Traeger Pellet Grills, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 17, 2020

PGR2019-00036 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2020)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 24
571-272-7822 Entered: September 17, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

GMG PRODUCTS LLC,
Petitioner,
v.
TRAEGER PELLET GRILLS LLC,
Patent Owner.

PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and
CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam.

JUDGMENT
Final Written Decision
Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
35 U.S.C. § 328(a)

I. INTRODUCTION
We have authority to hear this post-grant review under 35 U.S.C. § 6
and to issue this Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a). For
the reasons that follow, after reviewing all relevant evidence and arguments,
we determine that GMG Products LLC (“Petitioner”) has not shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 4–11, 13–15, 17, 18, and 20 of
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
2
U.S. Patent No. 10,158,720 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’720 Patent”) are
unpatentable and that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that claim 30 of the ’720 Patent is unpatentable.

A. Background and Summary
GMG Products LLC (“Petitioner”)1 filed a petition requesting post-
grant review of claims 4–11, 13–15, 17, 18, 20, and 30 (the “challenged
claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,158,720 B2 (Paper 3 (“Pet.”))2. Traeger
Pellet Grills, LLC3 (“Patent Owner”)4 filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 7
(“Prelim. Resp.”)). Petitioner subsequently filed a Reply, authorized by the
Board (Paper 9 (“Reply”)). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply, also authorized
by the Board (Paper 11 (“Sur-Reply”)). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) and
37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we instituted this post-grant review based on our
decision that Petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing as to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’720 Patent
(Paper 13 (“Inst. Dec.”)).

1 Petitioner identifies only itself as a real party-in-interest to the Petition
(Pet. 1).
2 Petitioner also filed a Petition, PGR2019-00024, challenging claims 1–3,
12, 16, 19, and 21–29 of the ’720 Patent (see PGR2019-00024). A Final
Written Decision in that proceeding was issued July 16, 2020 (PGR2019-
00024, Paper 35).
3 The mandatory notice and the body of the Preliminary Response each
refers to the Patent Owner as Traeger Pellet Grills, LLC (Paper 5, 2; Prelim.
Resp. 1). However, the caption of the Preliminary Response omits the
comma between “Grills” and “LLC,” referring to the Patent Owner as
Traeger Pellet Grills LLC (Prelim. Resp.). In this decision, we treat Traeger
Pellet Grills, LLC and Traeger Pellet Grills LLC as the same entity.
4 Patent Owner identifies only itself as a real party-in-interest to this
proceeding (Paper 5, 2).
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
3
Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 15 (“PO Resp.”).
Petitioner filed a Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 19
(“Pet. Reply”)). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply in response to Petitioner’s
Reply (Paper 22 (“PO Sur-Reply”)).
An Oral Hearing was initially requested by both parties (Papers 20–
21); however, Petitioner withdrew “its request for oral argument in
PGR2019-00036, and the Parties jointly propose[d] that the Board, in place
of oral argument, enter into the record the hearing transcript from PGR2019-
00024 regarding the same U.S. Patent No. 10,158,720” (Ex. 3001). “[T]he
Parties believe that the hearing transcript from PGR2019-00024 reflects the
Parties’ positions in PGR2019-00036” (id.).
Accordingly, the Oral Hearing Transcript from PGR2019-00024 has
been entered into the record for this proceeding (Paper 23 (“Tr.”)).

B. Related Matters
The ’720 Patent is not currently the subject of any litigation (Pet. 1;
Paper 5, 2). However, the ’720 Patent is the subject of another post grant
review petition filed by Petitioner, PGR2029-00024, in which a Final
Written Decision (PGR2019-00024, Paper 35) was entered and which has
been appealed (id. at Paper 36) (Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2).
U.S. Patent No. 10,218,833, a parent of the ’720 Patent, has been
challenged in two post grant review petitions filed by Petitioner: GMG
Prods. LLC v. Traeger Pellet Grills LLC, PGR2019-00034 and GMG Prods.
LLC v. Traeger Pellet Grills LLC, PGR2019-00035 (Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2).
The ’720 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.
15/511,319; a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No.
15/510,996 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,218,833 and subject to PGR2019-
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
4
00034 and PGR2019-00035, as noted above); and a continuation-in-part of
U.S. Patent Application No. 15/114,744 (Pet. 1–2; Paper 5, 2–3).

C. The ’720 Patent
The ’720 Patent, titled “Cloud System for Controlling Outdoor Grill
with Mobile Application,” issued December 18, 2018 (‘720 Patent, code
(54)). The ’720 Patent describes “cloud computing system for use in remote
cooking” in which a “software application is configured to control functions
of the electronically-controlled [remote cooking] appliance” (id., code (57)).
The ’720 Patent uses “a cloud computing platform . . . for
communicating with and controlling operation of electronically-controlled
appliances” (id. at 4:25–27; see also id. at 3:57–58). Figure 1, reproduced
below, illustrates an exemplary cloud computing platform (id. at 6:26–34).

PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
5
(id. at Fig. 1). Figure 1 shows a computer architecture for communication
with and controlling operation of electronically-controlled appliances via a
mobile computing device (id. at 3:26–29). As shown in Figure 1, “[t]he
cloud computing platform 101 . . . includes modules for performing a variety
of different functions” (id. at 6:33–34). Those modules include networking
modules, e.g., “[a] communications module 104 . . . to communicate with
other computing systems,” “a receiver [105] for receiving inputs from [a]
mobile computing device 113,” and “[a] transmitter 107” for sending “a
generated notification 112” and “control instructions 119” (id. at 6:35–37,
7:11–13, 7:38–41, 7:47–49). “[T]he cloud computing platform 101 . . .
communicate[s] with mobile computing device 113 . . . and/or with
electronically-controlled appliance 120,” e.g., a grill (id. at 6:35–37, 43–44,
60–61), so that mobile computing device 113 can control the electronically
controlled appliance through the cloud computing platform (id. at 4:32–45,
7:9–16).
“[T]he mobile computing device 113 . . . control[s] the electrically-
controlled appliance 120” by executing “[a] software application 114
running on the mobile computing device 113” (id. at 7:13–16). Figure 5,
reproduced below, illustrates a process for the mobile device 113’s software
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
6
application 114 to control the electronically-controlled appliance 120
through cloud computing platform 101 (id. at 11:47–49).

(id. at Fig. 5). Figure 5 shows a flowchart of a cloud-based method
for controlling electronically-controlled appliances (id. at 3:40–42).
First, in step 510, “cloud computing platform 101 may receive first input
115 from mobile computing device 113 indicating that electronically-
controlled appliance 120 is permitted to communicate with the cloud
computing platform” (id. at 11:52–59, Fig. 5). After that indication, in steps
520 and 530, “the cloud computing platform 101 . . . generate[s] notification
112 which is sent . . . to the software application 114 of the mobile
computing device 113. The notification 112 indicates that the cloud
computing platform is communicably connected to the electronically-
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
7
controlled appliance 120” (id. at 11:66–12:8, Fig. 5; see id. 7:32–43). “After
this notification 112 is generated . . . the generated notification [is
transmitted] to the software application 114” (id. at 12:8–12, Fig. 5). In
steps 540 and 550, the software application transmits, to the cloud
computing platform, “a second input . . . indicating that one or more
specified functions are to be performed on the electronically-controlled
appliance” and the cloud computing platform in turn “transmits control
instructions 119 to the electronically-controlled appliance 120 to perform the
specified functions” (id. at 12:12–29, Fig. 5). For example, in the case that
the electronically-controlled appliance is a grill, the controlled “functions
may include adjusting the temperature by increasing or decreasing burn rate,
monitoring internal or external temperatures, monitoring wireless probes,
adjusting or setting timers, or performing other functions applicable to the
appliance” (id. at 12:20–24).

D. Illustrative Claims
All the challenged claims, claims 4–11, 13–15, 17, 18, 20, and 30, are
dependent claims (’720 Patent, 16:14–53, 17:21–54, 18:22–33, 41–45,
20:35–36). Claims 4–11 depend directly or indirectly from independent
claim 1; claims 13–15 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim
12; claims 17, 18, and 20 depend directly or indirectly from independent
claim 16; and claim 30 depends directly from claim 29, which depends from
independent claim 23 (PO Resp. 6–7; ’720 Patent, 16:14–53, 17:21–54,
18:22–33, 41–45, 20:35–36). 5

5 Claims 29 and 23 are not directly challenged as a part of the Petition in this
proceeding.
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
8
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of an independent claim of
the ’720 patent (annotations in brackets added):
1. [1p] A cloud computing platform for communicating
with and controlling operation of an electronically-
controlled appliance comprising an outdoor barbecue grill
or outdoor barbecue smoker, the cloud computing
platform having at least one hardware processor, the cloud
computing platform comprising:
[1a] a receiver configured to receive inputs from one or
more computing systems including at least a first input
indicating that an electronically-controlled appliance is in
network communication with the cloud computing
platform, the electronically-controlled appliance
comprising an outdoor barbecue grill or outdoor barbecue
smoker;
[1b] a notification generator configured to generate
notifications that are to be sent to one or more software
applications being executed at a mobile device, the one or
more software applications being configured to control
one or more functions of the electronically-controlled
appliance;
[1c] a transmitter configured to send at least one generated
notification to at least one of the software applications
selected from the one or more software applications, the
generated notification indicating that the cloud computing
platform is communicably connected to the electronically-
controlled appliance;
[1d] the receiver receiving a second input from the at least
one software application indicating that one or more
specified functions are to be performed on the
electronically-controlled appliance; and
[1e] the transmitter sending one or more instructions to the
electronically-controlled appliance to perform the one or
more specified functions, the functions being interpreted
and carried out by a hardware controller on the
electronically-controlled appliance
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
9
(’720 Patent, 15:36–16:2).

E. Evidence
Petitioner relies upon the following references (Pet. 3–4):
Reference Publication Number Exhibit
Lee et al. (“Lee”) US 2015/0134727 A1 1103
Henderson et al. (“Henderson”) US 2015/0025687 A1 1104
Amer et al. (“Amer”) US 2016/0072638 A1 1105
Logue et al. (“Logue”) US 8,539,567 B1 1106
Ebrom (“Ebrom”) US 9,164,867 B2 1110

Michael E. Porter and James E. Heppelmann, How Smart, Connected
Products are Transforming Competition, HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, 65
(Nov. 2014) (Ex. 1107 (“Porter”));

GMG Product Brochure Publication, available at
https://web.archive.org/web/20101216012026/http:/www.
Greenmountaingrills.com:80/grills.html (Ex. 1108 (“GMG Publication”));

Petitioner supports its challenge with a Declaration by Dr. Henry H.
Houh, dated December 18, 2018 (Ex. 1102). Patent Owner supports its
Response with a Declaration by Mr. Daniel Minoli (Ex. 2125) and a
Declaration by Mr. James M. Tomaszewski (Ex. 2126).

F. Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
Petitioner asserts that claims 4–11, 13–15, 17, 18, 20, and 30 are
unpatentable on the following grounds:
Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
4–7, 20 103 Lee, Henderson
8 103 Lee, Henderson, Porter
9–11 103 Lee, Henderson, Porter, Ebrom
17, 18 103
Lee, Henderson, GMG
Publication
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
10
Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
13–15 103
Lee, Henderson, GMG
Publication, Amer
30 103 Lee, Henderson, Amer, Logue

II. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standards
Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 4–11, 13–15, 17, 18,
20, and 30 on the grounds that the claims would have been obvious in light
of various references including: Lee, Henderson, Porter, Ebrom, GMG
Publication, Amer, and Logue. To prevail in its challenges to the
patentability of the claims, Petitioner “has the burden of proving a
proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence” (35
U.S.C. § 326(e) (2018); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2018)).
The ultimate determination of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a
question of law based on underlying factual findings (In re Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
678 F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1996))). These underlying factual considerations include
(1) the “level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art,” (2) the “scope and
content of the prior art,” (3) the “differences between the prior art and the
claims at issue,” and (4) “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness
such as “commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of other,
etc.” (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting
Graham, 338 U.S. at 17–18)).
“To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot
employ merely conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate
specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
11
conclusion of obviousness” (In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d
1364, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418)). The “factual
inquiry” into the reasons for “combin[ing] references must be thorough and
searching, and the need for specificity pervades” (In re NuVasive, Inc., 842
F.3d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotations and citations
omitted)). A determination of obviousness cannot be reached where the
record lacks “explanation as to how or why the references would be
combined to produce the claimed invention” (TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1382–85;
Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1380–81). We analyze the asserted grounds based
on obviousness with the principles identified above in mind.

B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
The level of skill in the art is a factual determination that provides a
primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis (Al-Site Corp. v.
VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950
F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991))).
Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention “would have a [Bachelor of Science] degree in Computer
Science or an equivalent field, as well as at least two years of academic or
industry experience related to Internet connectivity, Internet content
delivery, and network applications, as well as familiarity with smart home
appliances” (Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 41)).
Patent Owner argues Petitioner’s “definition of a [person of ordinary
skill in the art] is incorrect because it does not account for the context of the
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
12
invention” (PO Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 2126 ¶¶ 34–37, 69–72)). According to
the Patent Owner,
[p]roperly considering the relevant factors in the field of outdoor
appliances like grills and smokers, the actual level of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention was a person with a bachelor’s of
science degree in mechanical engineering (or technical degree with
equivalent experience) and awareness of appropriate methods for
remotely controlling an outdoor appliance.
(id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2126 ¶¶ 5–7, 40–68)). Patent Owner does not argue
the difference in level of ordinary skill in the art would change any
determination in this Decision (id. at 19). Petitioner responds that “the
intrinsic record directly refutes Traeger’s” proposed level of ordinary skill in
the art (Reply 3).
Factors that may be considered in determining level of ordinary skill
in the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of
problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those
problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5)
sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active
workers in the field.
(Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citations omitted); see PO Resp. 17). “These factors are not
exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill
in the art” (Daiichi at 1256).
We determine that Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled
artisan is supported by the current record. Initially, we note the ’720 Patent
does not limit the claims or description to an outdoor appliance; rather, the
’720 Patent states “[t]he electronically-controlled appliance 120 may be any
type of appliance or device that is electronically-controlled” (’720 Patent,
6:53–54). The ’720 Patent further describes “[o]ther electronically-
controlled appliances 115 such as ovens, refrigerators, blenders, toasters,
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
13
dishwashers, coffee machines, mixers, bread makers, washers and dryers or
other appliances may also be controlled using the software application 114”
(id. at 8:11–15). Therefore, based on the record before us, we are not
persuaded an ordinarily skilled artisan would be limited to one with
“awareness of appropriate methods for remotely controlling an outdoor
appliance” (see PO Resp. 18–19).
The ’720 Patent, in its Background, discusses that “Bluetooth radios
allow communication with nearby electronic devices including cell phones”
(’720 Patent, 1:51–53). The ’720 Patent further describes that “[r]ange
limitations to the Bluetooth radio, however, necessitate that the user of the
appliance still be within a certain proximity of the appliance” (id. at 1:53–
55). Patent Owner admits that proximity is one aspect of the problem the
’720 Patent tries to solve, but contends that food preparation and concerns
over flame and heat near a gas outlet are safety concerns the patent seeks to
solve (Tr. 35:19–36:21). However, Patent Owner did not identify where in
the ’720 Patent preparing food or safety concerns are addressed. Nor do the
claims recite elements addressing these concerns. Indeed, as noted above,
communication issues, and particularly Bluetooth radio’s proximity
concerns, are described as the type of problem encountered and sought to be
solved. As apparent from the description in the ’720 Patent, Bluetooth, a
communications technology, was the prior art solution to allowing
communication with electronic devices, including appliances and cell
phones. Thus, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the level
of skill articulated by Petitioner fails to account for the context of the
invention.
Additionally, the claims of the ’720 Patent are directed to
communication between various elements including a cloud, a mobile
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
14
device, transmitters, and receivers and the accompanying software
applications but not the safety concerns of the grill (id. at 15:36–16:13,
16:54–17:20, 17:55–18:21, 18:34–20:24). In particular, independent claims
1 and 12 and dependent claims 4–11 and 13–15 are directed to “[a] cloud
computing platform for communicating with and controlling operation of an
electronically-controlled appliance”; independent claim 16 and dependent
claims 17, 18, and 20 are directed to “[a] method for remotely controlling an
electronically controlled appliance”; and independent claim 23 and
dependent claim 30 are directed to “[a]n outdoor cooking device for use in a
cloud computing environment” (id.).
Further, as noted by Petitioner (Pet. Reply 6), the ’720 Patent
describes that
[t]hose skilled in the art will appreciate that the principles described
herein may be practiced in network computing environments with
many types of computing system configurations, including, personal
computers, desktop computers, laptop computers, message processors,
hand-held devices, multi-processor systems, microprocessor-based or
programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers,
mainframe computers, mobile telephones, PDAs, tablets, pagers,
routers, switches, and the like[]
and “practiced in a cloud computing environment” (’720 Patent, 5:46–54,
65–67). Therefore, based on the record before us, we determine the
sophistication of the technology of the ’720 Patent is of a level requiring
knowledge of computer systems and, particularly, cloud computing
environments communicating with multiple devices, which knowledge, we
find, is not accounted for adequately in Patent Owner’s proposed definition.
We further note Patent Owner’s proffered level of skill in the art ––
“awareness of appropriate methods for remotely controlling an outdoor
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
15
appliance”–– is overly vague, providing little specifics as to the level of
skill.
Lastly, we note that Patent Owner relies on Mr. Minoli as its expert
with respect to the claim limitations (Ex. 2125). Mr. Minoli indicates he is
“a telecommunications practitioner with 44 years of data communications,
telecommunications, cloud computing, Internet, wireless, and Internet of
Things (IoT) experience” (id. ¶ 9, Appendix A). Mr. Minoli also sets forth
that he has a Master of Science in Computer Science and both a Bachelor
and Master of Science in Mathematics (id. at Appendix A). Thus, in arguing
the patentability of the disputed claims, Patent Owner itself relies on an
expert having both a degree in Computer Science and at least two years
industry experience related to Internet connectivity, Internet content
delivery, and network applications. Although a party’s designated expert
need not have the same qualifications as the ordinarily skilled artisan, Mr.
Minoli’s testimony suggests such artisan would need to possess educational
or work experience in these areas of computer science and connectivity to
understand and address problems encountered in the prior art advanced here,
and, therefore, Mr. Minoli’s qualifications are more consistent with
Petitioner’s proposal.
Although Patent Owner also presents Mr. Tomaszeski as an expert,
Mr. Tomaszeski only testifies as to the level of skill in the art (Ex. 2126).
We are not persuaded that five job postings by manufacturers in the industry,
discussed by Mr. Tomaszeski (id. ¶¶ 62-67 (Exs. 2110–2114), is sufficient to
evidence the educational level of active workers in the field. Moreover,
these job postings are insufficient to evidence the educational area of
expertise required to design the recited cloud-computing system. For
example, Exhibit 2111 summarizes the job as “design[ing] and test[ing] all
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
16
aspects of mechanical equipment and machinery” (Ex. 2111, 1 (emphasis
added)). Nothing in the other job postings describes any job responsibility
related to cloud-computing or network communications (Exs. 2110, 2112–
2114).
Thus, based on the record before us, we determine, in light of the
Specification and claims, and the factors discussed supra, Petitioner’s
description of an ordinarily skilled artisan is supported by the current record.
We note also that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at
the time of the claimed invention (see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350,
1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).

C. Claim Construction
We construe the claims “using the same claim construction standard
that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C.
[§] 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary
and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill
in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent” (see Changes
to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial
Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340,
51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) effective
November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2019));
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
Neither party offers any proposed constructions for any claim terms
(Pet. 28–29; PO. Resp. 17). Specifically, Petitioner “contends that no claim
terms require construction” and that “[e]ach claim term should be given its
plain and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art in accordance with Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
17
2005) (en banc)” (Pet. 12). Patent Owner asserts the challenged claims
“shall be construed using the same claim construction standard” as would be
used in district court litigation (PO Resp. 17 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b)).
On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine no
claim term requires express construction (see Nidec Motor Corp. v.
Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.
Cir. 1999))).

D. References Relied Upon
1. Overview of Lee (Ex. 1103)
Lee, a U.S. Patent Application Publication titled “Cloud-Based Data
Server Providing Home Appliance Management Service and Method
Thereof,” discloses a “cloud-based data server providing a user of a terminal
apparatus with a management service for one or more home appliances” so
that “the user of the terminal apparatus may remotely monitor states of the
home appliances or control actions or operations of the home appliances in a
home network system” (Ex. 1103, codes (54), (57)).
Figure 1 of Lee, reproduced below, illustrates “a system in which
states of one or more home appliances 150 may be monitored and functions
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
18
or operations of the home appliances 150 may be controlled, using a
terminal apparatus 160 of a user” (id. ¶ 55).

Figure 1 illustrates a system for monitoring and controlling home appliances
(id.).

As shown in Figure 1, Lee’s “system for managing the home
appliances 150 . . . include[s] a cloud-based data server 110,” “a terminal
apparatus 160” connected to “the cloud-based data server 110,” and “a home
network system 120 connected to the [cloud-based] data server 110” (id.
¶¶ 55–58). Further, home network system 120 “include[s] a home gateway
130” connected to the home appliances 150 (id. ¶¶ 58–59, 62).
The terminal apparatus 160 monitors the home appliances 150
through metadata generated by the home appliances 150 (see id. ¶¶ 65–69).
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
19
Figure 5, reproduced below, is a signal flow chart illustrating the signals
generated and transmitted to monitor home appliances.

Figure 5 illustrates signals transmitted between networked devices (id.
¶ 47). Initially, “each of the home appliances 150 may generate
information . . . related to a current state of each home appliance” (id. ¶ 175;
see id. ¶ 68). The “information generated by each home appliance may
correspond to metadata associated with each home appliance” (id. ¶ 175). In
particular, “metadata includ[es] at least one piece of state information on a
state of each of the home appliances 150” (id. ¶ 190; see id. ¶¶ 168, 204). In
operation 525, that metadata is transmitted from the home appliance to the
home gateway’s device subscription function module (DSFM) (id. ¶ 187).
Then, in operation 535, the home gateway 130 “may transfer the
metadata from the home appliances 150 to the . . . data server 110 (id. ¶ 194,
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
20
Fig. 5; see id. ¶ 67). Next, in operation 545, data server 110’s monitoring
service module (MSM) “may receive, from the terminal apparatus 160, a
request signal with respect to the metadata” (id. ¶ 201, Fig. 5).
Subsequently, in operation 555, the data server 110’s MSM 245 may transfer
the received metadata to the terminal apparatus 160” (id. ¶ 203, Fig. 5; see
id. ¶ 66). As discussed above, “[t]he metadata transferred to the terminal
apparatus 160 may include information on states of the home appliances
150,” (id. ¶ 203) thus providing “a service for monitoring the home
appliances 150 to the user of the terminal apparatus 160” (id. ¶ 66).

2. Overview of Henderson (Ex. 1104)
Henderson, a U.S. Patent Application Publication titled “Remote-
Controlled Food-Related Appliance,” discloses a “smoking appliance and [a]
remote computing device . . . in communication via [a] communication
network” such that “a user of the remote computing device controls the
smoking appliance remotely” (Ex. 1104, codes (54), (57)).
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
21
Figure 1 of Henderson, reproduced below, illustrates an example
system in which “the smoking appliance 102 and remote computing device
104 are in communication via the communication network 106” (id. ¶ 13).

Figure 1 illustrates a cooking system operating over a network (id. ¶ 5).
Henderson describes that, in one example, “the smoking appliance
102 is connected to the communication network 106. The communication
network 106 is, in turn, connected to the remote computing device 104” (id.
¶ 16). Further, Henderson describes that its “smoking appliance 102
functions to, in any combination, cook, smoke, grill, bake, broil, blanch,
braise, roast or steam, food” (id. ¶¶ 14–15).

3. Overview of Porter (Ex. 1107)
Porter, a Harvard Business Review article titled “How Smart,
Connected Products are Transforming Competition,” discloses smart,
connected products having “three core elements: physical components,
‘smart’ components, and connectivity components” (Ex. 1107, 67). Porter
explains that physical components comprise the product’s mechanical and
electrical parts (id.). Smart components comprise the sensors,
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
22
microprocessors, data storage, controls, software, and, typically, an
embedded operating system and enhanced user interface (id.). Connectivity
components comprise the ports, antennae, and protocols enabling wired or
wireless connections with the product (id.). According to Porter, smart
components amplify the capabilities and value of the physical components,
whereas connectivity amplifies the value of the smart components, enabling
them to exist outside the physical product (id.). Porter discloses that smart,
connected products allow for monitoring, control, optimization, and
autonomous product operation (id. at 69–71).

4. Overview of Ebrom (Ex. 1110)
Ebrom, a U.S. Patent titled “Network for Communicating Information
Related to a Consumable to an Appliance,” discloses an appliance network
comprising a networked appliance capable of communicating with a
consumable such that information related to the consumable is
communicated to the network appliance (Ex. 1110, codes (54), (57)).
“[V]arious components and accessories can communicate with the appliance
to expand the capability, functionality, and usability of the appliance” (id. at
3:32–35). An example accessory is a cell phone which can, for example, be
used for “remote diagnostics and service” (id. at 21:43–45, 62–64).

5. Overview of GMG Publication (Ex. 1108)
GMG Publication, a printout of product descriptions from a website,
discloses information about various grills, including the Daniel Boone Grill
Model and the Jim Bowie Grill Model, both of which are described as
having, for example, a digital control, meat probe with digital readout of
food temp, and remote control total grill control (Ex. 1108).
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
23

6. Overview of Amer (Ex. 1105)
Amer, a U.S. Patent Application Publication titled “System and
Method for Remotely Controlling IR-Enabled Appliances via Networked
Device,” discloses a system that “enables one or multiple users to control,
monitor, and manage their appliances (e.g., air conditioners, television sets,
multimedia systems, window curtains, etc.) both locally and remotely”
(Ex. 1105, codes (54), (57)). Figure 2 of Amer, reproduced below,
illustrates connected devices for remote control, monitoring, and
management of appliances.

Figure 2 shows components and relationships between those components for
the remote control and monitoring of appliances (id. ¶¶ 5, 49).

In Figure 2, “electric appliances 20 denoted by reference numerals 21, 22,
and 24” are associated with respective “cloud-enabled remote control
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
24
devices 10” (id. ¶¶ 49, 53) which control those electric appliances 20 via,
e.g., IR control signals (id. ¶ 41). Further, “[t]he cloud platform 50 acts as a
bridge between . . . [cloud-enabled remote control] devices 10, mobile
devices 60, and web applications 61” (id. ¶ 50, Fig. 2). “The user 30 can
control, monitor, and manage their . . . electric appliances 20” through cloud
platform 50’s network connection to the cloud-enabled remote control
devices 10 (id. ¶ 53, Fig. 2).

7. Overview of Logue (Ex. 1106)
Logue, a U.S. Patent titled “Multi-Tiered Authentication Methods for
Facilitating Communications Amongst Smart Home Devices and Cloud-
Based Servers,” discloses a system “for synchronizing distributed states
amongst a plurality of entities and authenticating devices to access
information and/or services provided by a remote server” (Ex. 1106, codes
(54), (57)). In particular, Logue teaches a “client device 104” that
“determines whether it requires a software update” by “compar[ing] its
current software version 128C with . . . received information indicating the
appropriate software version” (id. at 38:57–61; see id. Fig. 16B). If device’s
current software version is not the same as the appropriate software version,
“the client device requests the software update from software update server,”
“receives an updated version of the software and . . . updates its current
software based on the updated version” (id. at 38:61–39:2).

E. Alleged Grounds
1. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 4–7 and 20 over Lee and Henderson
Petitioner contends claims 4–7, and 20 of the ’720 Patent would have
been obvious over Lee and Henderson (Pet. 13–51). Patent Owner asserts
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
25
Petitioner has failed to show any teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
combine the prior art (PO Resp. 46–51). Additionally, Patent Owner asserts
Petitioner has failed to show the prior art discloses all of the features of the
recited claims, focusing on the limitations recited in independent claims 1
and 16 from which claims 4–7 and 20 depend directly or indirectly (id. at
19–29; ’720 Patent, 16:14–37, 18:41–45).
For reasons that follow, Petitioner has not shown that Lee teaches “a
receiver configured to receive inputs from one or more computing systems
including at least a first input indicating that an electronically-controlled
appliance is in network communication with the cloud computing platform,”
as recited in independent claim 1. Nor do Petitioner’s arguments for
claims 4–7 remedy this deficiency. For the same reasons, Petitioner had not
shown that Lee teaches “receiving at a network server of a cloud computing
platform a first input from one or more mobile devices, the first input
indicating that at least a first electronically-controlled appliance is in
network communication with a cloud computing platform,” as recited in
independent claim 16 (’720 Patent, 17:55–18:21). Petitioner’s arguments for
claim 20 do not remedy this deficiency.
Petitioner asserts Lee teaches “a receiver configured to receive inputs
from one or more computing systems including at least a first input
indicating that an electronically-controlled appliance is in network
communication with the cloud computing platform,” as recited in claim 1
(Pet. 18–19). Petitioner references Lee’s Figure 5 (with annotations added
by Petitioner (Pet. 19–20)), reproduced below, which illustrates “a signal
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
26
flowchart illustrating a method of providing a home appliance management
service” (Ex. 1103 ¶ 47):

Figure 5 is a signal flowchart illustrating a method of providing a home
appliance management service according to an embodiment of the present
invention (id. ¶ 173, Fig. 5)

Petitioner asserts terminal apparatus 160 is a “computing system,” and Lee’s
MSM residing on cloud based data server 110 receives the claimed “first
input” (Pet. 20; see also id. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 84, 201, Figs. 2, 5
(“Lee’s monitoring service module (‘MSM’) 245, which resides on the
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
27
cloud-based data server 110. . . . may receive, from the terminal apparatus
160, a request signal with respect to . . . metadata”)). As explained by
Petitioner, step 545 in Figure 5 of Lee shows data being transferred from the
terminal apparatus 160 (i.e., asserted “computer system”) to the cloud-based
data server 110 comprising the MSM (i.e., asserted receiver) (id. (citing
Ex. 1103 ¶ 201). With reference to step 545, Petitioner asserts “Lee’s cloud-
based MSM therefore receives a first input from a computing system, as
recited by the limitation” (id. at 20). Petitioner asserts further that the “first
input” from the computing system also indicates “an electronically-
controlled appliance is in network communication with the cloud computing
platform,” as required by the claim (id.). According to Petitioner, “Lee’s
signal 545 satisfies the claimed ‘first input’ [because]. . . Lee makes clear
that its request 545 for network connectivity metadata from the cloud is a
transmission that ‘indicates’ that the appliance is in fact connected to the
cloud” (Pet. Reply 10–11).
More specifically, Petitioner asserts Lee’s MSM (i.e., asserted
receiver) receives metadata, explaining that the received metadata includes
“state information on a state of each of the home appliances 150” (Pet. 20
(citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 68; Ex. 1102 ¶ 132)). As such, Petitioner concludes “[a]
skilled artisan would understand from this disclosure that the information
received by the MSM [in the cloud-based data server] includes data
indicating that the appliance is in network communication with the cloud-
based data server” (id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 133–134)). Petitioner
asserts that its argument that metadata includes network connectivity finds
support in Lee’s Figure 5, specifically identifying the signal request from
terminal apparatus 160 in step 545 (id. at 21). According to Petitioner, the
signal request in step 545 requests state information knowing the appliance
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
28
is connected to the network, and “that itself is an indication that the
appliance is connected to the cloud-computing platform” (id.).
Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contention that Lee teaches the
claim limitation at issue, arguing Petitioner fails to show how the combined
art teaches a “first input” indicating a home appliance “is in network
communication” with the cloud (PO Resp. 19–29). More specifically, Patent
Owner contends Petitioner has failed to show Lee teaches the pertinent
limitation and, specifically, “step 545 is a request for information” and, thus,
“cannot indicate anything” (id. at 21 (citing Ex. 2125 ¶ 103)).
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s
arguments. The claim limitation recites “the cloud computing platform
comprising: a receiver configured to receive inputs from one or more
computing systems including at least a first input indicating that an
electronically-controlled appliance is in network communication with the
cloud computing platform” (’720 Patent, 15:36–16:2). Thus, the claim
requires the computing system to provide an input to a receiver of the cloud
computing platform indicating the appliance is “in network communication”
with the cloud computing platform. For reasons discussed below, Petitioner
has failed to persuade us Lee teaches data server 110 comprising MSM 245
(i.e., asserted “receiver”) receives an input from terminal apparatus 160 (i.e.,
asserted “computing system”) indicating home appliance 150 is in network
communication with data server 110 (i.e., asserted “cloud computing
platform”).
Petitioner contends “[t]he terminal apparatus 160 requests state
information from the cloud-based data server in step 545, knowing that the
appliance is connected to the network . . . and that a request can be made in
the first place” (Pet. 21 (emphasis added (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 135)). In
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
29
response, Patent Owner counters that “a user’s request to learn a device’s
status cannot simultaneously indicate the very status the user has just
requested” (PO Sur-Reply 8 (citing Ex. 2125 ¶ 103)). Patent Owner further
argues “Lee makes no disclosure of how the network connectivity of an
appliance is indicated, monitored, or otherwise reported” (PO Resp. 22–23
(citing Ex. 2125 ¶ 95)).
Based on the record before us, we do not find Petitioner’s argument
persuasive. In step 545, MSM 245 of data server 110 receives from terminal
apparatus 160 a request signal with respect to the metadata (Ex. 1103, Fig. 5,
step 545, ¶¶ 194, 201). Lee does not disclose, and Petitioner has identified
no teachings or suggestions in Lee, that terminal apparatus 160 has
knowledge that home appliance 150 was or is connected to data server 110
before sending the request for metadata to the data server 110. Indeed, we
credit Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Minoli that “Lee makes no disclosure of
how the appliances establish network connectivity, let alone how the
network connectivity of an appliance is indicated, monitored, or otherwise
reported” (Ex. 2125 ¶ 95). In the Reply, Petitioner fails to rebut the
argument and testimony that Lee does not expressly disclose how network
connectivity of an appliance is monitored, instead asserting the appliance’s
state is known because “Lee makes clear that its request 545 for network
connectivity metadata” “indicates” the appliance is connected to the cloud
(Pet. Reply 11). We find Petitioner’s assertion, however, to be conclusory.
Petitioner cites to no disclosure in Lee that terminal apparatus 160 knows the
appliance’s state when requesting metadata in step 545 (id.). For the reasons
stated above, based on the record before us, we find insufficient evidence to
show terminal apparatus 160 makes the request with knowledge that home
appliance 150 is in network communication with data server 110.
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
30
Petitioner further contends “Lee’s appliance is clearly ‘in network
communication with’ Lee’s cloud-based server because signals requesting
and transmitting metadata are sent from [the cloud-based data server to the
appliance] (e.g., signals 525 and 535) and vice versa (e.g., signals 580 and
585)” (Pet. Reply 13–14). Dr. Houh explains terminal apparatus 160 “would
not request such data from the data server unless it was already known that
the appliance was connected to and producing data sent to the data server”
(Ex. 1102 ¶ 135). Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Minoli, explains, however,
why the request does not indicate home appliance 150 and data server 110
are in network communication, stating “Lee simply assumes that the
appliances can communicate within the home network,” and “Lee simply
assumes a priori the connectivity” (Ex. 2125 ¶ 95). In the Reply, Petitioner
does not rebut Mr. Minoli’s testimony (see generally Pet. Reply). Petitioner
bears the ultimate burden of persuasion. Here, Petitioner fails to identify
where Lee teaches that the request for metadata itself indicates home
appliance 150 and data server 110 are in network communication. For the
foregoing reasons, we find Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that
Lee’s request signal in step 545 teaches an indication that home
appliance 150 is connected to the cloud.
We further find that although a user’s mobile device (i.e., terminal
apparatus 160 of Lee) sends a request signal with respect to metadata to data
server 110 in step 545, this step does not teach terminal apparatus 160
sending an input to data server 110 indicating home appliance 150 is in
network communication with data server 110 (Ex. 1103, Fig. 5). That the
request signal is “with respect to metadata,” does not change that the signal
is a request signal. As we discussed above, Petitioner argues the metadata
includes information regarding home appliance 150’s network
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
31
communication status. Assuming, without deciding, that the metadata
includes such information, the request signal at step 545 does not have such
information, but rather is requesting it.
For the foregoing reasons, based on the record before us, Petitioner
has failed to show a skilled artisan would have understood, from Lee’s
teaching of terminal apparatus 160 sending a request signal with respect to
metadata, that terminal apparatus 160 has received any indication that home
appliance 150 is in network communication with data server 110, and
therefore knows when it sends the request signal to data server 110, that the
home appliance 150 is in network communication with data server 110.
Petitioner contends “a skilled artisan would have understood . . . that
the information received by the MSM includes data indicating the appliance
is in network communication with the cloud-based data server” (Pet. 21).
According to Petitioner, Lee’s signals 525 and 535 “show that the requested
metadata derives from the appliance” (Pet. Reply 11, n. 3 (citing Pet. 21)).
Patent Owner disputes that the metadata received by MSM 245 (i.e., asserted
“receiver”) includes information about home appliance 150’s network
connection with the cloud (PO Resp. 25–27).
We need not, and therefore do not, decide whether Lee teaches that
the metadata includes information indicating whether home appliance 150 is
in network communication with data server 110. Regardless of whether the
transfer of metadata in step 535 indicates home appliance 150 is in
communication with the cloud computing platform, the claim requires that
the indication is sent from “one or more computing systems” (i.e., terminal
apparatus 160). As discussed above, Petitioner has not shown terminal
apparatus 160 has received any indication that home appliance 150 is in
network communication with data server 110. The metadata transferred in
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
32
step 535 does not originate from terminal apparatus 160. Accordingly,
under Petitioner’s mapping, the transfer of metadata in any of step 525, step
535, or a combination of steps 525 and 535 does not teach “a receiver
configured to receive input from one or more computing systems including at
least a first input indicating” network communication (PO Resp. 21–22).
Thus, based on the record before us, regardless of whether Lee teaches the
metadata provides an indication that home appliance 150 is in network
communication with data server 110, Petitioner has not shown Lee teaches a
“computing system” providing such indication.
It is Petitioner’s burden to prove its proposition of unpatentability by a
preponderance of the evidence. Satisfaction of that burden must be based on
evidence of record (see In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d at
1380–81). We have considered the parties’ respective positions and, on the
record before us, we are not persuaded Lee teaches “a receiver configured to
receive inputs from one or more computing systems including at least a first
input indicating that an electronically-controlled appliance is in network
communication with the cloud computing platform,” as recited in
independent claim 1. For the same reasons, based on the record before us,
we are not persuaded Lee teaches “receiving at a network server of a cloud
computing platform a first input from one or more mobile devices, the first
input indicating that at least a first electronically-controlled appliance is in
network communication with a cloud computing platform,” as recited in
independent claim 16 (’720 Patent, 17:55–18:31). Therefore, after review of
the record before us, and based on this record, we determine Petitioner has
failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and
16 are unpatentable based on Lee and Henderson.
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
33
It follows also that, due to claims 4–7 and claim 20 dependence on
independent claims 1 and 16, respectively, Petitioner has failed to
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claims 4–7
and 20 are unpatentable.

2. Alleged Obviousness of Claim 8 over Lee, Henderson, and Porter
Claim 8 depends indirectly from independent claim 1 (’720 Patent,
claim 8). Petitioner does not contend Porter teaches “a receiver configured
to receive inputs from one or more computing systems including at least a
first input indicating that an electronically-controlled appliance is in network
communication with the cloud computing platform,” as recited in
independent claim 1 (Pet. 51–53). Therefore, for the reasons set forth above,
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that
dependent claim 8 is unpatentable based on Lee, Henderson, and Porter.

3. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 9–11 over Lee, Henderson, Porter, and
Ebrom
Claims 9–11 depend indirectly from independent claim 1 (’720 Patent,
claims 9–11). Petitioner does not contend Porter, Ebrom, or a combination
of the additional references teaches “a receiver configured to receive inputs
from one or more computing systems including at least a first input
indicating that an electronically-controlled appliance is in network
communication with the cloud computing platform,” as recited in
independent claim 1 (Pet. 53–60). Therefore, for the reasons set forth above,
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that
dependent claims 9–11 are unpatentable based on Lee, Henderson, Porter,
and Ebrom.
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
34

4. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 17 and 18 over Lee, Henderson, and
GMG Product Brochure
Claims 17 and 18 depend directly and indirectly from independent
claim 16 (’720 Patent, 18:22–33). Petitioner does not contend GMG Product
Brochure teaches “receiving a network server of a cloud computing platform
a first input from one or more mobile devices, the first input indicating that
at least a first electronically-controlled appliance is in network
communication with a cloud computing platform,” as recited in independent
claim 16 (Pet. 60–64). Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, Petitioner
has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent
claims 17 and 18 are unpatentable based on Lee, Henderson, and GMG
Product Brochure.

5. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 13–15 over Lee, Henderson, GMG
Product Brochure, and Amer
Claims 13–15 depend directly and indirectly from independent claim
12 (’720 Patent, 17:21–54). Petitioner contends the combination of Lee,
Henderson, GMG Product Brochure, and Amer teaches the elements recited
in independent claim 12 (Pet. 64–76). In particular, Petitioner asserts Lee
teaches “a receiver at the cloud computing platform configured to receive
inputs from one or more mobile devices including at least a first input
indicating that the electronically-controlled appliance is in network
communication with the cloud computing platform,” as recited in
independent claim 12 (id. at 65–66).
Patent Owner asserts Petitioner has failed to show the prior art
discloses all of the features of the recited claims, focusing on the limitations
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
35
recited in independent claim 12. For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner
has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Lee
teaches the disputed limitation. Moreover, Petitioner does not contend
GMG Product Brochure, Amer, or a combination of the references teaches
“a receiver at the cloud computing platform configured to receive inputs
from one or more mobile devices including at least a first input indicating
that the electronically-controlled appliance is in network communication
with the cloud computing platform,” as recited in independent claim 12 (Pet.
76–84). For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate
by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claims 13–15 are
unpatentable based on Lee, Henderson, GMG Product Brochure, and Amer.

6. Alleged Obviousness of Claim 30 over Lee, Henderson, Amer, and
Logue
Claim 30 depends indirectly from claim 29, which depends from
independent claim 23 (’720 Patent, 20:25–36). Claim 30, therefore, requires
all of the features set out in each of claims 29 and 23, although those claims
are not directly challenged in the Petition. Claims 23, 29, and 30 are
reproduced below:
23. An outdoor cooking device for use in a cloud computing
environment, the outdoor cooking device comprising an
electronically-controlled appliance in the form of an outdoor
barbecue grill or outdoor barbecue smoker that is configured to
implement instructions from a network server of a cloud
computing platform, and to relay information to one or more
user-controlled mobile devices at a remote location, the outdoor
cooking device comprising:
a combustion area; and
an electronic hardware controller comprising at least a
processor, a temperature sensor for providing grill temperature
data, a digital probe for providing food temperature data, a
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
36
network communication component for communicating over the
internet via an access point, and a computer memory having
computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when
executed through the electronic hardware controller, cause the
outdoor cooking device, to perform the following:
communicate wirelessly via an initial direct
connection with a mobile device to link the mobile device with
the outdoor cooking device;
after the initial direct connection with the mobile
device, communicate directly with the cloud computing platform
over the internet to send a first input indicating that the outdoor
cooking device is in network communication with the cloud
computing platform, and cause the outdoor cooking device to
disconnect from the mobile device;
after disconnecting from the initial direct
connection with the mobile device, receive one or more second
inputs from the network server over the internet, the one or more
second inputs comprising one or more user selection made on the
mobile device regarding control of the outdoor cooking device;
send usage data over the internet to the network
server, wherein the usage data comprises temperature data
intended for display on the mobile device, and data intended to
be stored at the cloud computing platform but not displayed on
the mobile device; and
adjust temperature of the outdoor cooking device in
response to user-selected instructions provided at the mobile
device and received at the outdoor cooking device from the
network server over the internet.
29. The outdoor cooking device as recited in claim 23,
wherein the outdoor cooking device is further configured to:
identify a status of software installed on the
electronically-controlled appliance; and
install an updated version of the software received
over the internet from the cloud computing platform.
30. The outdoor cooking device as recited in claim 29,
wherein the outdoor cooking device is further configured to:
send a request to the cloud computing platform
upon identifying that the software is out of date;
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
37
wherein the request:
informs a user that new operating instructions
exist and provides the user with an opportunity to direct an
update to the software; or
requests the cloud computing system to
directly update the outdoor cooking device with the software
update over the internet.
(’720 Patent, 18:53–19:28, 20:19–24). Petitioner contends the combination
of Lee, Henderson, Amer, and Logue teaches all the elements required by
claim 30 (Pet. 84–99). Patent Owner asserts Petitioner’s ground applied to
claim 30 is deficient because the combined references allegedly fail to teach
the following features of claim 23:
the outdoor cooking device comprising: . . . an electronic
hardware controller . . . [that] cause[s] the outdoor cooking
device to perform the following: . . . after the initial direct
connection with the mobile device, communicate directly with
the cloud computing platform over the internet to send a first
input indicating that the outdoor cooking device is in network
communication with the cloud computing platform, and cause
the outdoor cooking device to disconnect from the mobile
device[.]
(PO Resp. 29–33, 45–46; ’720 Patent, 20:25–36). Patent Owner further
asserts Petitioner does not provide an adequate rationale to combine Lee and
Henderson, and to combine Lee, Henderson, and Amer (id. at 46–54).
a) Alleged Lack of Teaching: “after the initial direct connection . . .”
Patent Owner contends “the first input[, sent from the outdoor grill,]
“must also ‘cause the outdoor cooking device to disconnect from the mobile
device’” (PO Resp. 29 (quoting ’720 Patent, 19:9–13)). We are not
persuaded. Claim 23 requires that an electronic controller includes a
computer memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon
that, when executed through the controller, causes an outdoor cooking
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
38
device to perform certain functions (’720 Patent, 18:53–19:28). For
instance, claim 23 specifies that the instructions cause the cooking device to
first “communicate wirelessly via an initial direct connection with a mobile
device to link the mobile device with the outdoor cooking device” (id. at
19:4–7). Next, claim 23 recites the limitation:
after the initial direct connection with the mobile device,
communicate directly with the cloud computing platform over
the internet to send a first input indicating that the outdoor
cooking device is in network communication with the cloud
computing platform, and cause the outdoor cooking device to
disconnect from the mobile device[.]
(id. at 19:8–14 (emphases added)). The above-quoted limitation recites two
verbs of the same tense: “communicate” and “cause” (id.). Based on rules of
parallelism and the phrase structure and verb tenses, the logical implication
is that the executed instructions initiate two actions as a part of the
limitation, a “communicate” action and a “cause” action. As a part of the
“communicate” action, a first input is sent which is recited as “indicating
that the outdoor cooking device is in network communication with the cloud
computing platform.” Notably, the next specified action of the limitation,
the “cause” action, is not referenced as “causing.” In light of the verb
tenses, the natural inference is not to link the “indicating” of the first input
with the “cause” action. Rather, it is the instructions executed through the
electronic controller that perform the “cause” action. We, thus, are not
persuaded the first input “causes” the outdoor cooking device to disconnect.
We determine this interpretation is consistent with the ’720 Patent.
More specifically, the ’720 Patent does not explicitly describe the outdoor
cooking device having a controller that, “after the initial direct connection
with the mobile device,” causes the outdoor cooking device, “to disconnect
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
39
from the mobile device.” The ’720 Patent describes in some embodiments,
“the cloud computing platform 101 may be configured to communicate
directly with the electronically-controlled appliance . . . . As such, the
electronically-controlled device 120 may send and receive data from the
cloud computing platform 101” (’720 Patent, 13:1–11). The ’720 Patent,
however, does not describe the specifics of the feature, nor does the ’720
Patent, aside from the claims, discuss any “disconnect” from the mobile
device. As such, absent any guidance from the Specification of the ’720
Patent, we find this interpretation is not inconsistent with the ’720 Patent.
According to Petitioner,
Amer discloses an initial direct connection between the user’s
mobile device and electronically-controlled appliance in order to
configure the device’s Wi-Fi access parameters, as well as a
subsequent cloud based connection therebetween once the
required parameters to configure access to the wireless network
have been received.
(Pet. 68 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 307–309), 89). Petitioner relies on Figure 8 of
Amer to show the disputed limitation (Pet. 67–69, 89–91). Figure 8,
reproduced below, illustrates “a flow diagram showing steps typically
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
40
performed by a device at power up in accordance with some embodiments of
the technology” (Ex. 1105 ¶ 11):

Figure 8’s flow diagram shows steps performed by a device, such as
an electronically-controlled appliance, “at power up to start communication
with a cloud service” (id. ¶ 90, Fig. 8). Amer discloses that “[u]pon power
up, at block 802, the system searches . . . for system settings” (id. at ¶ 90,
Fig. 8). When the settings are absent, as shown in block 806, remote control
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
41
device 10 switches Wi-Fi module to Wi-Fi direct mode (id. ¶ 90, Fig. 8; Pet.
68) ––“the initial direct connection with the mobile device,” as recited in
claim 23. In blocks 812, 814, and 816 of Figure 8, the device is in direct
communication with a mobile device and receives data to connect to a
selected access point (Pet. 68 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 305); Ex. 1105 ¶ 90, Fig. 8).
Amer further describes “[a]t block 818, the remote control device then
switches Wi-Fi module back to client mode [(disconnect from the mobile
device)] and at block 820 connects to the home Wi-Fi router from where at
block 822 the communication to cloud platform establishes” (Ex. 1105 ¶ 90,
Fig. 8; Pet. 68). Thus, based on the record before us, we are persuaded
Amer teaches “after the initial direct connection with the mobile device,
communicate directly with the cloud computing platform over the internet to
send a first input indicating that the outdoor cooking device is in network
communication with the cloud computing platform, and cause the outdoor
cooking device to disconnect from the mobile device,” as recited in claim
23. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we are persuaded Amer
teaches the disputed limitation.
Patent Owner argues Petitioner admits Amer does not disclose the
“first input,” as recited in claim 23, but instead, “implies that a [person of
skill in the art (POSITA)] would have known how Amer could be
‘configured’ to arrive at the claimed invention” (PO Resp. 29 (citing Pet.
89)). More specifically, according to Patent Owner, “Amer’s solution is to
introduce a new, intermediate device into the system so that the new device
([infrared remote] control device 10) can communicate with the Wi-Fi and
also send IF commands to the appliance”” (PO Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2115
¶¶ 116–120)). Therefore, Patent Owner asserts, no direct communications
exist between the cloud and the appliance because Amer teaches “the
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
42
appliance remains unchanged” and the “conventional IR appliances are
unidirectional” (id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 25, 33; Ex. 2125 ¶¶ 116–
120), 45–46).
Initially, we determine Amer discloses “the device 10 or a selection of
subsystems may be embedded within an appliance to provide the control and
management functionalities to the user over their appliances” (Ex. 1105 ¶ 46
(emphasis added); see also id. ¶ 47 (describing an embodiment with the
cloud enabled remote control device 10 embedded internally in an
appliance); Pet. Reply 21, 25). Indeed, Amer teaches this embedding of
device 10 may occur at the manufacturing stage (Ex. 1105 ¶ 46.). Thus,
Amer teaches device 10 may be an element of the appliance. We note the
’720 Patent similarly discloses an electronic hardware controller, which may
include a radio, is part of the electronically-controlled appliance (’720 Patent
6:67–7:4; Pet. Reply 25).
Amer’s appliance with embedded device 10, communicates with Wi-
Fi router 103 (Ex. 1105 ¶ 49, Fig. 2; Pet. Reply 22–23). The ’720 Patent
discloses electronically-controlled appliance 120 communicates with “an
access point 118 (such as a router) that permits flow of data between the
appliance 120 and the cloud computing platform 101 and/or between the
appliance 120 and the mobile computing device 113” (’720 Patent, 8:37–41,
Fig. 1). Thus, based on the record before us, we find Amer teaches the
outdoor cooking device “communicate[s] directly with the cloud computing
platform over the internet,” as recited in claim 23.
Patent Owner next points to paragraph 25 of Amer to support its
contention that Amer’s appliances cannot send information to the cloud (PO
Resp. 31); however, this paragraph discusses “conventional remote
controls,” the disadvantages of which Amer seeks to overcome with a bi-
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
43
directional remote control (Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 25, 33–34). Other disclosure in
Amer teaches device 10 includes IR transceiver 101 and thus, Amer’s
device 10 communicates bi-directionally (Ex. 1105 ¶ 40; see also id. ¶ 41
(“The IR transceiver 101 has onboard implementation of IR modulators and
demodulators for transmission and reception of data”), Claims 1–3 (“[T]he
IR transceiver assembly comprises an IR emitter and an IR transceiver”)).
Amer teaches device 10 (which may be embedded in the appliance and thus,
is part of the appliance) communicates with the cloud via a router 103 (id.
¶¶ 41, 49, 53, Figs. 1A, 2, 5A). Accordingly, Amer’s appliances can send
information to the cloud. Therefore, based on the record before us, we are
not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that Amer fails to disclose
direct communications between the cloud and the appliance.
Patent Owner additionally argues “the Petition provides no motivation
or reason for reconfiguring Amer so that the mobile device disconnects from
device 10 after it switches to Wi-Fi client mode” (PO Resp. 30 (Ex. 2125
¶ 126)). According to Patent Owner:
Amer never explains that switching modes means that the mobile
device disconnects from device 10 or that the device 10’s
connections are mutually exclusive. Instead, Amer suggests
simultaneous connections in that the device may use “onboard
algorithms to switch amongst various modes of operation, for
example, Wi-Fi client mode or Wi-Fi direct mode.” Ex. 1105
(Amer) ¶ [0089].
(id.).
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded by Patent
Owner’s contention. Rather, we credit Dr. Houh’s testimony that a skilled
artisan would understand “to switch amongst various modes of operation” to
mean “when one mode is enabled, the other is disabled” . . . and
“‘switching’ models involves exiting a first mode and activating a second
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
44
mode” (Ex. 1139 ¶ 55) because this is consistent with the disclosure in
Amer. As noted by Petitioner, Amer teaches “switching” amongst various
modes of operation (Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 34, 89–90; Pet Reply 23). More
specifically, paragraph 89 of Amer, relied upon by Patent Owner as
disclosing simultaneous connections, teaches:
If the device is registered, . . . [t]he device 10 switches to Wi-Fi
client mode 711 and connects to the registered Wi-Fi network
706. If the device is unregistered, the state will switch to Wi-Fi
Direct mode 702 and search for Wi-Fi Direct clients. After
successfully connecting to a Wi-F i Direct client 703, and getting
and verifying Wi-Fi communication credentials 704, the remote
control device state will switch to Wi-Fi client mode 705 and
connect to a Wi-Fi network 706, e.g., a home wireless router.
(Ex. 1105 ¶ 89 (emphases added)). Patent Owner argues “Amer teaches
maintaining a connection with the mobile device so that ‘cloud platform 50
is not required for communications’” (PO Resp. 30 (quoting Ex. 1105 ¶ 62;
see also id. ¶ 81, Fig. 5G; Ex. 2125 ¶ 123)). However, these paragraphs of
Amer teach an embodiment in which appliances communicate directly
through a user’s smartphone: “The cloud platform 50 is not required for
device 10 operation in such embodiments” (Ex. 1105 ¶ 62 (emphases added);
see also id. ¶ 82 (describing an embodiment illustrated in Figure 5G, in
which a local user(s) controls the appliance through their smartphone)).
Moreover, neither paragraph teaches maintaining a connection with the
mobile device and the cloud at the same time. As such, based on the record
before us, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that Amer’s
disclosure of switching between modes teaches or suggests computer-
executable instructions that “cause the appliance to disconnect from the
mobile device,” as recited in claim 23.
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
45
Patent Owner further contends, “the Petition fails to identify any input
that is sent from Amer’s appliance to the cloud . . . because the appliance in
Amer are infrared-controlled devices that can only receive IR-
communications from Amer’s IR remote control device 10; the appliances
never send any communications” (PO Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 1105 ¶ 25;
Ex. 2125 ¶ 116)). Amer, however, as discussed supra, teaches device 10,
embedded in the appliance (Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 45–47), is bi-directional (id. ¶¶ 40–
41; Fig. 2). Thus, the appliance includes device 10 (see e.g. Amer’s
example of an air conditioner with device 10 embedded within (id. ¶ 47)).
Accordingly, communications from device 10 teaches information from the
appliance to the cloud (id. ¶¶ 41, 53, Figs. 1A, 2). Further, Amer teaches the
IR transmission occurs between device 10 and an appliance(s) while
transmission between device 10 and cloud platform 50 uses LAN/WAN
(Local Area Network/Wide Area Network) communication (Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 56–
57; see Pet. Reply 26–27). Thus, Amer does not teach or suggest IR
communications between device 10 and cloud platform 50. We further note
Amer teaches when device 10 is embedded in an appliance, “[t]he data
receiving unit 129 and data transmission unit 130 communicate with the air
conditioner appliance directly rather than through the IR transceiver of FIG.
1A” (Ex. 1105 ¶ 47).
Petitioner additionally relies on an embodiment in Amer,
in which, once connected to the cloud, the appliance “starts
sending ‘heartbeats’ according to a ‘Heartbeat Protocol’ after
automatically adjusted intervals” . . . [that] “help[] in detecting
whether the device 10 is online or offline.
(Pet. 90). Patent Owner contends that “Amer never discloses disconnecting
any device as a response to receiving or not receiving a heartbeat” (PO Resp.
33 (citing Ex. 2125 ¶ 122). However, in light of our findings above in which
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
46
we determined, based on the record, Amer teaches the requirement in claim
23, of disconnecting from the mobile device, we need not address this
contention. Therefore, we find, based on the record before us, the
combination of Lee, Henderson, and Amer teaches the following element of
claim 23:
after the initial direct connection with the mobile device,
communicate directly with the cloud computing platform over
the internet to send a first input indicating that the outdoor
cooking device is in network communication with the cloud
computing platform, and cause the outdoor cooking device to
disconnect from the mobile device[,]
(’720 Patent, 18:53–19:28).
b) Remaining Limitations
Petitioner sets forth for each of the other limitations required by claim
30, where the combination of Lee, Henderson, Amer, and/or Logue teaches
or suggests each of the limitations (Pet. 13–18, 67–76, 84–99). Patent
Owner does not argue specifically any of these limitations (see generally PO
Resp.). Upon review of the record before us, we find that the combination
of Lee, Henderson, and Amer teaches these remaining limitations.

c) Rationale to Combine Lee and Henderson
Petitioner states that a “skilled artisan would have been motivated to
use Lee’s cloud-based system with Henderson’s networked grill” (Pet. 16–
18, 85). In response, Patent Owner contends Petitioner “fails to articulate
adequate reasoning for combining the complex IoT gateway-based system of
Lee with the outdoor grills/smoker of Henderson” to combine the teachings
of Lee and Henderson” (PO Resp. 46).
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
47
(1) Level of Skill
Initially, Patent Owner challenges the Petitioner’s basis for combining
the teachings of Lee and Henderson on the premise that Petitioner’s level of
skill in the art is incorrect because it “discount[s] the unique nature of
outdoor grills” (id. at 47–48). As discussed supra, however, we adopt
Petitioner’s articulated level of skill in the art for an ordinarily skilled
artisan.
(2) Reason to Combine Lee and Henderson
Petitioner argues “Lee discloses a cloud-based system that allows a
mobile device to communicate with and control various household
appliances” listed as covering “a wide array of electronically-controlled
appliances” (Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶ 247, Fig. 4), 15 (citing Ex. 1103
¶ 62)). Petitioner then asserts:
Applying cloud-computing technology to outdoor grills reflects
a natural progression of IoT technology, as market forces
incentivized appliance manufacturers to develop new kinds of
“smart home” devices.
(id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 121)). Petitioner identifies prior art that
discloses controlling devices such as an outdoor grill, using a cloud-
computing platform (id. at 6–7 (citing Ex. 1120; Ex. 1122)).
According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would allow a
user to remotely control the grill from virtually anywhere,” addressing
Henderson’s criticism of prior art grills and extending Henderson’s solution
to the problem (id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 124; Ex. 1104 ¶ 2)). Petitioner
states “[t]here is nothing unique about a grill that would dissuade a skilled
artisan from following Lee’s suggestion to add home appliances to the
cloud-based network” (id. at 16). Petitioner further contends:
[A] skilled artisan would recognize that there are many
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
48
advantages to using Lee’s cloud-based platform to control
Henderson’s networked grill. Doing so would allow a user to
remotely control the grill from virtually anywhere, without any
geographic limitations.
(id. at 17). Petitioner further states “Lee’s cloud-based network was a
wireless platform known at the time, and employing it in Henderson would
have been routine for a skilled artisan and would have produced no
unexpected results” (id. at 16–17). Petitioner still further states a
“predictable benefit of employing Lee’s cloud-based platform with
Henderson’s grill is the improved data storage capacity that cloud
technology provides” and “Lee itself describes such a benefit” (id. at 17
(citing Ex. 1103 ¶ 8)). Petitioner also states “an additional expected benefit
of using the cloud-based data network of Lee with the networked grill of
Henderson is the cloud’s well-known ability to continuously collect data”
(id.at 18 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 126)).
Lee contemplates use of its system with home appliances which “may
refer to electrical devices used at home” (Ex. 1103 ¶ 61). Based on the
record before us, we are persuaded an outdoor grill, as described in the ’720
Patent, would have been regarded reasonably as an electrical device used at
home. Indeed, Lee provides a non-limiting array of examples of home
appliances that includes “a refrigerator, an air conditioner, a humidifier, a
boiler, a PC [(personal computer)], a television (TV), and a printer” (id. at
¶ 62 ). Thus, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s assertion that Lee
“encourag[es] the connection of any home appliance to that network” (Pet.
16 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶ 6)). We find Lee’s description of use of its system
with multiple, various examples of home appliances reasonably suggests use
with other types of known appliances associated with a user’s home, such as
an outdoor grill. Furthermore, Henderson supports that an outdoor grill can
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
49
be connected to a communication network and controlled by a remote
computing device (Ex. 1104 ¶ 13; see Pet. 8, 16).
Patent Owner argues, however, “outdoor grills are unique as
compared to indoor home appliances” (PO Resp. 49 (citing Ex. 2126 ¶¶ 40–
44; Ex. 2125 ¶ 180)). According to Patent Owner, because of
“environmental conditions and other factors (such as rapid, unintentional
increases in temperature) lead to unpredictable situations and constantly
changing conditions, it is important to be physically located at the grill” (id.
(citing Ex. 2126 ¶¶ 40–41)). Patent Owner additionally argues an ordinarily
skilled artisan would not have been motivated to use Lee’s IoT gateway-
based system for remotely controlling an outdoor grill because “Lee’s
system is overly complex and introduces a potential failure point that may
negatively impact the safety, reliability, and robustness of the remote
control” (id. at 49 (citing Ex. 2125 ¶¶ 182–183)).
We credit Dr. Houh’s testimony that “applying Lee’s cloud-based
system to Henderson’s grill represents a natural progression of [Internet of
Things] technology” (Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 120–121) because “Lee articulates the
benefit of controlling ‘home appliances through a network formed among
the home appliances in ubiquitous environments,’ and the inclusion of a
grill—an appliance already prevalent in many homes—would have been a
logical addition to that ubiquitous network” (id. (citing Ex. 1103, ¶ 6)). In
addition, prior art discloses that “IoT devices may include . . . grills”
(Ex. 1122 ¶ 37 (hereinafter, “Gupta”)) and further prior art discloses a
system and method of monitoring and controlling powered gas or electric
appliances, such as an outdoor grill, using Internet connectivity and a cloud
platform (see e.g., Ex. 1122, Abstract, 1:41–47, 3:17–33, 4:63–5:5, 11:37–
42 (hereinafter “Jablokov”)) and a grill control device which remotely
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
50
controls a grill allowing the grill to be “unattended” and used remotely
(Ex. 1131, 1:8–12, 1:21–50, 2:33–35, 4:42–55 (hereinafter “Durian”))
(Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 63–64).
Additionally, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that
an “outdoor environment” or the “more complex, interactive cooking
hardware like an outdoor grill” would have been “uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious
step over the prior art” for an ordinarily skilled artisan to incorporate into the
system of Lee (Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19)). The disclosure in
the proffered prior art teaches connection of a grill to the internet. Indeed,
each of Henderson, Gupta, Jablokov, and Durian describes internet-based
systems for remotely controlling an outdoor grill. We are persuaded by
Petitioner’s assertion that application of IoT to outdoor grills was known
before the filing date of the ’720 Patent. We further are persuaded the
application of IoT to outdoor grills, using cloud-computing technology, was
a natural extension of IoT and cloud-computing technology (see Pet. 6
(citing Ex. 1120; Ex. 1122; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 51–65)).
Additionally, we are unpersuaded that use of Lee’s system, which
includes a home gateway, would have dissuaded an ordinarily skilled artisan
from combining Lee’s system with an outdoor grill. Indeed, although Patent
Owner contends Lee’s system is “overly complex” and use of the gateway
“introduces a potential failure point,” Patent Owner has not proffered
sufficient evidence or argument as to why addition of a home gateway
would make a system utilizing the Internet (which has multiple intermediate
devices and, thus, potential failure points) so complex that an ordinarily
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
51
skilled artisan would not be motivated, even in light of Lee’s disclosure of
connecting home appliances, to connect an outdoor grill.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s articulated rationale
that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use Lee’s
cloud-based system with Henderson’s networked grill.
We have reviewed the record before us, and based on this record, we
determine Petitioner has articulated sufficiently why an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Lee and
Henderson.
d) Rationale to Combine Lee, Henderson, and Amer
Petitioner asserts an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been
motivated to use Amer’s teachings of switching between several modes of
operation when powering up a household appliance (Pet. 69–71 (citing
Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 311–316)). According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have been motivated to implement Amer’s teaching because “Lee
does not describe how its home appliance are initially connected to the local
wireless access point” (id. at 69 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 311)). Thus, Petitioner
asserts, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been motivated to provide
a convenient and common method of connecting a variety of home
appliances to a user’s wireless network via an access point” (id. at 70 (citing
Ex. 1102 ¶ 312)).
Patent Owner contends an ordinarily skilled artisan “would not look to
Amer’s infrared (‘IR’) communication in the context of designing a system
to remotely monitor and control an outdoor grill” (PO Resp. 51 (citing
Ex. 2125 ¶¶ 186–187)). According to Patent Owner,
IR communication requires both line-of-sight and a clear path
between transmitter and receiver. An outdoor environment is
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
52
generally unpredictable, as there are numerous objects that may
interfere with the line-of-sight between objects.
(id. at 52 (citing Ex. 2125 ¶ 189)).
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s
contentions. Petitioner contends the IR transmission of data in Amer occurs
between its remote control device and appliance, and Amer describes an
embodiment in which the remote control device is embedded in the
appliance (Pet. Reply 25; Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 46–47). Amer describes an appliance
with an embedded device, as illustrated in Figure 1C (Ex. 1105 ¶ 47). Thus,
because the device may be embedded in the appliance, Amer describes
embodiments in which line-of-sight and a clear path would not pose an
issue. Moreover, Amer teaches, in an embodiment in which the device 10 is
embedded in the appliance, “[t]he data receiving unit 129 and data
transmission unit 130 communicate with the air conditioner appliance
directly rather than through the IR transceiver of FIG. 1A” (Ex. 1105 ¶ 47).
Additionally, as discussed supra, communication between cloud platform 50
and device 10 is not IR communication (id. ¶ 56; Pet. Reply 26).
Patent Owner further contends “IR involve[s] an excess amount of
ambient light or heat, which can overload an IR sensor, preventing it from
receiving a command signal” (PO Resp. 52). Again, this contention is not
persuasive given Amer’s teaching of device 10 being embedded in the
appliance and communicating directly (Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 46–47).
Patent Owner additionally asserts “adding the IR communication
system of Amer adds yet another device, which adds yet another layer of
complexity into Lee’s IoT gateway system” and “would also add
unnecessary cost and vulnerabilities” (PO Resp. 53 (citing Ex. 2125 ¶¶ 193–
194)). Patent Owner relies on Mr. Minoli’s testimony, but does not proffer
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
53
adequate evidence that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be dissuaded from
incorporating Amer’s teachings into Lee’s system due to the “complexity”
or “unnecessary cost and vulnerabilities.”
We have considered the respective positions of the parties, and are
persuaded Petitioner has articulated adequate reasons why an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have combined the teachings and suggestions of Lee,
Henderson, and Amer.

e) Rationale to Combine Lee, Henderson, Amer, and Logue
Petitioner also contends that a skilled artisan would have had adequate
reason to add Logue’s teachings to the proposed combination because doing
so “would have been a matter of adding well-known IoT functionality to
achieve expected results” (Pet. 96 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 414)), and Logue’s
teachings, as well as Lee and Amer, are directed to a cloud-based system and
“employ a similar architecture for carrying out a similar goal—i.e.,
managing smart appliances (id. citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 415). Patent Owner does
not offer any arguments challenging the combination of Logue’s teachings
with those of Lee, Henderson, and Amer.
We have considered the respective positions of the parties, and are
persuaded Petitioner has articulated adequate reasons why an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have combined the teachings and suggestions of Lee,
Henderson, Amer, and Logue with a reasonable expectation of success in
arriving at the subject matter of claim 30.

f) Conclusion
Based on the record before us, Petitioner has persuaded us the
combination of Lee, Henderson, and Amer teaches claim 23. Claim 30
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
54
depends from claim 23. Patent Owner has not proffered arguments
specifically directed to dependent claim 30. Upon review of and based on
the record before us, (see e.g., Pet. 87–94; Exs. 1103–1105), we are
persuaded Petitioner has shown the combination of Lee, Henderson, and
Amer teaches claim 30. Accordingly, we have reviewed the record before
us, and based on this record, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 30 of the ’720 Patent is
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

III. CONCLUSION6
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence:
Claim 30 of the ’720 Patent would have been obvious under
35 U.S.C. ¶ 103 over Lee, Henderson, Amer, and Logue; and
Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence:
Claims 4–7 and 20 of the ’720 Patent would have been obvious
under 35 U.S.C. ¶ 103 over Lee and Henderson;
Claim 8 of the ’720 Patent would have been obvious over Lee,
Henderson, and Porter;

6 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)).
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
55
Claims 9–11 of the ’720 Patent would have been obvious over Lee,
Henderson, Porter, and Ebrom;
Claims 17 and 18 of the ’720 Patent would have been obvious over
Lee, Henderson, and GMG Publication; and
Claims 13–15 of the ’720 Patent would have been obvious under
35 U.S.C. ¶ 103 over Lee, Henderson, GMG Publication, and Amer.

IV. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that,
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 30
of the ’720 Patent is unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner has not shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 4–11, 13–15, 17, 18, and 20 of the
’720 Patent are unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
parties to this proceeding seeking judicial review of our decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

In summary:
Claim(s)

35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Claims
Shown
Unpatentable
Claims
Not shown
Unpatentable
4–7, 20 103 Lee, Henderson 4–7, 20
8 103 Lee, Henderson,
Porter
8
9–11 103 Lee, Henderson,
Porter, Ebrom
9–11
17, 18 103 Lee, Henderson,
GMG Publication
17, 18
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
56

13–15 103 Lee, Henderson,
GMG Publication,
Amer
13–15
30 103 Lee, Henderson,
Amer, Logue
30
Overall
Outcome
30 4–11, 13–15,
17, 18, 20
PGR2019-00036
Patent 10,158,720 B2
57
FOR PETITIONER:
David L. Cavanaugh
Richard Goldenberg
Richard A. Crudo
Jeffrey M. Soller
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR, LLP
david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
richard.goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
richard.crudo@wilmerhale.com
jeff.soller@wilmerhale.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:

Michael P. Chu
Brian A. Jones
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
mchu@mwe.com
bajones@mwe.com