Librestream Technologies, Inc.v.John A. Thomason

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 5, 2015

09175112 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 18
571-272-7822 Entered: January 5, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

LIBRESTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

JOHN A. THOMASON
1
,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2014-00369
Patent 6,317,039 B1

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

1
Wireless Remote System LLC assigned all of its rights, title, and interest in
U.S. Patent No 6,317,039 to John A. Thomason, effective October 1, 2014.
Paper 17.
IPR2014-00369
Patent 6,317,039 B1

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Librestream Technologies Inc., (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
“Pet.”) on January 21, 2014 requesting inter partes review of claims 1–13
(“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,317,039 B1 (“the
’039 Patent”). See 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319. Wireless Remote System LLC
(Patent Owner prior to October 1, 2014) did not file a Preliminary Response
to the Petition. We instituted inter partes review of claims 1–13 on June 12,
2014. Paper 6.
Following institution of trial, the parties indicated that they had
engaged in settlement negotiations, but that a settlement did not result. See
Papers 13, 14. Patent Owner’s counsel indicated to the Board that the Patent
Owner would not be able to file a Patent Owner Response by the Due Date
of September 24, 2014 (this Due Date was extended by stipulation between
the parties from its original Due Date of August 27, 2014). Paper 13. After
providing Patent Owner one last opportunity to file a Patent Owner
Response by October 3, 2014, counsel for Wireless Remote System LLC
affirmatively notified the Board that no Patent Owner’s Response would be
filed. Papers 14, 15. After holding a conference call on October 9, 2014
with counsel for Petitioner and counsel for Wireless Remote System LLC to
confirm that it was indeed Patent Owner’s intent to forego the filing of a
Patent Owner’s Response and with the express consent of all counsel, we
issued an Order vacating Due Dates 2 through 7 of the Scheduling Order,
thereby enabling trial to proceed to a final written decision without further
input from the parties. Paper 16. The Board did not receive any further
communication concerning this issue from either party.
IPR2014-00369
Patent 6,317,039 B1

3
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). In this final written
decision, issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73, we
determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that all
of the challenged claims of the ’039 Patent are unpatentable.
A. Related Proceedings
Petitioner indicates the ’039 Patent is at issue in Wireless Remote
System LLC v. Librestream Technologies, Inc., No 6:12-cv-00899 (E.D.
Tex.). Pet. 1. There is also an instituted inter partes review of claims 1 and
2 of related U.S. Patent No. 6,690,273 B2 (IPR 2014-00368), which was
also filed by Petitioner. Id.; IPR 2014-00368, Paper 5 (June 12, 2014).
B. The ’039 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’039 Patent relates to “a method and system for remote assistance
and review of a technician or multiple technicians, in real time, working
with equipment of various complexit[ies].” Ex. 1001, Abs; col. 1, ll. 48–50.
Figure 1 of the ’039 Patent is reproduced below:

Figure 1 depicts a block diagram of a wireless remote system. Ex. 1001,
col. 2, ll. 35, 63–64. Remote system 101, utilized by mobile field technician
102, is coupled by wireless network 106 to local station 108, utilized by
IPR2014-00369
Patent 6,317,039 B1

4
local master technician 109. Id. at col. 2, l. 65–col. 3, l. 7. Remote system
101 includes wireless portable processor 103, wireless audio
headphone/microphone 104, and wireless camera 105. Id. at col. 2, l. 65–
col. 3, l. 1; see id. at col. 3, ll. 43–47. Wireless portable processor 103
further includes an embedded web browser that connects to Internet 107 via
wireless network 106. Id. at col. 3, ll. 47–61. Local station 108 includes
local processor 110 and audio/microphone headset 111. Id. at col. 3, ll. 4–6;
see id. at col. 5, ll. 35–38, 44–47. The ’039 Patent describes another
embodiment in which a centralized expertise station including one or more
local processors 110 is coupled to multiple wireless portable remote systems
102. Id. at col. 2, ll. 43–45; col. 7, ll. 30–34; Fig. 5.
Mobile field technician 102 may operate/service/maintain an
apparatus at a remote job site with the advice and control of local master
technician 109. Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 7–10. Local master technician 109 may
view and hear the same stimuli as remote field technician 102, at the remote
site, by way of audio and video sensors at the remote site (e.g., microphone
104, camera 105). Id. at col. 3, ll. 11–14; see id. at col. 5, ll. 51–55. Remote
field technician 102 communicates with local master technician 109 by way
of wireless network 106 or Internet 107, or both. Id. at col. 3, ll. 15–21.
C. Illustrative Claim
Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims. Claims 2–11 depend directly
from claim 1, and claim 13 depends from claim 12. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claims at issue.
1. A system, comprising:
a wireless remote system disposed to be operated by a mobile
field operator, said wireless remote system comprising an
audio sensor, a video sensor, a wireless portable processor,
IPR2014-00369
Patent 6,317,039 B1

5
an audio receiver and a wireless transceiver, wherein the
audio sensor, the video sensor, the audio receiver and
wireless transceiver move with the mobile field operator;
a local station disposed to be operated by a local master
technician, said local station comprising an audio sensor, a
video receiver, a processor and an audio receiver;
a wireless communication network coupled to said local station
and said wireless remote system,
wherein said wireless remote system audio sensor and said local
station audio receiver are disposed to recover remote sound
and deliver said remote sound to said local master
technician, said wireless remote system video sensor and
said local station monitor are disposed to recover remote
images and
deliver remote images to said local master technician, and said
local station audio sensor and said wireless remote system
receiver are disposed to recover local sound and deliver said
local sound to said mobile field operator, and
wherein said local master technician may view and hear stimuli
available to said mobile field operator, said local master
technician and said mobile field operator are capable of
communicating, and said local master technician can
directly advise said mobile field operator and wherein said
local station is comprised of a plurality of said local
processors operated by a plurality of said local master
technicians advising a plurality of said mobile field
operators.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Principles of Law
To prevail on its challenges to the patentability of the claims,
Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). 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
IPR2014-00369
Patent 6,317,039 B1

6
ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). For an obviousness analysis, it
can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted one with
ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements in way claimed by the
patent at issue. Id. at 418 (quoting In re Khan, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006)). We analyze the instituted grounds of unpatentability in accordance
with these principles.
B. Grounds of Unpatentability
We instituted inter partes review of the following specific challenged
claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the following prior
art references (Pet. 3):
Claim(s) References
2

1 and 3–11 Beller, Ziegra, McPheely, Thorpe, and David
2 Beller, Ziegra, McPheely, Thorpe, David, and Fryer
12–13 Beller and Ziegra
1. Obviousness of Claims 1 and 3–11 Over Beller, Ziegra,
McPheely, Thorpe, and David
With respect to the assertion of unpatentability of claims 1 and 3–11,
we have reviewed the Petition, as well as the evidence discussed in the
Petition. We are persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1

2
The Petition relies on the following references: U.S. Patent No.
6,046,712 A (Ex. 1008) (“Beller”); U.S. Patent No. 5,619,183 (Ex. 1004)
(“Ziegra”); U.S. Patent No. 5,844,601 (Ex. 1006) (“McPheely”); Thorpe et
al., Multimedia communications in construction, 108 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
ICE - CIVIL ENGINEERING 12-16 (February 1995), (Ex. 1005) (“Thorpe”);
U.S. Patent No. 5,544,649
(Ex. 1016) (“David”); U.S. Patent No. 6,233,428 B1 (Ex. 1009) (“Fryer”).
The Petition also relies on the Declaration of Anthony Mines (Ex. 1010).
IPR2014-00369
Patent 6,317,039 B1

7
and 3–11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Beller,
Ziegra, McPheely, Thorpe, and David. See Pet. 3, 10–43.
a. Beller (Ex. 1008)
Beller describes a head-mounted system for providing “interactive
visual and audio communications between a user of the head mounted
system and an operator of a remote system.” Ex. 1008, Abs. The operator
of the system can see what the user of the head-mounted system is viewing,
and the user of the head-mounted system can view inputs received from the
remote system. Id. at col. 1, ll. 50–57.
Figure 1 of Beller is reproduced below:

Figure 1 depicts head-mounted communication system 10 in communication
with remote assistant’s terminal 13. Ex. 1008, col. 3, ll. 17–19, 42–45.
IPR2014-00369
Patent 6,317,039 B1

8
Figure 3 of Beller is reproduced below:

Figure 3 depicts the controls of head-mounted communication system 10
and remote assistant’s terminal 13. Ex. 1008, col. 3, ll. 23–25. Head-
mounted communication system 10 includes housing 50, RF communication
system 96, camera 15, earphone 27, microphone 29, and display 14. Id. at
col. 3, ll. 45–48; col. 4, ll. 18–21, 39–51; col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 4; col. 7, ll.
39–43. Remote assistant’s terminal 13 includes display/touch panel 19,
keyboard 21, microphone 112, speaker/earphone 116, and radio frequency
communication system 104. Id. at col. 3, l. 52–col. 4, l. 5; col. 7, ll. 49–66.
Head-mounted system 10 and remote terminal 13 communicate via radio
frequency network 200, which includes a plurality of base stations 202, 203.
Id. at col. 7, ll. 21–25.
Beller teaches that when a radio system is employed to provide
wireless communication with remote terminal 13, radio system 96 of head-
IPR2014-00369
Patent 6,317,039 B1

9
mounted system 10 formats audio and video data into packets. Ex. 1008,
col. 7, ll. 1–3. Each packet includes a header portion that includes an
address or code identifying the particular terminal 13 to which the signal is
intended to be sent, as well as an address or code identifying the particular
head-mounted communication system 10 that is transmitting the signal. Id.
at col. 7, ll. 3–12. Upon receipt of a radio frequency signal, radio system 96
of head mounted system 10 compares the destination identity code contained
within the header portion of the received signal to the unit’s own identity
code stored in memory, to determine if there is a match. Id. at col. 8, ll. 12–
17. If there is a match, radio system 96 determines whether the received
signal was intended for the particular head-mounted system, and the system
couples the received audio and video data to controller 88 of head mounted
system 10. Id. at col. 8, ll. 16–19. Controller 88 controls the display to
depict the retrieved video data, and further controls an audio output interface
and speaker to generate audio from the retrieved audio data. Id. at col. 3,
21–24.
b. Ziegra (Ex. 1004)
Ziegra describes a method and system for remote assistance and
review of an operator working on complex equipment. Ex. 1004, Abs, col.
1, ll. 52–54; see id. at Fig. 1. An operator at a local site is coupled to an
advisor at a station at a remote site, so that the advisor may view and hear
the same stimuli as the operator, and may communicate with the operator.
Id. at Abs.; col. 1, ll. 54–62. The operator has limited training, or is
otherwise in need of support, and may be a field engineer or technician. Id.
at Abs.; col. 2, ll. 11–13. The local station comprises a video and audio
sensor, and a receiver for a communication link with the remote station. Id.
IPR2014-00369
Patent 6,317,039 B1

10
at col. 1, l. 65–col. 2, l. 3. The remote station comprises a video and audio
display, and a transmitter for the communication link with the remote
station. Id. at col. 2, ll. 6–10. The advisor views and listens to the local
apparatus, and gives advice to the operator for manipulating the local
apparatus. Id. at Abs.; col. 2, ll. 27–33. The operator operates the local
apparatus as if the advisor were peeking over the operator’s shoulder. Id. at
Abs.; col. 2, ll. 34–35.
c. David (Ex. 1016)
David describes an ambulatory (in the home) patient health
monitoring system in which a patient at a remote station is monitored by a
health care worker at a central station. Ex. 1016, Abs; col. 4, ll. 57–61, 66–
67. Cameras are provided at both the patient’s remote location and at the
central station to enable interactive visual and audio communication between
the patient and the health care worker. Id. at Abs.; col. 5, ll. 26–29, 54–59.
David provides the following additional disclosure:
[i]f a staff or team of patient monitors or health care workers at
the central station are employed, as when a large number of
patients are being monitored, multiple cameras or even small-
scale studios may be used, one for each health monitor or nurse,
so that individual patients at the remote locations can see their
own particular health care worker that they are used to.
Id. at col. 11, ll. 22–28.
d. Claims 1 and 3–11
We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 1 and 3–11 are unpatentable in view of Beller, Ziegra,
McPheely, Thorpe, and David. For example, we are persuaded that
Petitioner relies properly on Beller’s head-mounted system 10, and remote
assistant’s terminal 13 for teaching “a system, comprising” “a wireless
IPR2014-00369
Patent 6,317,039 B1

11
remote system,” and “a local station,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 12 (citing
Ex. 1008, col. 1, ll. 33–40, 64; col. 2, ll. 2–5; col. 3, ll. 42–45; col. 4,
l. 66–col. 5, l. 2; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 49–50); Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1008, col. 1,
ll. 32–45; col. 3, ll. 52–57; Ex. 1010 ¶ 57); see Pet. 35–36. We are also
persuaded that Beller discloses the individual components of the “wireless
remote system” and the “local station,” e.g., audio sensors, video sensors,
processors, receivers, etc. See id. at 13–17 (citing Ex. 1008, col. 1,
ll. 62–64; col. 3, ll. 43–48, 52–57; col. 4, ll. 43–45; col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 2;
col. 5, ll. 51–54; col. 6, ll. 10–12, 59–61; col. 7, ll. 39–43, 52–59; col. 10, ll.
36–43; col. 11, ll. 34–37; Figs. 1, 3; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 51–56, 58–61); Pet. 35–37.
Petitioner contends that Beller’s description of head-mounted
communications system 10 in wireless communication with remote
assistant’s terminal 13 that allows interactive visual or audio
communications, or both, between the systems 10 and 13, teaches the
wireless remote system audio and video sensors and the local station are
disposed to recover remote sound, local sound, and remote images, and
deliver remote sound, local sound, and remote images to the local master
technician, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 17–19 (citing Ex. 1008, col. 3, ll.
5–10, 45–57; col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 2; col. 7, ll. 56–59; col. 10, ll. 34–46; col.
11, ll. 14–20; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 63, 64, 66, 67); see Pet. 37–38. Petitioner further
relies on Beller’s wireless two-way communication between head-mounted
system 10 and remote system 13, and Beller’s teaching that a user can gain
assistance from a supervisor located remotely from the repair site, for
teaching “said local master technician and said mobile field operator are
capable of communicating, and said local master technician can directly
advise said mobile field operator,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 21–22 (citing
IPR2014-00369
Patent 6,317,039 B1

12
Ex. 1008, col. 1, ll. 34–37, 43–45; col. 2, ll. 2–5; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 69–70); see
Pet. 38.
For the limitation “said local master technician may view and hear
stimuli available to said mobile field operator,” Petitioner asserts Beller
discloses that operator of terminal 13 can see at least a portion of the field of
view of the user or head-mounted system picked up by camera 15. Id. at 20
(citing Ex. 1008, col. 3, ll. 52–57); see id. at 38. Petitioner acknowledges
that Beller does not disclose expressly that microphone 29 on head-mounted
system 10 permits the local master technician at terminal 10 to hear the
stimuli available to the user of head-mounted system 10. Id. at 20 (citing
Ex. 1008, col. 4, ll. 66–52). Petitioner instead relies on Ziegra for teaching
that an operator at a local station is coupled to a remote advisor station, so
that the advisor may view and hear the same stimuli as the operator, with the
advantage of permitting the operator to operate the apparatus as though the
advisor were peeking over the operator’s shoulder. Id. at 20–21 (citing Ex.
1004, Abs.); see id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 68).
Petitioner provides the following articulated reasoning to explain why
one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
modified the teachings of Beller in light of Ziegra’s teachings:
it would have been obvious to . . . use the microphone and
camera of Beller’s head mounted system 10 to provide the local
master technician . . . with the stimuli available to the user of []
head mounted system 10 because it would permit the local
master technician to view and listen to an apparatus that the
user was operating, maintaining, or repairing[,] and thereby
permit the local master technician to give the user better advice.
IPR2014-00369
Patent 6,317,039 B1

13
Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1004, Abs.; Ex. 1010 ¶ 68). We are persuaded
Petitioner’s proffered rationale and evidence is sufficient to support the
proposed modification.
For the limitation “said local station is comprised of a plurality of said
local processors operated by a plurality of said local master technicians
advising a plurality of said mobile field operators,” Petitioner asserts that
“Beller contemplates . . . multiple terminals 13 operated by respective local
master technicians . . . advising multiple mobile field operators,” and
contemplates multiple head-mounted systems 10 being used simultaneously.
Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 71a–c). Petitioner’s assertion is based on
Beller’s disclosure that each head-mounted system 10 has an identity code
that determines whether signals sent over radio system 96 are intended for
that particular head-mounted system, and Beller’s further disclosure of the
use of an address or code to identify a particular terminal 13. Id. at 22–24
(quoting Ex. 1008, col. 7, ll. 8–12; col. 8, ll. 12–18). Petitioner asserts that
“[u]sing more than one terminal at the claimed local station would have also
been a matter of convenience and would be more cost-effective than, for
example, dedicating a separate service center to each individual terminal 13
of Beller’s system.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 71f). Petitioner also
contends that there are no unexpected results from the duplication of Beller’s
basic system because it simply allows more users and master technicians to
communicate. Id. at 24 (citations omitted). We are persuaded that Petitioner
has provided sufficient analysis and evidence to support its conclusion.
Also addressing the limitation “said local station is comprised of a
plurality of said local processors operated by a plurality of said local master
technicians advising a plurality of said mobile field operators,” Petitioner
IPR2014-00369
Patent 6,317,039 B1

14
asserts that David teaches an interactive conferencing system by which a
remote health care worker provides instructions to an ambulatory patient,
and David contemplates multiple conferencing systems so that a team of
health care workers can remotely provide advice to multiple patients. Id. at
26 (citing Ex. 1016, Abs., col. 6, ll. 31–51; col. 11, ll. 21–28). Petitioner
asserts
it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to modify Beller to provide a ‘local
station’ with more than one terminal 13 for [the following]
reasons: . . . [1] David expressly teaches that each of the
remote experts (e.g., health care workers) can have their own
studios so that each patient can interact with and see their own
particular health care worker . . . , and [2] it would have been
apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art . . . that this
modification to Beller would predictably and advantageously
permit multiple supervisors to communicate with multiple
users, each with their own head mounted system 10, and
thereby permit more than two users to be advised
simultaneously by different supervisors.
Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 71k). We are persuaded that Petitioner has
provided sufficient analysis and evidence to support its conclusion.
Petitioner further asserts that McPheely and Thorpe also teach the above
limitation. Id. at 25–26.
After considering Petitioner’s position and evidence proffered in
support of its position, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Beller, Ziegra, McPheely, Thorpe, and David. In
addition, the explanations and supporting evidence presented by Petitioner
are sufficient to show that the cited prior art references teach or suggest the
claimed subject matter recited in dependent claims 3–11. Pet. 27–35, 40–43.
IPR2014-00369
Patent 6,317,039 B1

15
Therefore, upon consideration of Petitioner’s position, and evidence
proffered in support of its position, we determine that Petitioner has shown
by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claims 3–11 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Beller, Ziegra,
McPheely, Thorpe, and David.
2. Obviousness of Claim 2 Over Beller, Ziegra,
McPheely, Thorpe, David, and Fryer
Regarding the assertion of unpatentability of claim 2, we have
reviewed the Petition, as well as the evidence discussed in the Petition. We
are persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 2 is
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Beller, Ziegra,
McPheely, Thorpe, David, and Fryer. See Pet. 3, 43–51.
a. Fryer (Ex. 1009)
Fryer describes “[a] child care monitoring network [that] integrates a
centralized information dissemination system with live streaming video . . .
enabling parents to monitor their children during the workday over the
Internet.” Ex. 1009, Abs. Fryer further discloses displays based on
conventional web page technologies using widely available browser
software to receive streaming video feeds at the subscriber computer. Id. at
col. 7, ll. 56–62.
b. Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from clam 1, and further recites “the wireless remote
system further comprises a monitor, a web browser, a codec and a wireless
modem; and the local station further comprises a web browser and a codec;
and wherein said wireless communication network is coupled to a computer
network.” Ex. 1001, col. 9, l. 65–col. 10, l. 4. We are persuaded that
IPR2014-00369
Patent 6,317,039 B1

16
Petitioner relies properly on Beller’s display mounted on the support of
head-mounted system 10, video compression chip 84, radio frequency
communication system 104, expansion and compression steps depicted in
Figure 6, and plurality of base stations 202, 203 coupled to each other by
high speed network back bone 205, for teaching the recited codec and
wireless modem of wireless remote system, the codec of the local station,
and the wireless communication network coupled to a computer network.
Pet. 43–48 (citing Ex. 1008, col. 1, l. 66–col. 2, l. 2; col. 5, l. 40–col. 6, l. 12;
col. 6, ll. 51–52; col. 7, ll. 21–27, 32–37, 49–52; col. 8, ll. 6–11; Figs. 3, 6;
citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 84, 86, 87, 89, 90); see Pet. 49–51.
Petitioner acknowledges that Beller does not teach that head-mounted
system 10 and local station 13 have web browsers. Pet. 44, 46. Petitioner
relies on Fryer for teaching that a web browser was a known way to
establish communication of audio and video signals over a public network.
Id. at 44, 46 (citing Ex. 1009, col. 1, l. 62–col. 2, l. 8; col. 7, ll. 51–62; Ex.
1010 ¶¶ 85b, 88a); see Pet. 49–50. Petitioner provides the following
articulated reasoning to explain why one with ordinary skill in the art would
have modified the teachings of Beller to include web browsers:
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to include a web browser in the
head mounted system 10 and the terminal 13 so that they could
use the Internet and World Wide Web to establish
communication, as taught by Fryer.
Id. at 44, 46–47 (citing Ex 1010 ¶¶ 85b, 88b). We are persuaded Petitioner’s
rationale and evidence is sufficient to support the proposed modification.
Upon consideration of Petitioner’s position and evidence proffered in
support of its position, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
IPR2014-00369
Patent 6,317,039 B1

17
preponderance of the evidence that independent claim 2 is unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Beller, Ziegra, McPheely, Thorpe,
David, and Fryer.
3. Obviousness of Claims 12 and 13 Over Beller and Ziegra
Independent claim 12 differs from claim 1 because it is a method
claim, and does not recite a plurality of local processors, a plurality of local
master technicians, and a plurality of mobile field operators. Pet. 51;
compare claim 1 (Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 31–64), with claim 12 (Ex. 1001, col.
10, ll. 32–61). We are persuaded that Petitioner relies properly on their
analysis of Beller with respect to claim 1 to address all of the limitations of
claim 12, with the exception of “viewing and hearing by said local master
technician of stimuli available to said mobile field operator.” Id. at 51–54
(citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 93–99, 101–102); see id. at 12–19, 21–22, 35–38. Also
relying on the analysis of independent claim 1, we are persuaded that
Petitioner relies properly on Beller in combination with Ziegra to teach the
aforementioned limitation that is not taught by Beller alone. Id. at 53 (citing
Ex. 1010 ¶ 100); see id. at 20–21, 38. Petitioner provides the following
articulated reasoning to explain why one with ordinary skill in the art would
have modified the teachings of Beller to include hearing by the local master
technician stimuli available to the mobile field operator:
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the art at
the time of the invention to use the microphone and camera of
Beller’s head mounted system 10 to provide the local master
technician at the terminal 13 with the stimuli available to the
user of the head mounted system 10 because it would permit the
local master technician to view and listen to an apparatus that
the user was operating, maintaining, or repairing and thereby
permit the local master technician to give the user better advice.
IPR2014-00369
Patent 6,317,039 B1

18
Id. at 53 (citing Ex. 1004, Abs.; Ex. 1010, ¶ 68; see id. at 21. We are
persuaded Petitioner’s rationale and evidence is sufficient to support the
proposed modification.
After considering Petitioner’s position and evidence proffered in
support of its position, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that independent claim 12 is unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Beller and Ziegra. In addition, the
explanations and supporting evidence presented by Petitioner are sufficient
to show the cited prior art references teach or suggest the claimed subject
matter recited in dependent claim 13. Pet. 54. Therefore, upon
consideration of Petitioner’s position, and evidence proffered in support of
its position, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of
the evidence that dependent claim 13 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Beller and Ziegra.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the record before us, Petitioner has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–13 are unpatentable.
IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of
the evidence that claims 1–13 of U.S. Patent No. 6,317,039 B1 are
unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that because this is a final decision, parties to
the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must comply with the
notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
IPR2014-00369
Patent 6,317,039 B1

19
PETITIONER:
Robert C. Mattson
Vincent K. Shier
Oblon Spivak
cpdocketMattson@oblon.com
cpdocketshier@oblon.com

PATENT OWNER:
David S. Moreland
Lawrence A. Aaronson
Meunier Carlin & Curfman
dmoreland@mcciplaw.com
laaronson@mcciplaw.com

John A. Thomason
j.thomason@metroenv.com