set forth—in
discussing limitation 11[Pre]—that “Libove teaches a method for providing
information relating to current in an electrical line to a remote end user, as
recited in 11[Pre],” in that “Libove teaches that its ‘system of current
determination . . . applies to transmission lines where noncontacting current
measurement is very helpful since the current monitoring values can be
telemetered to the generating or the sub-station to provide control
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

21
information which can be utilized for energy conservation.” Id. at 27
(quoting Ex. 1003, 8:45–50; citing Ex. 1003, 4:57–65, 8:50–54).
Contending Fernandes renders limitations 1[G], 9[G], and 11[G]
obvious, Petitioner relies on Fernandes as disclosing a Supervisory Control
and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system in which “sensors transmit data
relating to transmission lines to a central computer (i.e., a ‘master
computer’),” that the “central computer will then analyze the data and make
decisions,” and that a “system receiver can be employed at a power
substation to receive information from a ‘master computer.’” Id. at 48
(citing Ex. 1005, 11:33–41; Ex. 1007 ¶ 139). Petitioner also contends that
information transmitted from the SCADA central computer to the SCADA
system receiver at a substation includes “alarms and control signal inputs.”
Id. at 48–49 (citing Ex. 1005, 11:33–41, 12:3–25; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 139–140).
Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art
“would have further understood that the central computing site/facility in
Blatt could operate as a SCADA central computer . . . that communicates
with the SCADA system receiver.” Id. at 49 (citing Ex. 1005, 11:33–41,
12:3–25; Ex. 1007 ¶ 140). As discussed above, this central computer, as
Petitioner has set forth the combination, is what undertakes the calculations
to determine the “electrical power dynamics” and “real-time information”
that Petitioner contends meets limitations 1[F], 9[F], and 11[F]. Id. at 46–
47. Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
have understood Fernandes teaches relaying/transmitting data from a central
computer (i.e., the SCADA master computer), to an end user (i.e., the
SCADA system receiver) as recited in 1[G], 9[G], [and] 11[G].” Id. (citing
Ex. 1007 ¶ 140).
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

22
Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to make the combination set forth in order “to send
substations alerts and control signals from the central computing site/facility
. . . based on measurements received from the monitors surveilling the power
transmission network” because it “would enable the central computer to
detect and react to faults in the power transmission system” and that doing
so “would have merely involved combining well-known prior art elements
(e.g., Libove and Blatt’s central computer), using well-known computer
transmission and networking techniques, to achieve a predictable result (e.g.,
sending alerts and control signals to a SCADA system reciever [sic]”).” Id.
at 49–50 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:35–40; Ex. 1003, 8:45–50, 14:23–27; Ex. 1007
¶¶ 141–142).
As set forth by Petitioner, the challenge is grounded on a combination
in which data or information is transmitted from a central computing site or
facility to a power substation, specifically, to a SCADA receiver located at a
power substation. Id. at 48–50. The purpose of doing so, as set forth by
Petitioner, is to send alerts and control signals. Id. at 49–50. The difficulty
is that Petitioner fails to address what is, in fact, an end user according to the
claims, and how that element is met by the combination. See generally id.
The ’000 patent sets forth that “[t]he end-user includes anyone for
whom information about the power flows in lines 11 or 12 or the net power
use of facility 10 is useful.” Ex. 1002, 7:54–56 (emphasis added). It also
sets forth exemplary end-users, and further provides that information is
transmitted to the end-user’s location via some form of communications
equipment. Id. at 7:60–64. Petitioner does not address this disclosure of the
’000 patent that relates to the meaning of “end user.” See generally Pet.
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

23
Indeed, while Petitioner set forth certain claim terms that required
construction, and identified others disputed during the related litigation for
which construction was not required, it did not address “end user” in any
meaningful fashion. Id. at 12–13.
Petitioner likewise does not provide a basis for anyone meeting the
description of an end-user being present at the power substation. Id. at 21–
22, 47–50. As noted above, Petitioner asserts that a SCADA receiver
teaches or suggests the recited “end user,” however, Petitioner has not
explained, nor is it is not apparent from Fernandes or elsewhere, that a
power substation having a SCADA receiver to receive alerts and control
signals requires a “user” be present to effect the required control. Indeed,
having a “user” at the power substation that receives an alert or control
signal appears contrary to Petitioner’s position that, in such a system,
“sensors transmit data relating to transmission lines to a central computer
(i.e., a ‘master computer’),” that the “central computer will then analyze the
data and make decisions,” and that a “system receiver can be employed at a
power substation to receive information from a ‘master computer.’” Id. at
48 (citing Ex. 1005, 11:33–41; Ex. 1007 ¶ 139). If the central computer
analyzes the data and makes decisions, as Petitioner contends, it is not
apparent that there is any need for any “user” to receive the alert or control
signals at the power substation.
In sum, the deficiencies outlined above undercut Petitioner’s position
that the combined prior art teaches or suggests the inventions of the
challenged claims. The conclusory statements by Petitioner and Dr. Olsen
as to the recited end user, as discussed above, fail to address how the relied
upon element in Fernandes, i.e., the SCADA receiver, meets the recited
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

24
limitation of transmitting to an “end user,” and are thus insufficient to satisfy
Petitioner’s burden of proving obviousness.7 Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d
at 1380–81.
Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not carried its burden to
present sufficient evidence and support that the combination of Libove,
Blatt, and Fernandes teaches or suggest limitations 1[G], 9[G], and 11[G].
For the foregoing reasons, and after having analyzed the entirety of
the record and assigning appropriate weight to the cited supporting evidence,
we determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 1, 9, and 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over the combination of Libove, Blatt, and Fernandes.
E. Obviousness of Claims 1, 9, and 11 Over the Combination of
Libove, Fernandes, and IEEE Std 644-1994
Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 9, and 11 are unpatentable as obvious
over Libove in view of Fernandes and IEEE Std 644-1994. Pet. 22, 50–61.

7 There is nothing contrary in this determination here to that in the Institution
Decision that there was a sufficient showing for institution of inter partes
review. For instituting an inter partes review, 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) requires
that there is a “reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail.” To
prevail in an instituted inter partes review, however, 35 U.S.C. § 316(e)
requires petitioner to meet “the burden of proving a proposition of
unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” See TriVascular, Inc.
v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]here is a significant
difference between a petitioner’s burden to establish a ‘reasonable likelihood
of success’ at institution, and actually proving invalidity by a preponderance
of the evidence at trial . . . . The Board’s findings in its Final Written
Decision were thus not inconsistent with those in its Institution Decision;
they were made under a qualitatively different standard.”).
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

25
IEEE Std 644-1994 discloses “[u]niform procedures for the
measurement of . . . electric and magnetic fields from alternating current (ac)
overhead power lines.” Ex. 1006, i.; see id. at 14, 21, Fig. 7.
Petitioner relies on the disclosed procedures from IEEE Std 644-1994,
contending that it would have been obvious “to apply the uniform
measurement techniques . . . to the [modified] apparatus of Libove.”
Pet. 51–52. Petitioner’s reliance on IEEE Std 644-1994 is limited to
procedures and techniques for measuring power frequency electric and
magnetic fields from alternating overhead power lines and calibrating the
meters used. Id. at 50–61. Petitioner relies on Libove in view of Fernandes
and IEEE Std 644-1994 only for limitation 1[A], 9[A], and 11[A]. Id. at 53–
56.
Petitioner expressly relies on Libove in view of Fernandes for all
other elements. Id. at 50–61. Petitioner separately sets forth a basis for
limitations 1[E] and 9[E] (id. at 56–59) and limitations 1[F], 9[F], and 11[F]
(id. at 59–61), but refers back to and relies on its discussion for the ground
based on Libove, Blatt, and Fernandes, discussed above, for every other
limitation, including limitations 1[G], 9[G], and 11[G] (id. at 52–53).
As to limitations 1[F], 9[F], and 11[F], Petitioner relies on a
combination in which the calculations are carried out at the central control
station. Id. at 60–61 (citing Ex. 1003, 8:45–50; Ex. 1005, 1:35–40, 5:23–28;
Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 168–170).
As to limitations 1[G], 9[G], and 11[G], Petitioner relies wholly on its
showing set forth in the first ground. Id. at 52–53. Having relied on the
same showing, and for the same purpose where the calculations are likewise
carried out at the central control station, we likewise determine, as with the
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

26
first ground, that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the
evidence that “relaying data regarding said electrical power dynamics to an
end-user” (claim 1), “relaying said real-time information to an end user”
(claim 9), or “transmitting said information to said remote end user” (claim
11) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For the foregoing reasons, and after having analyzed the entirety of
the record and assigning appropriate weight to the cited supporting evidence,
we determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the
evidence that any of claims 1, 9, and 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Libove, Fernandes, and
IEEE Std 644-1994.
III. CONCLUSION8
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not
established, by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 9, and 11 are
unpatentable.

8 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claims
in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the issuance of this
decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice
Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or
Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding. See 84 Fed. Reg.
16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner chooses to file a reissue application
or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we remind Patent
Owner of its continuing obligation to notify the Board of any such related
matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2).
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

27
IV. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance
of the evidence that claims 1, 9, and 11 of the ’000 patent are unpatentable;
and
FURTHER ORDERED that because this is a Final Written Decision,
any party to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

Claims 35 U.S.C. § References
Claims
Shown
Unpatentable
Claims
Not shown
Unpatentable
1, 9, 11 103 Libove,
Blatt,
Fernandes
1, 9, 11
1, 9, 11 103 Libove,
Fernandes,
IEEE Std
644-1994
1, 9, 11
Overall
Outcome
1, 9, 11
IPR2019-00189
Patent 6,714,000 B2

28
PETITIONER:
Joseph J. Richetti
Noah Lerman
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
joe.richetti@bclplaw.com
noah.lerman@bclplaw.com

PATENT OWNER:
Jessamyn S. Berniker
D. Shayon Ghosh
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
jberniker@wc.com
sghosh@wc.com