[{"id":"transcript","page":210,"title":"A sentence, interrupted by its line numbers","description":"The transcript’s left gutter and right timestamps interrupt ordinary text search. The geometry version separates those lanes and keeps the speech together. This excerpt is taken directly from the saved output.","status":"Reading-order improvement","warn":false,"query":"There was no operational software, but in my head","detail":"Native text · no OCR","caption":"Physical page 210 · transcript page 131 · appendix Appx1167","excerptNote":"Matching excerpt endpoints in all methods; complete page strings are retained in the data.","crop":"crop-210.webp","fullImage":"fullpage-210.webp","alt":"Source page 210: A sentence, interrupted by its line numbers","width":1524,"height":570,"sourceUrl":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68048163/15/ecofactor-inc-v-google-llc/","full":{"default":"Case: 23-1101\n\nDocument: 15\n\nPage: 210\n\nFiled: 05/09/2023\n\nCase 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 111-5 Filed 11/19/21 Page 7 of 16\n\n1\n\nplace.\n\n2\n\nhead, I was able to do that on a\n\n14:21:55\n\n3\n\none-house-by-one-house basis.\n\n14:21:57\n\n4\n\nBY MS. WANG:\n\n14:22:09\n\n5\n\nQ\n\nThere was no operational software, but in my\n\nYou mentioned you made modifications to the\n\n14:21:52\n\n14:22:10\n\n6\n\noff-the-shelf hardware to collect data; is that\n\n14:22:14\n\n7\n\ncorrect?\n\n14:22:20\n\n8\n\nA\n\nYes.\n\n14:22:21\n\n9\n\nQ\n\nIs that the only modification you made to\n\n14:22:22\n\n10\n11\n\nthe hardware?\nYeah.\n\nI mean, it wasn't a modification to\n\n14:22:26\n\n12\n\nthe hardware.\n\nIt was a modification to the software\n\n14:22:29\n\n13\n\nthat was actually running on the hardware.\n\n14\n15\n\nA\n\n14:22:24\n\nQ\n\nSo there was no modification to the\n\nhardware itself?\n\n16\n\nA\n\n17\n\nitself.\n\n18\n\nQ\n\nNo.\n\n14:22:31\n14:22:33\n14:22:35\n\nNo modification to the hardware\n\n14:22:35\n14:22:40\n\nOkay.\n\nI understand from your testimony in\n\n14:22:40\n\n19\n\nthe 1185 investigation that your main hypothesis\n\n14:22:53\n\n20\n\nbehind a lot of these patents, behind the\n\n14:22:59\n\n21\n\nITC '488 patent, behind the '567 patent, behind the\n\n14:23:02\n\n22\n\n'983 patent, behind the '550 patent, behind the\n\n14:23:06\n\n23\n\n'327 patent and behind the Texas '488 patent, was\n\n14:23:10\n\n24\n\nthat the data that is used to perform the various\n\n14:23:15\n\n25\n\ncalculations in the claims, that it's limited to\n\n14:23:21\nPage 131\n\nVeritext Legal Solutions\n866 299-5127\n\nAppx1167\n\n","layout":" Case: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 210 Filed: 05/09/2023\n\n Case 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 111-5 Filed 11/19/21 Page 7 of 16\n\n\n1 place. There was no operational software, but in my 14:21:52\n\n2 head, I was able to do that on a 14:21:55\n\n3 one-house-by-one-house basis. 14:21:57\n\n4 BY MS. WANG: 14:22:09\n\n5 Q You mentioned you made modifications to the 14:22:10\n\n6 off-the-shelf hardware to collect data; is that 14:22:14\n\n7 correct? 14:22:20\n\n8 A Yes. 14:22:21\n\n9 Q Is that the only modification you made to 14:22:22\n\n10 the hardware? 14:22:24\n\n11 A Yeah. I mean, it wasn't a modification to 14:22:26\n\n12 the hardware. It was a modification to the software 14:22:29\n\n13 that was actually running on the hardware. 14:22:31\n\n14 Q So there was no modification to the 14:22:33\n\n15 hardware itself? 14:22:35\n\n16 A No. No modification to the hardware 14:22:35\n\n17 itself. 14:22:40\n\n18 Q Okay. I understand from your testimony in 14:22:40\n\n19 the 1185 investigation that your main hypothesis 14:22:53\n\n20 behind a lot of these patents, behind the 14:22:59\n\n21 ITC '488 patent, behind the '567 patent, behind the 14:23:02\n\n22 '983 patent, behind the '550 patent, behind the 14:23:06\n\n23 '327 patent and behind the Texas '488 patent, was 14:23:10\n\n24 that the data that is used to perform the various 14:23:15\n\n25 calculations in the claims, that it's limited to 14:23:21\n\n Page 131\n\n Veritext Legal Solutions\n 866 299-5127\n Appx1167\n","pdfium":"1 place. There was no operational software, but in my 14:21:52\r\n2 head, I was able to do that on a 14:21:55\r\n3 one-house-by-one-house basis. 14:21:57\r\n4 BY MS. WANG: 14:22:09\r\n5 Q You mentioned you made modifications to the 14:22:10\r\n6 off-the-shelf hardware to collect data; is that 14:22:14\r\n7 correct? 14:22:20\r\n8 A Yes. 14:22:21\r\n9 Q Is that the only modification you made to 14:22:22\r\n10 the hardware? 14:22:24\r\n11 A Yeah. I mean, it wasn't a modification to 14:22:26\r\n12 the hardware. It was a modification to the software 14:22:29\r\n13 that was actually running on the hardware. 14:22:31\r\n14 Q So there was no modification to the 14:22:33\r\n15 hardware itself? 14:22:35\r\n16 A No. No modification to the hardware 14:22:35\r\n17 itself. 14:22:40\r\n18 Q Okay. I understand from your testimony in 14:22:40\r\n19 the 1185 investigation that your main hypothesis 14:22:53\r\n20 behind a lot of these patents, behind the 14:22:59\r\n21 ITC '488 patent, behind the '567 patent, behind the 14:23:02\r\n22 '983 patent, behind the '550 patent, behind the 14:23:06\r\n23 '327 patent and behind the Texas '488 patent, was 14:23:10\r\n24 that the data that is used to perform the various 14:23:15\r\n25 calculations in the claims, that it's limited to 14:23:21\r\nPage 131\r\nVeritext Legal Solutions\r\n866 299-5127\r\nCase 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 111-5 Filed 11/19/21 Page 7 of 16\r\nAppx1167\r\nCase: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 210 Filed: 05/09/2023","after":"place. There was no operational software, but in my\nhead, I was able to do that on a\none-house-by-one-house basis.\nBY MS. WANG:\nQ You mentioned you made modifications to the\noff-the-shelf hardware to collect data; is that\ncorrect?\nA Yes.\nQ Is that the only modification you made to\nthe hardware?\nA Yeah. I mean, it wasn't a modification to\nthe hardware. It was a modification to the software\nthat was actually running on the hardware.\nQ So there was no modification to the\nhardware itself?\nA No. No modification to the hardware\nitself.\nQ Okay. I understand from your testimony in\nthe 1185 investigation that your main hypothesis\nbehind a lot of these patents, behind the\nITC '488 patent, behind the '567 patent, behind the\n'983 patent, behind the '550 patent, behind the\n'327 patent and behind the Texas '488 patent, was\nthat the data that is used to perform the various\ncalculations in the claims, that it's limited to"},"excerpts":{"default":"place.\n\n2\n\nhead, I was able to do that on a\n\n14:21:55\n\n3\n\none-house-by-one-house basis.\n\n14:21:57\n\n4\n\nBY MS. WANG:\n\n14:22:09\n\n5\n\nQ\n\nThere was no operational software, but in my\n\nYou mentioned you made modifications to the\n\n14:21:52\n\n14:22:10\n\n6\n\noff-the-shelf hardware to collect data; is that\n\n14:22:14\n\n7\n\ncorrect?","layout":"place. There was no operational software, but in my 14:21:52\n\n2 head, I was able to do that on a 14:21:55\n\n3 one-house-by-one-house basis. 14:21:57\n\n4 BY MS. WANG: 14:22:09\n\n5 Q You mentioned you made modifications to the 14:22:10\n\n6 off-the-shelf hardware to collect data; is that 14:22:14\n\n7 correct?","pdfium":"place. There was no operational software, but in my 14:21:52\r\n2 head, I was able to do that on a 14:21:55\r\n3 one-house-by-one-house basis. 14:21:57\r\n4 BY MS. WANG: 14:22:09\r\n5 Q You mentioned you made modifications to the 14:22:10\r\n6 off-the-shelf hardware to collect data; is that 14:22:14\r\n7 correct?","after":"place. There was no operational software, but in my\nhead, I was able to do that on a\none-house-by-one-house basis.\nBY MS. WANG:\nQ You mentioned you made modifications to the\noff-the-shelf hardware to collect data; is that\ncorrect?"},"searchStreams":["place. there was no operational software, but in my head, i was able to do that on a one-house-by-one-house basis. by ms. wang: q you mentioned you made modifications to the off-the-shelf hardware to collect data; is that correct? a yes. q is that the only modification you made to the hardware? a yeah. i mean, it wasn't a modification to the hardware. it was a modification to the software that was actually running on the hardware. q so there was no modification to the hardware itself? a no. no modification to the hardware itself. q okay. i understand from your testimony in the 1185 investigation that your main hypothesis behind a lot of these patents, behind the itc '488 patent, behind the '567 patent, behind the '983 patent, behind the '550 patent, behind the '327 patent and behind the texas '488 patent, was that the data that is used to perform the various calculations in the claims, that it's limited to "]},{"id":"patent","page":115,"title":"The next words are below, not to the right","description":"Both Poppler text modes interleave this patent’s columns. The geometry version separates them; PDFium’s own plain-text output already does so here. Existing recognition errors remain unchanged.","status":"Columns separated; OCR still noisy","warn":true,"query":"filed Feb. 28, 2011, now U.S. Pat.","detail":"Existing OCR layer","caption":"Physical page 115 · patent columns 1–2 · appendix Appx80","excerptNote":"The same opening paragraph is selected by exact literal endpoints. OCR misspellings are not repaired.","crop":"crop-115.webp","fullImage":"fullpage-115.webp","alt":"Source page 115: The next words are below, not to the right","width":1420,"height":547,"sourceUrl":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68048163/15/ecofactor-inc-v-google-llc/","full":{"default":"Case: 23-1101\n\nDocument: 15\n\nPage: 115\n\nFiled: 05/09/2023\n\nUS 8,412,488 B2\n1.\n\n2\nthe long term, they can build additional generating capacity,\nbut that approach is very expensive given the fact that Such\ncapacity may be needed for only a few hours a year. And this\noption is of course unavailable in the short term. When con\nCROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED\nfronted with an immediate potential shortfall, a utility may\nAPPLICATIONS\nhave reserve capacity it can choose to bring online. But\nbecause utilities are assumed to try to operate as efficiently as\nThis application is a continuation of U.S. patent applica possible, the reserve capacity is likely to be the least efficient\nand most expensive and/or more polluting plants to operate.\ntion Ser. No. 137037,162, filed Feb. 28, 2011, now U.S. Pat.\nNo. 8,131.506 which is a continuation of U.S. patent appli 10 Alternatively, the utility may seek to purchase additional\npower on the open market. But the spot market for electricity,\ncation Ser. No. 12/183,949, filed Jul. 31, 2008, now U.S. Pat.\nwhich cannot efficiently be stored, is extremely volatile,\nNo. 7,908,116, issued on Mar. 15, 2011, which claims the\nbenefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. S 119(e) to both U.S. which means that spot prices during peak events may be as\nProvisional Application 60/963,183, filed Aug. 3, 2007; and much as 10x the average price.\nU.S. Provisional Application No. 60/994,011, filed Sep. 17, 15 More recently, many utilities have begun to enter into\n2007, the entireties of which are incorporated herein by ref agreements with certain customers to reduce demand, as\nopposed to increasing Supply. In essence, these customers\nerence and are to be considered part of this specification.\nagree to reduce usage during a few critical periods in\nBACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION\nexchange for incentives from the utility. Those incentives\nmay take the form of a fixed contract payment in exchange for\n1. Field of the Invention\nthe right to cut the amount of power Supplied at specified\nThis invention relates to the use of thermostatic HVAC\ntimes, or a reduced overall price per kilowatt-hour, or a rebate\ncontrols that are connected to a computer network as a part of each time power is reduced, or Some other method.\na system for offering peak demand reduction to electric utili\nThe bulk of these peak demand reduction (PDR) contracts\nties. More specifically, the present invention pertains to use of 25 have been entered into with large commercial and industrial\ncommunicating thermostat combined with a computer net customers. This bias is in large part due to the fact that\ntransaction costs are much lower today for a single contract\nwork to verify that demand reduction has occurred.\n2. Background\nwith a factory that can offer demand reduction of 50 mega\nClimate control systems such as heating and cooling sys watts than they would be for the equivalent from residential\ntems for buildings (heating, ventilation and cooling, or HVAC 30 customers it could take 25,000 or more homes to equal that\nsystems) have been controlled for decades by thermostats. At reduction if these homes went without air conditioning.\nBut residential air conditioning is the largest single com\nthe most basic level, athermostat includes a means to allow a\nuser to set a desired temperature, a means to sense actual ponent of peak demand in California, and is a large percent\ntemperature, and a means to signal the heating and/or cooling age in many other places. There are numerous reasons why it\ndevices to turn on or offin order to try to change the actual 35 would be economically advantageous to deploy PDR in the\ntemperature to equal the desired temperature. The most basic residential market. Whereas cutting energy consumption at a\nversions of thermostats use components such as a coiled large factory could require shutting down or curtailing pro\nbi-metallic spring to measure actual temperature and a mer duction, which has direct economic costs, cutting consump\ncury Switch that opens or completes a circuit when the spring tion for a couple of hours in residences is likely to have no\ncoils or uncoils with temperature changes. More recently, 40 economic cost, and may only result in minor discomfort—or\nelectronic digital thermostats have become prevalent. These none at all if no one is at home at the time.\nthermostats use solid-state devices such as thermistors or\nResidential PDR has been attempted. But there have been\nthermal diodes to measure temperature, and microprocessor numerous command and control issues with these implemen\nbased circuitry to control the switch and to store and operate tations. The standard approach to residential PDR has been to\nbased upon user-determined protocols for temperature Vs. 45 attach a radio-controlled switch to the control circuitry\ntime.\nlocated outside the dwelling. These switches are designed to\nThese programmable thermostats generally offer a very receive a signal from a transmitter that signals the compressor\nrestrictive user interface, limited by the cost of the devices, to shut off during a PDR call.\nThere are a number of technical complications with this\nthe limited real estate of the small wall-mounted boxes, and\nthe inability to take into account more than two variables: the 50 approach. There is some evidence that “hard cycling the\ndesired temperature set by the user, and the ambient tempera compressor in this manner can damage the air conditioning\nture sensed by the thermostat. Users can generally only set system. There are also serious issues resulting from the fact\none series of commands per day, and to change one parameter that the communication system is unidirectional. When utili\n(e.g., to change the late-night temperature) the user often has ties contract for PDR, they expect verification of compliance.\nto cycle through several other parameters by repeatedly press 55 One-way pagers allow the utility to send a signal that will shut\nof the A/C, but the pager cannot confirm to the utility that the\ning one or two buttons.\nAs both the cost of energy and the demand for electricity NC unit has in fact been shut off. If a consumer tampers with\nhave increased, utilities Supplying electricity increasingly the system so that the A/C can be used anyway, the utility will\nface unpleasant choices. The demand for electricity is not not be able to detect it, absent additional verification systems.\nSmooth over time. In so-called \"Summer peaking locations, 60 One way in which some utilities are seeking to address this\non the hottest days of the year, peak loads may be twice as issue is to combine the pager-controlled thermostat with so\nhigh as average loads. During Such peak load periods (gen called advanced metering infrastructure (AMI). This\nerally in the late afternoon), air conditioning can be the largest approach relies on the deployment of 'Smart meters' elec\ntric meters that are more sophisticated than the traditional\nsingle element of demand.\nUtilities and their customers generally see reductions of 65 meter with its mechanical odometer mechanism for logging\nSupply (brownouts and blackouts) as an unacceptable out only cumulative energy use. Smart meters generally include a\ncome. But their other options can be almost as distasteful. In means for communicating instantaneous readings. That com\nSYSTEMAND METHOD FOR USINGA\nNETWORK OF THERMOSTATS AS TOOL TO\nVERIFY PEAK DEMAND REDUCTION\n\nAppx80\n\n","layout":" Case: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 115 Filed: 05/09/2023\n\n\n\n\n US 8,412,488 B2\n 1. 2\n SYSTEMAND METHOD FOR USINGA the long term, they can build additional generating capacity,\n NETWORK OF THERMOSTATS AS TOOL TO but that approach is very expensive given the fact that Such\n VERIFY PEAK DEMAND REDUCTION capacity may be needed for only a few hours a year. And this\n option is of course unavailable in the short term. When con\n CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED fronted with an immediate potential shortfall, a utility may\n APPLICATIONS have reserve capacity it can choose to bring online. But\n because utilities are assumed to try to operate as efficiently as\n This application is a continuation of U.S. patent applica possible, the reserve capacity is likely to be the least efficient\ntion Ser. No. 137037,162, filed Feb. 28, 2011, now U.S. Pat. and most expensive and/or more polluting plants to operate.\nNo. 8,131.506 which is a continuation of U.S. patent appli 10 Alternatively, the utility may seek to purchase additional\ncation Ser. No. 12/183,949, filed Jul. 31, 2008, now U.S. Pat. power on the open market. But the spot market for electricity,\nNo. 7,908,116, issued on Mar. 15, 2011, which claims the which cannot efficiently be stored, is extremely volatile,\nbenefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. S 119(e) to both U.S. which means that spot prices during peak events may be as\nProvisional Application 60/963,183, filed Aug. 3, 2007; and much as 10x the average price.\nU.S. Provisional Application No. 60/994,011, filed Sep. 17, 15 More recently, many utilities have begun to enter into\n2007, the entireties of which are incorporated herein by ref agreements with certain customers to reduce demand, as\nerence and are to be considered part of this specification. opposed to increasing Supply. In essence, these customers\n agree to reduce usage during a few critical periods in\n BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION exchange for incentives from the utility. Those incentives\n may take the form of a fixed contract payment in exchange for\n 1. Field of the Invention the right to cut the amount of power Supplied at specified\n This invention relates to the use of thermostatic HVAC times, or a reduced overall price per kilowatt-hour, or a rebate\ncontrols that are connected to a computer network as a part of each time power is reduced, or Some other method.\na system for offering peak demand reduction to electric utili The bulk of these peak demand reduction (PDR) contracts\nties. More specifically, the present invention pertains to use of 25 have been entered into with large commercial and industrial\ncommunicating thermostat combined with a computer net customers. This bias is in large part due to the fact that\nwork to verify that demand reduction has occurred. transaction costs are much lower today for a single contract\n 2. Background with a factory that can offer demand reduction of 50 mega\n Climate control systems such as heating and cooling sys watts than they would be for the equivalent from residential\ntems for buildings (heating, ventilation and cooling, or HVAC 30 customers it could take 25,000 or more homes to equal that\nsystems) have been controlled for decades by thermostats. At reduction if these homes went without air conditioning.\nthe most basic level, athermostat includes a means to allow a But residential air conditioning is the largest single com\nuser to set a desired temperature, a means to sense actual ponent of peak demand in California, and is a large percent\ntemperature, and a means to signal the heating and/or cooling age in many other places. There are numerous reasons why it\ndevices to turn on or offin order to try to change the actual 35 would be economically advantageous to deploy PDR in the\ntemperature to equal the desired temperature. The most basic residential market. Whereas cutting energy consumption at a\nversions of thermostats use components such as a coiled large factory could require shutting down or curtailing pro\nbi-metallic spring to measure actual temperature and a mer duction, which has direct economic costs, cutting consump\ncury Switch that opens or completes a circuit when the spring tion for a couple of hours in residences is likely to have no\ncoils or uncoils with temperature changes. More recently, 40 economic cost, and may only result in minor discomfort—or\nelectronic digital thermostats have become prevalent. These none at all if no one is at home at the time.\nthermostats use solid-state devices such as thermistors or Residential PDR has been attempted. But there have been\nthermal diodes to measure temperature, and microprocessor numerous command and control issues with these implemen\nbased circuitry to control the switch and to store and operate tations. The standard approach to residential PDR has been to\nbased upon user-determined protocols for temperature Vs. 45 attach a radio-controlled switch to the control circuitry\ntime. located outside the dwelling. These switches are designed to\n These programmable thermostats generally offer a very receive a signal from a transmitter that signals the compressor\nrestrictive user interface, limited by the cost of the devices, to shut off during a PDR call.\nthe limited real estate of the small wall-mounted boxes, and There are a number of technical complications with this\nthe inability to take into account more than two variables: the 50 approach. There is some evidence that “hard cycling the\ndesired temperature set by the user, and the ambient tempera compressor in this manner can damage the air conditioning\nture sensed by the thermostat. Users can generally only set system. There are also serious issues resulting from the fact\none series of commands per day, and to change one parameter that the communication system is unidirectional. When utili\n(e.g., to change the late-night temperature) the user often has ties contract for PDR, they expect verification of compliance.\nto cycle through several other parameters by repeatedly press 55 One-way pagers allow the utility to send a signal that will shut\ning one or two buttons. of the A/C, but the pager cannot confirm to the utility that the\n As both the cost of energy and the demand for electricity NC unit has in fact been shut off. If a consumer tampers with\nhave increased, utilities Supplying electricity increasingly the system so that the A/C can be used anyway, the utility will\nface unpleasant choices. The demand for electricity is not not be able to detect it, absent additional verification systems.\nSmooth over time. In so-called \"Summer peaking locations, 60 One way in which some utilities are seeking to address this\non the hottest days of the year, peak loads may be twice as issue is to combine the pager-controlled thermostat with so\nhigh as average loads. During Such peak load periods (gen called advanced metering infrastructure (AMI). This\nerally in the late afternoon), air conditioning can be the largest approach relies on the deployment of 'Smart meters' elec\nsingle element of demand. tric meters that are more sophisticated than the traditional\n Utilities and their customers generally see reductions of 65 meter with its mechanical odometer mechanism for logging\nSupply (brownouts and blackouts) as an unacceptable out only cumulative energy use. Smart meters generally include a\ncome. But their other options can be almost as distasteful. In means for communicating instantaneous readings. That com\n\n\n\n Appx80\n","pdfium":"US 8,412,488 B2 \r\n1. \r\nSYSTEMAND METHOD FOR USINGA \r\nNETWORK OF THERMOSTATS AS TOOL TO \r\nVERIFY PEAK DEMAND REDUCTION \r\nCROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED \r\nAPPLICATIONS \r\nThis application is a continuation of U.S. patent applica \r\ntion Ser. No. 137037,162, filed Feb. 28, 2011, now U.S. Pat. \r\nNo. 8,131.506 which is a continuation of U.S. patent appli \r\ncation Ser. No. 12/183,949, filed Jul. 31, 2008, now U.S. Pat. \r\nNo. 7,908,116, issued on Mar. 15, 2011, which claims the \r\nbenefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. S 119(e) to both U.S. \r\nProvisional Application 60/963,183, filed Aug. 3, 2007; and \r\nU.S. Provisional Application No. 60/994,011, filed Sep. 17, \r\n2007, the entireties of which are incorporated herein by ref \r\nerence and are to be considered part of this specification. \r\nBACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION \r\n1. Field of the Invention \r\nThis invention relates to the use of thermostatic HVAC \r\ncontrols that are connected to a computer network as a part of \r\na system for offering peak demand reduction to electric utili \r\nties. More specifically, the present invention pertains to use of \r\ncommunicating thermostat combined with a computer net \r\nwork to verify that demand reduction has occurred. \r\n2. Background \r\nClimate control systems such as heating and cooling sys \r\ntems for buildings (heating, ventilation and cooling, or HVAC \r\nsystems) have been controlled for decades by thermostats. At \r\nthe most basic level, athermostat includes a means to allow a \r\nuser to set a desired temperature, a means to sense actual \r\ntemperature, and a means to signal the heating and/or cooling \r\ndevices to turn on or offin order to try to change the actual \r\ntemperature to equal the desired temperature. The most basic \r\nversions of thermostats use components such as a coiled \r\nbi-metallic spring to measure actual temperature and a mer \r\ncury Switch that opens or completes a circuit when the spring coils or uncoils with temperature changes. More recently, \r\nelectronic digital thermostats have become prevalent. These \r\nthermostats use solid-state devices such as thermistors or \r\nthermal diodes to measure temperature, and microprocessor \r\nbased circuitry to control the switch and to store and operate based upon user-determined protocols for temperature Vs. \r\ntime. \r\nThese programmable thermostats generally offer a very \r\nrestrictive user interface, limited by the cost of the devices, \r\nthe limited real estate of the small wall-mounted boxes, and \r\nthe inability to take into account more than two variables: the \r\ndesired temperature set by the user, and the ambient tempera \r\nture sensed by the thermostat. Users can generally only set \r\none series of commands per day, and to change one parameter (e.g., to change the late-night temperature) the user often has \r\nto cycle through several other parameters by repeatedly press \r\ning one or two buttons. \r\nAs both the cost of energy and the demand for electricity have increased, utilities Supplying electricity increasingly \r\nface unpleasant choices. The demand for electricity is not \r\nSmooth over time. In so-called \"Summer peaking locations, \r\non the hottest days of the year, peak loads may be twice as \r\nhigh as average loads. During Such peak load periods (gen \r\nerally in the late afternoon), air conditioning can be the largest \r\nsingle element of demand. \r\nUtilities and their customers generally see reductions of \r\nSupply (brownouts and blackouts) as an unacceptable out \r\ncome. But their other options can be almost as distasteful. In \r\n10 \r\n15 \r\n25 \r\n30 \r\n35 \r\n40 \r\n45 \r\n50 \r\n55 \r\n60 \r\n65 \r\n2 \r\nthe long term, they can build additional generating capacity, but that approach is very expensive given the fact that Such \r\ncapacity may be needed for only a few hours a year. And this \r\noption is of course unavailable in the short term. When con \r\nfronted with an immediate potential shortfall, a utility may \r\nhave reserve capacity it can choose to bring online. But \r\nbecause utilities are assumed to try to operate as efficiently as \r\npossible, the reserve capacity is likely to be the least efficient \r\nand most expensive and/or more polluting plants to operate. Alternatively, the utility may seek to purchase additional \r\npower on the open market. But the spot market for electricity, which cannot efficiently be stored, is extremely volatile, \r\nwhich means that spot prices during peak events may be as \r\nmuch as 10x the average price. \r\nMore recently, many utilities have begun to enter into \r\nagreements with certain customers to reduce demand, as \r\nopposed to increasing Supply. In essence, these customers \r\nagree to reduce usage during a few critical periods in \r\nexchange for incentives from the utility. Those incentives \r\nmay take the form of a fixed contract payment in exchange for \r\nthe right to cut the amount of power Supplied at specified \r\ntimes, or a reduced overall price per kilowatt-hour, or a rebate \r\neach time power is reduced, or Some other method. \r\nThe bulk of these peak demand reduction (PDR) contracts \r\nhave been entered into with large commercial and industrial \r\ncustomers. This bias is in large part due to the fact that \r\ntransaction costs are much lower today for a single contract \r\nwith a factory that can offer demand reduction of 50 mega \r\nwatts than they would be for the equivalent from residential \r\ncustomers it could take 25,000 or more homes to equal that \r\nreduction if these homes went without air conditioning. \r\nBut residential air conditioning is the largest single com \r\nponent of peak demand in California, and is a large percent \r\nage in many other places. There are numerous reasons why it \r\nwould be economically advantageous to deploy PDR in the \r\nresidential market. Whereas cutting energy consumption at a \r\nlarge factory could require shutting down or curtailing pro \r\nduction, which has direct economic costs, cutting consump \r\ntion for a couple of hours in residences is likely to have no \r\neconomic cost, and may only result in minor discomfort—or none at all if no one is at home at the time. \r\nResidential PDR has been attempted. But there have been \r\nnumerous command and control issues with these implemen \r\ntations. The standard approach to residential PDR has been to \r\nattach a radio-controlled switch to the control circuitry located outside the dwelling. These switches are designed to \r\nreceive a signal from a transmitter that signals the compressor \r\nto shut off during a PDR call. \r\nThere are a number of technical complications with this \r\napproach. There is some evidence that “hard cycling the \r\ncompressor in this manner can damage the air conditioning \r\nsystem. There are also serious issues resulting from the fact \r\nthat the communication system is unidirectional. When utili \r\nties contract for PDR, they expect verification of compliance. \r\nOne-way pagers allow the utility to send a signal that will shut \r\nof the A/C, but the pager cannot confirm to the utility that the \r\nNC unit has in fact been shut off. If a consumer tampers with \r\nthe system so that the A/C can be used anyway, the utility will \r\nnot be able to detect it, absent additional verification systems. \r\nOne way in which some utilities are seeking to address this \r\nissue is to combine the pager-controlled thermostat with so \r\ncalled advanced metering infrastructure (AMI). This \r\napproach relies on the deployment of 'Smart meters' elec \r\ntric meters that are more sophisticated than the traditional \r\nmeter with its mechanical odometer mechanism for logging only cumulative energy use. Smart meters generally include a \r\nmeans for communicating instantaneous readings. That com \r\nAppx80\r\nCase: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 115 Filed: 05/09/2023","after":"1.\nSYSTEMAND METHOD FOR USINGA\nNETWORK OF THERMOSTATS AS TOOL TO\nVERIFY PEAK DEMAND REDUCTION\nCROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED\nAPPLICATIONS\nThis application is a continuation of U.S. patent applica\ntion Ser. No. 137037,162, filed Feb. 28, 2011, now U.S. Pat.\nNo. 8,131.506 which is a continuation of U.S. patent appli\ncation Ser. No. 12/183,949, filed Jul. 31, 2008, now U.S. Pat.\nNo. 7,908,116, issued on Mar. 15, 2011, which claims the\nbenefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. S 119(e) to both U.S.\nProvisional Application 60/963,183, filed Aug. 3, 2007; and\nU.S. Provisional Application No. 60/994,011, filed Sep. 17,\n2007, the entireties of which are incorporated herein by ref\nerence and are to be considered part of this specification.\nBACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION\n1. Field of the Invention\nThis invention relates to the use of thermostatic HVAC\ncontrols that are connected to a computer network as a part of\na system for offering peak demand reduction to electric utili\nties. More specifically, the present invention pertains to use of\ncommunicating thermostat combined with a computer net\nwork to verify that demand reduction has occurred.\n2. Background\nClimate control systems such as heating and cooling sys\ntems for buildings (heating, ventilation and cooling, or HVAC\nsystems) have been controlled for decades by thermostats. At\nthe most basic level, athermostat includes a means to allow a\nuser to set a desired temperature, a means to sense actual\ntemperature, and a means to signal the heating and/or cooling\ndevices to turn on or offin order to try to change the actual\ntemperature to equal the desired temperature. The most basic\nversions of thermostats use components such as a coiled\nbi-metallic spring to measure actual temperature and a mer\ncury Switch that opens or completes a circuit when the spring\ncoils or uncoils with temperature changes. More recently,\nelectronic digital thermostats have become prevalent. These\nthermostats use solid-state devices such as thermistors or\nthermal diodes to measure temperature, and microprocessor\nbased circuitry to control the switch and to store and operate\nbased upon user-determined protocols for temperature Vs.\ntime.\nThese programmable thermostats generally offer a very\nrestrictive user interface, limited by the cost of the devices,\nthe limited real estate of the small wall-mounted boxes, and\nthe inability to take into account more than two variables: the\ndesired temperature set by the user, and the ambient tempera\nture sensed by the thermostat. Users can generally only set\none series of commands per day, and to change one parameter\n(e.g., to change the late-night temperature) the user often has\nto cycle through several other parameters by repeatedly press\ning one or two buttons.\nAs both the cost of energy and the demand for electricity\nhave increased, utilities Supplying electricity increasingly\nface unpleasant choices. The demand for electricity is not\nSmooth over time. In so-called \"Summer peaking locations,\non the hottest days of the year, peak loads may be twice as\nhigh as average loads. During Such peak load periods (gen\nerally in the late afternoon), air conditioning can be the largest\nsingle element of demand.\nUtilities and their customers generally see reductions of\nSupply (brownouts and blackouts) as an unacceptable out\ncome. But their other options can be almost as distasteful. In\n\n2\nthe long term, they can build additional generating capacity,\nbut that approach is very expensive given the fact that Such\ncapacity may be needed for only a few hours a year. And this\noption is of course unavailable in the short term. When con\nfronted with an immediate potential shortfall, a utility may\nhave reserve capacity it can choose to bring online. But\nbecause utilities are assumed to try to operate as efficiently as\npossible, the reserve capacity is likely to be the least efficient\nand most expensive and/or more polluting plants to operate.\nAlternatively, the utility may seek to purchase additional\npower on the open market. But the spot market for electricity,\nwhich cannot efficiently be stored, is extremely volatile,\nwhich means that spot prices during peak events may be as\nmuch as 10x the average price.\nMore recently, many utilities have begun to enter into\nagreements with certain customers to reduce demand, as\nopposed to increasing Supply. In essence, these customers\nagree to reduce usage during a few critical periods in\nexchange for incentives from the utility. Those incentives\nmay take the form of a fixed contract payment in exchange for\nthe right to cut the amount of power Supplied at specified\ntimes, or a reduced overall price per kilowatt-hour, or a rebate\neach time power is reduced, or Some other method.\nThe bulk of these peak demand reduction (PDR) contracts\nhave been entered into with large commercial and industrial\ncustomers. This bias is in large part due to the fact that\ntransaction costs are much lower today for a single contract\nwith a factory that can offer demand reduction of 50 mega\nwatts than they would be for the equivalent from residential\ncustomers it could take 25,000 or more homes to equal that\nreduction if these homes went without air conditioning.\nBut residential air conditioning is the largest single com\nponent of peak demand in California, and is a large percent\nage in many other places. There are numerous reasons why it\nwould be economically advantageous to deploy PDR in the\nresidential market. Whereas cutting energy consumption at a\nlarge factory could require shutting down or curtailing pro\nduction, which has direct economic costs, cutting consump\ntion for a couple of hours in residences is likely to have no\neconomic cost, and may only result in minor discomfort—or\nnone at all if no one is at home at the time.\nResidential PDR has been attempted. But there have been\nnumerous command and control issues with these implemen\ntations. The standard approach to residential PDR has been to\nattach a radio-controlled switch to the control circuitry\nlocated outside the dwelling. These switches are designed to\nreceive a signal from a transmitter that signals the compressor\nto shut off during a PDR call.\nThere are a number of technical complications with this\napproach. There is some evidence that “hard cycling the\ncompressor in this manner can damage the air conditioning\nsystem. There are also serious issues resulting from the fact\nthat the communication system is unidirectional. When utili\nties contract for PDR, they expect verification of compliance.\nOne-way pagers allow the utility to send a signal that will shut\nof the A/C, but the pager cannot confirm to the utility that the\nNC unit has in fact been shut off. If a consumer tampers with\nthe system so that the A/C can be used anyway, the utility will\nnot be able to detect it, absent additional verification systems.\nOne way in which some utilities are seeking to address this\nissue is to combine the pager-controlled thermostat with so\ncalled advanced metering infrastructure (AMI). This\napproach relies on the deployment of 'Smart meters' elec\ntric meters that are more sophisticated than the traditional\nmeter with its mechanical odometer mechanism for logging\nonly cumulative energy use. Smart meters generally include a\nmeans for communicating instantaneous readings. That com"},"excerpts":{"default":"This application is a continuation of U.S. patent applica possible, the reserve capacity is likely to be the least efficient\nand most expensive and/or more polluting plants to operate.\ntion Ser. No. 137037,162, filed Feb. 28, 2011, now U.S. Pat.\nNo. 8,131.506 which is a continuation of U.S. patent appli 10 Alternatively, the utility may seek to purchase additional\npower on the open market. But the spot market for electricity,\ncation Ser. No. 12/183,949, filed Jul. 31, 2008, now U.S. Pat.\nwhich cannot efficiently be stored, is extremely volatile,\nNo. 7,908,116, issued on Mar. 15, 2011, which claims the\nbenefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. S 119(e) to both U.S. which means that spot prices during peak events may be as\nProvisional Application 60/963,183, filed Aug. 3, 2007; and much as 10x the average price.\nU.S. Provisional Application No. 60/994,011, filed Sep. 17, 15 More recently, many utilities have begun to enter into\n2007, the entireties of which are incorporated herein by ref agreements with certain customers to reduce demand, as\nopposed to increasing Supply. In essence, these customers\nerence and are to be considered part of this specification.\nagree to reduce usage during a few critical periods in\nBACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION","layout":"This application is a continuation of U.S. patent applica possible, the reserve capacity is likely to be the least efficient\ntion Ser. No. 137037,162, filed Feb. 28, 2011, now U.S. Pat. and most expensive and/or more polluting plants to operate.\nNo. 8,131.506 which is a continuation of U.S. patent appli 10 Alternatively, the utility may seek to purchase additional\ncation Ser. No. 12/183,949, filed Jul. 31, 2008, now U.S. Pat. power on the open market. But the spot market for electricity,\nNo. 7,908,116, issued on Mar. 15, 2011, which claims the which cannot efficiently be stored, is extremely volatile,\nbenefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. S 119(e) to both U.S. which means that spot prices during peak events may be as\nProvisional Application 60/963,183, filed Aug. 3, 2007; and much as 10x the average price.\nU.S. Provisional Application No. 60/994,011, filed Sep. 17, 15 More recently, many utilities have begun to enter into\n2007, the entireties of which are incorporated herein by ref agreements with certain customers to reduce demand, as\nerence and are to be considered part of this specification. opposed to increasing Supply. In essence, these customers\n agree to reduce usage during a few critical periods in\n BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION","pdfium":"This application is a continuation of U.S. patent applica \r\ntion Ser. No. 137037,162, filed Feb. 28, 2011, now U.S. Pat. \r\nNo. 8,131.506 which is a continuation of U.S. patent appli \r\ncation Ser. No. 12/183,949, filed Jul. 31, 2008, now U.S. Pat. \r\nNo. 7,908,116, issued on Mar. 15, 2011, which claims the \r\nbenefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. S 119(e) to both U.S. \r\nProvisional Application 60/963,183, filed Aug. 3, 2007; and \r\nU.S. Provisional Application No. 60/994,011, filed Sep. 17, \r\n2007, the entireties of which are incorporated herein by ref \r\nerence and are to be considered part of this specification. \r\nBACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION","after":"This application is a continuation of U.S. patent applica\ntion Ser. No. 137037,162, filed Feb. 28, 2011, now U.S. Pat.\nNo. 8,131.506 which is a continuation of U.S. patent appli\ncation Ser. No. 12/183,949, filed Jul. 31, 2008, now U.S. Pat.\nNo. 7,908,116, issued on Mar. 15, 2011, which claims the\nbenefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. S 119(e) to both U.S.\nProvisional Application 60/963,183, filed Aug. 3, 2007; and\nU.S. Provisional Application No. 60/994,011, filed Sep. 17,\n2007, the entireties of which are incorporated herein by ref\nerence and are to be considered part of this specification.\nBACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION"},"searchStreams":["1. systemand method for usinga network of thermostats as tool to verify peak demand reduction cross-reference to related applications this application is a continuation of u.s. patent applica tion ser. no. 137037,162, filed feb. 28, 2011, now u.s. pat. no. 8,131.506 which is a continuation of u.s. patent appli cation ser. no. 12/183,949, filed jul. 31, 2008, now u.s. pat. no. 7,908,116, issued on mar. 15, 2011, which claims the benefit of priority under 35 u.s.c. s 119(e) to both u.s. provisional application 60/963,183, filed aug. 3, 2007; and u.s. provisional application no. 60/994,011, filed sep. 17, 2007, the entireties of which are incorporated herein by ref erence and are to be considered part of this specification. background of the invention 1. field of the invention this invention relates to the use of thermostatic hvac controls that are connected to a computer network as a part of a system for offering peak demand reduction to electric utili ties. more specifically, the present invention pertains to use of communicating thermostat combined with a computer net work to verify that demand reduction has occurred. 2. background climate control systems such as heating and cooling sys tems for buildings (heating, ventilation and cooling, or hvac systems) have been controlled for decades by thermostats. at the most basic level, athermostat includes a means to allow a user to set a desired temperature, a means to sense actual temperature, and a means to signal the heating and/or cooling devices to turn on or offin order to try to change the actual temperature to equal the desired temperature. the most basic versions of thermostats use components such as a coiled bi-metallic spring to measure actual temperature and a mer cury switch that opens or completes a circuit when the spring coils or uncoils with temperature changes. more recently, electronic digital thermostats have become prevalent. these thermostats use solid-state devices such as thermistors or thermal diodes to measure temperature, and microprocessor based circuitry to control the switch and to store and operate based upon user-determined protocols for temperature vs. time. these programmable thermostats generally offer a very restrictive user interface, limited by the cost of the devices, the limited real estate of the small wall-mounted boxes, and the inability to take into account more than two variables: the desired temperature set by the user, and the ambient tempera ture sensed by the thermostat. users can generally only set one series of commands per day, and to change one parameter (e.g., to change the late-night temperature) the user often has to cycle through several other parameters by repeatedly press ing one or two buttons. as both the cost of energy and the demand for electricity have increased, utilities supplying electricity increasingly face unpleasant choices. the demand for electricity is not smooth over time. in so-called \"summer peaking locations, on the hottest days of the year, peak loads may be twice as high as average loads. during such peak load periods (gen erally in the late afternoon), air conditioning can be the largest single element of demand. utilities and their customers generally see reductions of supply (brownouts and blackouts) as an unacceptable out come. but their other options can be almost as distasteful. in ","2 the long term, they can build additional generating capacity, but that approach is very expensive given the fact that such capacity may be needed for only a few hours a year. and this option is of course unavailable in the short term. when con fronted with an immediate potential shortfall, a utility may have reserve capacity it can choose to bring online. but because utilities are assumed to try to operate as efficiently as possible, the reserve capacity is likely to be the least efficient and most expensive and/or more polluting plants to operate. alternatively, the utility may seek to purchase additional power on the open market. but the spot market for electricity, which cannot efficiently be stored, is extremely volatile, which means that spot prices during peak events may be as much as 10x the average price. more recently, many utilities have begun to enter into agreements with certain customers to reduce demand, as opposed to increasing supply. in essence, these customers agree to reduce usage during a few critical periods in exchange for incentives from the utility. those incentives may take the form of a fixed contract payment in exchange for the right to cut the amount of power supplied at specified times, or a reduced overall price per kilowatt-hour, or a rebate each time power is reduced, or some other method. the bulk of these peak demand reduction (pdr) contracts have been entered into with large commercial and industrial customers. this bias is in large part due to the fact that transaction costs are much lower today for a single contract with a factory that can offer demand reduction of 50 mega watts than they would be for the equivalent from residential customers it could take 25,000 or more homes to equal that reduction if these homes went without air conditioning. but residential air conditioning is the largest single com ponent of peak demand in california, and is a large percent age in many other places. there are numerous reasons why it would be economically advantageous to deploy pdr in the residential market. whereas cutting energy consumption at a large factory could require shutting down or curtailing pro duction, which has direct economic costs, cutting consump tion for a couple of hours in residences is likely to have no economic cost, and may only result in minor discomfort-or none at all if no one is at home at the time. residential pdr has been attempted. but there have been numerous command and control issues with these implemen tations. the standard approach to residential pdr has been to attach a radio-controlled switch to the control circuitry located outside the dwelling. these switches are designed to receive a signal from a transmitter that signals the compressor to shut off during a pdr call. there are a number of technical complications with this approach. there is some evidence that \"hard cycling the compressor in this manner can damage the air conditioning system. there are also serious issues resulting from the fact that the communication system is unidirectional. when utili ties contract for pdr, they expect verification of compliance. one-way pagers allow the utility to send a signal that will shut of the a/c, but the pager cannot confirm to the utility that the nc unit has in fact been shut off. if a consumer tampers with the system so that the a/c can be used anyway, the utility will not be able to detect it, absent additional verification systems. one way in which some utilities are seeking to address this issue is to combine the pager-controlled thermostat with so called advanced metering infrastructure (ami). this approach relies on the deployment of 'smart meters' elec tric meters that are more sophisticated than the traditional meter with its mechanical odometer mechanism for logging only cumulative energy use. smart meters generally include a means for communicating instantaneous readings. that com "]},{"id":"footnotes","page":202,"title":"Remove the stamp, not the footnote","description":"The brief contains nested headings, superscript markers and two footnotes. The output keeps the footnote text while separating repeated filing furniture. The full page is shown below; scroll the text panes.","status":"Text and footnotes retained","warn":false,"query":"By only reciting generic components performing conventional functions","detail":"Native text · full page","caption":"Physical page 202 · brief page 14 · appendix Appx1151","excerptNote":"Complete page outputs, not cropped text. The source image opens at full resolution.","crop":"crop-202.webp","fullImage":"fullpage-202.webp","alt":"Source page 202: Remove the stamp, not the footnote","width":1836,"height":2376,"sourceUrl":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68048163/15/ecofactor-inc-v-google-llc/","full":{"default":"Case: 23-1101\n\nDocument: 15\n\nPage: 202\n\nFiled: 05/09/2023\n\nCase 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 111 Filed 11/19/21 Page 18 of 27\n\nthat include “processors such as those sold by Intel and AMD”), 5:51-53 (“The HVAC units may\nbe conventional air conditioners”). Additionally, one of the patent inventors disavowed having\nmade any inventive contribution to such components, thereby confirming their conventional\nnature. Ex. 4 at 126:13-22; 136:1-138:1.\nBy only reciting generic components performing conventional functions, the claims fail\nto specify how any of claimed elements, such as the processor, programmable thermostat, or\nHVAC system, actually achieve the desired results. Instead, the claims use only “generic\nfunctional language to achieve the[] purported solutions.” Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast\nCable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, “[n]othing in the claims . . .\nrequires anything other than conventional computer and network components operating\naccording to their ordinary functions,” and thus they fail to pass muster at Alice step two. Id.\nSee also In re TLI Commc’ns Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 615 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims ineligible\nwhere “the recited physical components behave exactly as expected according to their ordinary\nuse”).\nB.\n\nAll asserted claims of the ’327 patent are patent ineligible. 5\n1.\n\nAlice Step One: the ’327 claims are directed to the abstract idea of\nchanging the thermostat setting in response to a request to reduce\nenergy usage.\n\nThe asserted claims of the ’327 patent recite functions that reflect nothing more than the\nabstract idea of telling the thermostat to turn off the HVAC system in response to a request from\na utility to reduce energy usage. After removing extraneous verbiage, 6 independent claim 1 of\n\n5\n\nAs discussed above, the ’488 and ’327 patents share a specification and have many overlapping\nclaim elements. To the extent that the claim elements are overlapping, the arguments above with\nrespect to the ’488 patent are incorporated by reference here. Defendants will only separately\naddress in this section the ’327 claim elements that differ from those of the ’488 patent.\n6\n\nThe first several limitations of ’327 claim 1 track those of ’488 claim 1. But then ’327 claim 1\nproceeds to recite limitations relating to demand reduction request verification that diverge from\n\n14\n\nAppx1151\n\n","layout":" Case: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 202 Filed: 05/09/2023\n\n Case 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 111 Filed 11/19/21 Page 18 of 27\n\n\n\n\nthat include “processors such as those sold by Intel and AMD”), 5:51-53 (“The HVAC units may\n\nbe conventional air conditioners”). Additionally, one of the patent inventors disavowed having\n\nmade any inventive contribution to such components, thereby confirming their conventional\n\nnature. Ex. 4 at 126:13-22; 136:1-138:1.\n\n By only reciting generic components performing conventional functions, the claims fail\n\nto specify how any of claimed elements, such as the processor, programmable thermostat, or\n\nHVAC system, actually achieve the desired results. Instead, the claims use only “generic\n\nfunctional language to achieve the[] purported solutions.” Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast\n\nCable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, “[n]othing in the claims . . .\n\nrequires anything other than conventional computer and network components operating\n\naccording to their ordinary functions,” and thus they fail to pass muster at Alice step two. Id.\n\nSee also In re TLI Commc’ns Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 615 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims ineligible\n\nwhere “the recited physical components behave exactly as expected according to their ordinary\n\nuse”).\n\n B. All asserted claims of the ’327 patent are patent ineligible. 5\n\n 1. Alice Step One: the ’327 claims are directed to the abstract idea of\n changing the thermostat setting in response to a request to reduce\n energy usage.\n\n The asserted claims of the ’327 patent recite functions that reflect nothing more than the\n\nabstract idea of telling the thermostat to turn off the HVAC system in response to a request from\n\na utility to reduce energy usage. After removing extraneous verbiage, 6 independent claim 1 of\n\n\n5\n As discussed above, the ’488 and ’327 patents share a specification and have many overlapping\nclaim elements. To the extent that the claim elements are overlapping, the arguments above with\nrespect to the ’488 patent are incorporated by reference here. Defendants will only separately\naddress in this section the ’327 claim elements that differ from those of the ’488 patent.\n6\n The first several limitations of ’327 claim 1 track those of ’488 claim 1. But then ’327 claim 1\nproceeds to recite limitations relating to demand reduction request verification that diverge from\n\n\n\n 14\n Appx1151\n","pdfium":"14 \r\nthat include “processors such as those sold by Intel and AMD”), 5:51-53 (“The HVAC units may \r\nbe conventional air conditioners”). Additionally, one of the patent inventors disavowed having \r\nmade any inventive contribution to such components, thereby confirming their conventional \r\nnature. Ex. 4 at 126:13-22; 136:1-138:1. \r\nBy only reciting generic components performing conventional functions, the claims fail \r\nto specify how any of claimed elements, such as the processor, programmable thermostat, or \r\nHVAC system, actually achieve the desired results. Instead, the claims use only “generic \r\nfunctional language to achieve the[] purported solutions.” Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast \r\nCable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, “[n]othing in the claims . . . \r\nrequires anything other than conventional computer and network components operating \r\naccording to their ordinary functions,” and thus they fail to pass muster at Alice step two. Id. \r\nSee also In re TLI Commc’ns Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 615 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims ineligible \r\nwhere “the recited physical components behave exactly as expected according to their ordinary \r\nuse”). \r\nB. All asserted claims of the ’327 patent are patent ineligible. 5\r\n1. Alice Step One: the ’327 claims are directed to the abstract idea of \r\nchanging the thermostat setting in response to a request to reduce \r\nenergy usage. \r\nThe asserted claims of the ’327 patent recite functions that reflect nothing more than the \r\nabstract idea of telling the thermostat to turn off the HVAC system in response to a request from \r\na utility to reduce energy usage. After removing extraneous verbiage,6\r\n independent claim 1 of \r\n5\r\n As discussed above, the ’488 and ’327 patents share a specification and have many overlapping \r\nclaim elements. To the extent that the claim elements are overlapping, the arguments above with \r\nrespect to the ’488 patent are incorporated by reference here. Defendants will only separately \r\naddress in this section the ’327 claim elements that differ from those of the ’488 patent. \r\n6\r\n The first several limitations of ’327 claim 1 track those of ’488 claim 1. But then ’327 claim 1 \r\nproceeds to recite limitations relating to demand reduction request verification that diverge from \r\nCase 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 111 Filed 11/19/21 Page 18 of 27\r\nAppx1151\r\nCase: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 202 Filed: 05/09/2023","after":"that include “processors such as those sold by Intel and AMD”), 5:51-53 (“The HVAC units may\nbe conventional air conditioners”). Additionally, one of the patent inventors disavowed having\nmade any inventive contribution to such components, thereby confirming their conventional\nnature. Ex. 4 at 126:13-22; 136:1-138:1.\nBy only reciting generic components performing conventional functions, the claims fail\nto specify how any of claimed elements, such as the processor, programmable thermostat, or\nHVAC system, actually achieve the desired results. Instead, the claims use only “generic\nfunctional language to achieve the[] purported solutions.” Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast\nCable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, “[n]othing in the claims . . .\nrequires anything other than conventional computer and network components operating\naccording to their ordinary functions,” and thus they fail to pass muster at Alice step two. Id.\nSee also In re TLI Commc’ns Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 615 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims ineligible\nwhere “the recited physical components behave exactly as expected according to their ordinary\nuse”).\n\nB. All asserted claims of the ’327 patent are patent ineligible. 5\n1. Alice Step One: the ’327 claims are directed to the abstract idea of\nchanging the thermostat setting in response to a request to reduce\nenergy usage.\nThe asserted claims of the ’327 patent recite functions that reflect nothing more than the\nabstract idea of telling the thermostat to turn off the HVAC system in response to a request from\na utility to reduce energy usage. After removing extraneous verbiage,6 independent claim 1 of\n\n5 As discussed above, the ’488 and ’327 patents share a specification and have many overlapping\nclaim elements. To the extent that the claim elements are overlapping, the arguments above with\nrespect to the ’488 patent are incorporated by reference here. Defendants will only separately\naddress in this section the ’327 claim elements that differ from those of the ’488 patent.\n6 The first several limitations of ’327 claim 1 track those of ’488 claim 1. But then ’327 claim 1\nproceeds to recite limitations relating to demand reduction request verification that diverge from"},"excerpts":{"default":"Case: 23-1101\n\nDocument: 15\n\nPage: 202\n\nFiled: 05/09/2023\n\nCase 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 111 Filed 11/19/21 Page 18 of 27\n\nthat include “processors such as those sold by Intel and AMD”), 5:51-53 (“The HVAC units may\nbe conventional air conditioners”). Additionally, one of the patent inventors disavowed having\nmade any inventive contribution to such components, thereby confirming their conventional\nnature. Ex. 4 at 126:13-22; 136:1-138:1.\nBy only reciting generic components performing conventional functions, the claims fail\nto specify how any of claimed elements, such as the processor, programmable thermostat, or\nHVAC system, actually achieve the desired results. Instead, the claims use only “generic\nfunctional language to achieve the[] purported solutions.” Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast\nCable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, “[n]othing in the claims . . .\nrequires anything other than conventional computer and network components operating\naccording to their ordinary functions,” and thus they fail to pass muster at Alice step two. Id.\nSee also In re TLI Commc’ns Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 615 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims ineligible\nwhere “the recited physical components behave exactly as expected according to their ordinary\nuse”).\nB.\n\nAll asserted claims of the ’327 patent are patent ineligible. 5\n1.\n\nAlice Step One: the ’327 claims are directed to the abstract idea of\nchanging the thermostat setting in response to a request to reduce\nenergy usage.\n\nThe asserted claims of the ’327 patent recite functions that reflect nothing more than the\nabstract idea of telling the thermostat to turn off the HVAC system in response to a request from\na utility to reduce energy usage. After removing extraneous verbiage, 6 independent claim 1 of\n\n5\n\nAs discussed above, the ’488 and ’327 patents share a specification and have many overlapping\nclaim elements. To the extent that the claim elements are overlapping, the arguments above with\nrespect to the ’488 patent are incorporated by reference here. Defendants will only separately\naddress in this section the ’327 claim elements that differ from those of the ’488 patent.\n6\n\nThe first several limitations of ’327 claim 1 track those of ’488 claim 1. But then ’327 claim 1\nproceeds to recite limitations relating to demand reduction request verification that diverge from\n\n14\n\nAppx1151\n\n","layout":" Case: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 202 Filed: 05/09/2023\n\n Case 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 111 Filed 11/19/21 Page 18 of 27\n\n\n\n\nthat include “processors such as those sold by Intel and AMD”), 5:51-53 (“The HVAC units may\n\nbe conventional air conditioners”). Additionally, one of the patent inventors disavowed having\n\nmade any inventive contribution to such components, thereby confirming their conventional\n\nnature. Ex. 4 at 126:13-22; 136:1-138:1.\n\n By only reciting generic components performing conventional functions, the claims fail\n\nto specify how any of claimed elements, such as the processor, programmable thermostat, or\n\nHVAC system, actually achieve the desired results. Instead, the claims use only “generic\n\nfunctional language to achieve the[] purported solutions.” Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast\n\nCable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, “[n]othing in the claims . . .\n\nrequires anything other than conventional computer and network components operating\n\naccording to their ordinary functions,” and thus they fail to pass muster at Alice step two. Id.\n\nSee also In re TLI Commc’ns Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 615 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims ineligible\n\nwhere “the recited physical components behave exactly as expected according to their ordinary\n\nuse”).\n\n B. All asserted claims of the ’327 patent are patent ineligible. 5\n\n 1. Alice Step One: the ’327 claims are directed to the abstract idea of\n changing the thermostat setting in response to a request to reduce\n energy usage.\n\n The asserted claims of the ’327 patent recite functions that reflect nothing more than the\n\nabstract idea of telling the thermostat to turn off the HVAC system in response to a request from\n\na utility to reduce energy usage. After removing extraneous verbiage, 6 independent claim 1 of\n\n\n5\n As discussed above, the ’488 and ’327 patents share a specification and have many overlapping\nclaim elements. To the extent that the claim elements are overlapping, the arguments above with\nrespect to the ’488 patent are incorporated by reference here. Defendants will only separately\naddress in this section the ’327 claim elements that differ from those of the ’488 patent.\n6\n The first several limitations of ’327 claim 1 track those of ’488 claim 1. But then ’327 claim 1\nproceeds to recite limitations relating to demand reduction request verification that diverge from\n\n\n\n 14\n Appx1151\n","pdfium":"14 \r\nthat include “processors such as those sold by Intel and AMD”), 5:51-53 (“The HVAC units may \r\nbe conventional air conditioners”). Additionally, one of the patent inventors disavowed having \r\nmade any inventive contribution to such components, thereby confirming their conventional \r\nnature. Ex. 4 at 126:13-22; 136:1-138:1. \r\nBy only reciting generic components performing conventional functions, the claims fail \r\nto specify how any of claimed elements, such as the processor, programmable thermostat, or \r\nHVAC system, actually achieve the desired results. Instead, the claims use only “generic \r\nfunctional language to achieve the[] purported solutions.” Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast \r\nCable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, “[n]othing in the claims . . . \r\nrequires anything other than conventional computer and network components operating \r\naccording to their ordinary functions,” and thus they fail to pass muster at Alice step two. Id. \r\nSee also In re TLI Commc’ns Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 615 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims ineligible \r\nwhere “the recited physical components behave exactly as expected according to their ordinary \r\nuse”). \r\nB. All asserted claims of the ’327 patent are patent ineligible. 5\r\n1. Alice Step One: the ’327 claims are directed to the abstract idea of \r\nchanging the thermostat setting in response to a request to reduce \r\nenergy usage. \r\nThe asserted claims of the ’327 patent recite functions that reflect nothing more than the \r\nabstract idea of telling the thermostat to turn off the HVAC system in response to a request from \r\na utility to reduce energy usage. After removing extraneous verbiage,6\r\n independent claim 1 of \r\n5\r\n As discussed above, the ’488 and ’327 patents share a specification and have many overlapping \r\nclaim elements. To the extent that the claim elements are overlapping, the arguments above with \r\nrespect to the ’488 patent are incorporated by reference here. Defendants will only separately \r\naddress in this section the ’327 claim elements that differ from those of the ’488 patent. \r\n6\r\n The first several limitations of ’327 claim 1 track those of ’488 claim 1. But then ’327 claim 1 \r\nproceeds to recite limitations relating to demand reduction request verification that diverge from \r\nCase 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 111 Filed 11/19/21 Page 18 of 27\r\nAppx1151\r\nCase: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 202 Filed: 05/09/2023","after":"that include “processors such as those sold by Intel and AMD”), 5:51-53 (“The HVAC units may\nbe conventional air conditioners”). Additionally, one of the patent inventors disavowed having\nmade any inventive contribution to such components, thereby confirming their conventional\nnature. Ex. 4 at 126:13-22; 136:1-138:1.\nBy only reciting generic components performing conventional functions, the claims fail\nto specify how any of claimed elements, such as the processor, programmable thermostat, or\nHVAC system, actually achieve the desired results. Instead, the claims use only “generic\nfunctional language to achieve the[] purported solutions.” Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast\nCable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, “[n]othing in the claims . . .\nrequires anything other than conventional computer and network components operating\naccording to their ordinary functions,” and thus they fail to pass muster at Alice step two. Id.\nSee also In re TLI Commc’ns Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 615 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims ineligible\nwhere “the recited physical components behave exactly as expected according to their ordinary\nuse”).\n\nB. All asserted claims of the ’327 patent are patent ineligible. 5\n1. Alice Step One: the ’327 claims are directed to the abstract idea of\nchanging the thermostat setting in response to a request to reduce\nenergy usage.\nThe asserted claims of the ’327 patent recite functions that reflect nothing more than the\nabstract idea of telling the thermostat to turn off the HVAC system in response to a request from\na utility to reduce energy usage. After removing extraneous verbiage,6 independent claim 1 of\n\n5 As discussed above, the ’488 and ’327 patents share a specification and have many overlapping\nclaim elements. To the extent that the claim elements are overlapping, the arguments above with\nrespect to the ’488 patent are incorporated by reference here. Defendants will only separately\naddress in this section the ’327 claim elements that differ from those of the ’488 patent.\n6 The first several limitations of ’327 claim 1 track those of ’488 claim 1. But then ’327 claim 1\nproceeds to recite limitations relating to demand reduction request verification that diverge from"},"searchStreams":["that include \"processors such as those sold by intel and amd\"), 5:51-53 (\"the hvac units may be conventional air conditioners\"). additionally, one of the patent inventors disavowed having made any inventive contribution to such components, thereby confirming their conventional nature. ex. 4 at 126:13-22; 136:1-138:1. by only reciting generic components performing conventional functions, the claims fail to specify how any of claimed elements, such as the processor, programmable thermostat, or hvac system, actually achieve the desired results. instead, the claims use only \"generic functional language to achieve the[] purported solutions.\" two-way media ltd. v. comcast cable commc'ns, llc, 874 f.3d 1329, 1339 (fed. cir. 2017). here, \"[n]othing in the claims . . . requires anything other than conventional computer and network components operating according to their ordinary functions,\" and thus they fail to pass muster at alice step two. id. see also in re tli commc'ns patent litig., 823 f.3d 607, 615 (fed. cir. 2016) (claims ineligible where \"the recited physical components behave exactly as expected according to their ordinary use\"). ","b. all asserted claims of the '327 patent are patent ineligible. 5 1. alice step one: the '327 claims are directed to the abstract idea of changing the thermostat setting in response to a request to reduce energy usage. the asserted claims of the '327 patent recite functions that reflect nothing more than the abstract idea of telling the thermostat to turn off the hvac system in response to a request from a utility to reduce energy usage. after removing extraneous verbiage,6 independent claim 1 of ","5 as discussed above, the '488 and '327 patents share a specification and have many overlapping claim elements. to the extent that the claim elements are overlapping, the arguments above with respect to the '488 patent are incorporated by reference here. defendants will only separately address in this section the '327 claim elements that differ from those of the '488 patent. 6 the first several limitations of '327 claim 1 track those of '488 claim 1. but then '327 claim 1 proceeds to recite limitations relating to demand reduction request verification that diverge from "]},{"id":"missing","page":75,"title":"A visible paragraph with no native body text","description":"The page image contains a full jury instruction. Its extractable text contains filing stamps and an appendix label, but not that body. The new tool flags the gap; it does not recover the missing words.","status":"Needs recognition; not recovered","warn":true,"query":"Apportionment can be addressed in a variety of ways","detail":"No native body text","caption":"Physical page 75 · source page 38 · appendix Appx40","excerptNote":"An empty body is shown explicitly. Classified stamps are retained in metadata; no OCR was run.","crop":"crop-75.webp","fullImage":"fullpage-75.webp","alt":"Source page 75: A visible paragraph with no native body text","width":1458,"height":762,"sourceUrl":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68048163/15/ecofactor-inc-v-google-llc/","full":{"default":"Case: 23-1101\n\nDocument: 15\n\nPage: 75\n\nFiled: 05/09/2023\n\nCase 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 209 Filed 02/10/22 Page 38 of 41\n\nAppx40\n\n","layout":" Case: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 75 Filed: 05/09/2023\n\nCase 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 209 Filed 02/10/22 Page 38 of 41\n\n\n\n\n Appx40\n","pdfium":"Case 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 209 Filed 02/10/22 Page 38 of 41\r\nAppx40\r\nCase: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 75 Filed: 05/09/2023","after":""},"excerpts":{"default":"Case: 23-1101\n\nDocument: 15\n\nPage: 75\n\nFiled: 05/09/2023\n\nCase 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 209 Filed 02/10/22 Page 38 of 41\n\nAppx40\n\n","layout":" Case: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 75 Filed: 05/09/2023\n\nCase 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 209 Filed 02/10/22 Page 38 of 41\n\n\n\n\n Appx40\n","pdfium":"Case 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 209 Filed 02/10/22 Page 38 of 41\r\nAppx40\r\nCase: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 75 Filed: 05/09/2023","after":"[empty native body output]"},"searchStreams":[]},{"id":"ocr","page":300,"title":"Coordinates cannot put a missing digit back","description":"This figure already carries a noisy text layer. Moving its words into better order cannot make that layer a faithful transcription. The source image, not any extractor, is the check on the printed value.","status":"Existing recognition errors remain","warn":true,"query":"Total Usage: 11.54 kWh","detail":"Existing OCR layer","caption":"Physical page 300 · patent figures · appendix Appx10119","excerptNote":"Complete native-text outputs. See the enlarged value comparison in the boundaries section.","crop":"crop-300.webp","fullImage":"fullpage-300.webp","alt":"Source page 300: Coordinates cannot put a missing digit back","width":1203,"height":1669,"sourceUrl":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68048163/15/ecofactor-inc-v-google-llc/","full":{"default":"Case: 23-1101\n\nDocument: 15\n\nPage: 300\n\nFiled: 05/09/2023\n\nPatent Application Publication Jun. 17, 2004 Sheet 13 of 18 US 2004/0117330A1\nDaily Temperature Report\nTemperature Data for Tuesday, March 18, 2003\n\nTemperature Data\n\n4,70\n\nOO O\n\n4.72\n\nO2 O3 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 1\n\n2\n\n3 4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8 19 20 2.\n\n22 23 00\n\nTime\n\nan-Nietzac\n- IliasOverit rody\nCrevious by CNet\n\nwith Month\n\n4.74\n\nFigure 4L\nDaily Electrical Report\n4.76\n\nTotal Cost $1.57 Total Usage: 1.54 kWh.\ncosts are estimates of the actual cost of energy that does not include taxes or other surcharges\nEnergy Consumption and Cost for Tuesday, March 18, 2003\nHourly kWH-15 minutes cost\n\n\"y\n\nS\n\n80\n160\nAO\n\nOO 01 02 c\n\n4.78\n\n04 (5 OS 07 os o9 10 1\n\n12 13 14,\n\n5, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 00\n\nTire\n\nService device:\n\nO Constant scale\nviewrody\n\nWew The Year\n\nclose\n\nFigure 4M\n\nDC_PRIOR_ART_0000416\n\nDTX0219, Page 14 of 50\n\nAppx10119\n\n","layout":" Case: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 300 Filed: 05/09/2023\n\n\n\n\nPatent Application Publication Jun. 17, 2004 Sheet 13 of 18 US 2004/0117330A1\n Daily Temperature Report\n Temperature Data for Tuesday, March 18, 2003\n\n Temperature Data\n\n\n\n\n 4,70\n\n\n OO O O2 O3 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 19 20 2. 22 23 00\n 4.72 Time\n an-Nietzac - IliasOverit rody\n Crevious by CNet with Month\n\n 4.74\n Figure 4L\n\n Daily Electrical Report\n Total Cost $1.57 Total Usage: 1.54 kWh.\n costs are estimates of the actual cost of energy that does not include taxes or other surcharges\n Energy Consumption and Cost for Tuesday, March 18, 2003\n Hourly kWH-15 minutes cost\n 4.76 \"y S\n 80\n 160\n AO\n\n\n\n\n OO 01 02 c 04 (5 OS 07 os o9 10 1 12 13 14, 5, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 00\n 4.78 Tire\n Service device: O Constant scale\n viewrody Wew The Year\n close\n\n\n\n\n Figure 4M\n\n\n\n DC_PRIOR_ART_0000416\n DTX0219, Page 14 of 50\n Appx10119\n","pdfium":"Patent Application Publication Jun. 17, 2004 Sheet 13 of 18 US 2004/0117330A1 \r\nDaily Temperature Report \r\nTemperature Data for Tuesday, March 18, 2003 \r\nTemperature Data \r\n4,70 \r\nOO O O2 O3 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 19 20 2. 22 23 00 \r\n4.72 Time an-Nietzac - Ilias it \r\nCrevious by CNet Over rody with Month \r\n4.74 Figure 4L \r\nDaily Electrical Report \r\nTotal Cost $1.57 Total Usage: 1.54 kWh. \r\ncosts are estimates of the actual cost of energy that does not include taxes or other surcharges \r\nEnergy Consumption and Cost for Tuesday, March 18, 2003 \r\nHourly kWH-15 minutes cost 4.76 \"y S \r\n80 \r\n160 \r\nAO \r\nOO 01 02 c 04 (5 OS 07 os o9 10 1 12 13 14, 5, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 00 \r\n4.78 Tire \r\nService device: O Constant scale \r\nviewrody Wew The Year \r\nclose \r\nFigure 4M \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nDC_PRIOR_ART_0000416\r\nDTX0219, Page 14 of 50\r\nAppx10119\r\nCase: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 300 Filed: 05/09/2023","after":"Patent Application Publication Jun. 17, 2004 Sheet 13 of 18 US 2004/0117330A1\nDaily Temperature Report\nTemperature Data\n\nTemperature Data for Tuesday, March 18, 2003\n\n4,70\n\nOO O O2 O3 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 19 20 2. 22 23 00\nTime\n\n4.72 an-Nietzac - Ilias it\nCrevious by CNet Over rody with Month\nFigure 4L\nDaily Electrical Report\n\n4.74\n\nTotal Cost $1.57 Total Usage: 1.54 kWh.\ncosts are estimates of the actual cost of energy that does not include taxes or other surcharges\nEnergy Consumption and Cost for Tuesday, March 18, 2003\n\nHourly kWH-15 minutes cost\n\n4.76 \"y\n80\n160\nAO\n\nS\n\nOO 01 02 c 04 (5 OS 07 os o9 10 1 12 13 14, 5, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 00\n\n4.78\nService device:\n\nTire\nviewrody\nclose\n\nO Constant scale\n\nWew The Year\n\nFigure 4M"},"excerpts":{"default":"Case: 23-1101\n\nDocument: 15\n\nPage: 300\n\nFiled: 05/09/2023\n\nPatent Application Publication Jun. 17, 2004 Sheet 13 of 18 US 2004/0117330A1\nDaily Temperature Report\nTemperature Data for Tuesday, March 18, 2003\n\nTemperature Data\n\n4,70\n\nOO O\n\n4.72\n\nO2 O3 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 1\n\n2\n\n3 4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8 19 20 2.\n\n22 23 00\n\nTime\n\nan-Nietzac\n- IliasOverit rody\nCrevious by CNet\n\nwith Month\n\n4.74\n\nFigure 4L\nDaily Electrical Report\n4.76\n\nTotal Cost $1.57 Total Usage: 1.54 kWh.\ncosts are estimates of the actual cost of energy that does not include taxes or other surcharges\nEnergy Consumption and Cost for Tuesday, March 18, 2003\nHourly kWH-15 minutes cost\n\n\"y\n\nS\n\n80\n160\nAO\n\nOO 01 02 c\n\n4.78\n\n04 (5 OS 07 os o9 10 1\n\n12 13 14,\n\n5, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 00\n\nTire\n\nService device:\n\nO Constant scale\nviewrody\n\nWew The Year\n\nclose\n\nFigure 4M\n\nDC_PRIOR_ART_0000416\n\nDTX0219, Page 14 of 50\n\nAppx10119\n\n","layout":" Case: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 300 Filed: 05/09/2023\n\n\n\n\nPatent Application Publication Jun. 17, 2004 Sheet 13 of 18 US 2004/0117330A1\n Daily Temperature Report\n Temperature Data for Tuesday, March 18, 2003\n\n Temperature Data\n\n\n\n\n 4,70\n\n\n OO O O2 O3 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 19 20 2. 22 23 00\n 4.72 Time\n an-Nietzac - IliasOverit rody\n Crevious by CNet with Month\n\n 4.74\n Figure 4L\n\n Daily Electrical Report\n Total Cost $1.57 Total Usage: 1.54 kWh.\n costs are estimates of the actual cost of energy that does not include taxes or other surcharges\n Energy Consumption and Cost for Tuesday, March 18, 2003\n Hourly kWH-15 minutes cost\n 4.76 \"y S\n 80\n 160\n AO\n\n\n\n\n OO 01 02 c 04 (5 OS 07 os o9 10 1 12 13 14, 5, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 00\n 4.78 Tire\n Service device: O Constant scale\n viewrody Wew The Year\n close\n\n\n\n\n Figure 4M\n\n\n\n DC_PRIOR_ART_0000416\n DTX0219, Page 14 of 50\n Appx10119\n","pdfium":"Patent Application Publication Jun. 17, 2004 Sheet 13 of 18 US 2004/0117330A1 \r\nDaily Temperature Report \r\nTemperature Data for Tuesday, March 18, 2003 \r\nTemperature Data \r\n4,70 \r\nOO O O2 O3 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 19 20 2. 22 23 00 \r\n4.72 Time an-Nietzac - Ilias it \r\nCrevious by CNet Over rody with Month \r\n4.74 Figure 4L \r\nDaily Electrical Report \r\nTotal Cost $1.57 Total Usage: 1.54 kWh. \r\ncosts are estimates of the actual cost of energy that does not include taxes or other surcharges \r\nEnergy Consumption and Cost for Tuesday, March 18, 2003 \r\nHourly kWH-15 minutes cost 4.76 \"y S \r\n80 \r\n160 \r\nAO \r\nOO 01 02 c 04 (5 OS 07 os o9 10 1 12 13 14, 5, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 00 \r\n4.78 Tire \r\nService device: O Constant scale \r\nviewrody Wew The Year \r\nclose \r\nFigure 4M \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nDC_PRIOR_ART_0000416\r\nDTX0219, Page 14 of 50\r\nAppx10119\r\nCase: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 300 Filed: 05/09/2023","after":"Patent Application Publication Jun. 17, 2004 Sheet 13 of 18 US 2004/0117330A1\nDaily Temperature Report\nTemperature Data\n\nTemperature Data for Tuesday, March 18, 2003\n\n4,70\n\nOO O O2 O3 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 19 20 2. 22 23 00\nTime\n\n4.72 an-Nietzac - Ilias it\nCrevious by CNet Over rody with Month\nFigure 4L\nDaily Electrical Report\n\n4.74\n\nTotal Cost $1.57 Total Usage: 1.54 kWh.\ncosts are estimates of the actual cost of energy that does not include taxes or other surcharges\nEnergy Consumption and Cost for Tuesday, March 18, 2003\n\nHourly kWH-15 minutes cost\n\n4.76 \"y\n80\n160\nAO\n\nS\n\nOO 01 02 c 04 (5 OS 07 os o9 10 1 12 13 14, 5, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 00\n\n4.78\nService device:\n\nTire\nviewrody\nclose\n\nO Constant scale\n\nWew The Year\n\nFigure 4M"},"searchStreams":["patent application publication jun. 17, 2004 sheet 13 of 18 us 2004/0117330a1 daily temperature report temperature data ","temperature data for tuesday, march 18, 2003 ","4,70 ","oo o o2 o3 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 19 20 2. 22 23 00 time ","4.72 an-nietzac - ilias it crevious by cnet over rody with month figure 4l daily electrical report ","4.74 ","total cost $1.57 total usage: 1.54 kwh. costs are estimates of the actual cost of energy that does not include taxes or other surcharges energy consumption and cost for tuesday, march 18, 2003 ","hourly kwh-15 minutes cost ","4.76 \"y 80 160 ao ","s ","oo 01 02 c 04 (5 os 07 os o9 10 1 12 13 14, 5, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 00 ","4.78 service device: ","tire viewrody close ","o constant scale ","wew the year ","figure 4m "]},{"id":"mixed","page":229,"title":"Some text is present. Much of the page is not.","description":"The lower paragraph is native text; the pasted mathematical material is not represented by that text layer. Region-level coverage now flags the image. The gap remains, and a nonrecurring confidentiality heading stays in the body.","status":"Partial body; image region flagged","warn":true,"query":"Now here is where we need to be careful","detail":"Partial native body","caption":"Physical page 229 · nested source pages · appendix Appx1192","excerptNote":"Complete page outputs. The presence of some native text is not proof of page coverage.","crop":"crop-229.webp","fullImage":"fullpage-229.webp","alt":"Source page 229: Some text is present. Much of the page is not.","width":1836,"height":2376,"sourceUrl":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68048163/15/ecofactor-inc-v-google-llc/","full":{"default":"Case: 23-1101\n\nDocument: 15\n\nPage: 229\n\nFiled: 05/09/2023\n\nCase 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 111-8 Filed 11/19/21 Page 4 of 5\nRESTRICTED – CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE\n\n37.\nWhen the proportionality constants of this equation are solved (using, for example,\nhistorical data), temperature can be predicted as a function of time or time can be predicted as a\nfunction of temperature. Note that Newton’s law does not in its simplest form comprise a heating\nor cooling device such as an HVAC system, and thus it models the system with no active energy\ndevices. But the equation can easily be modified by adding those factors.\n\n15\n\nAppx1192\n\n","layout":" Case: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 229 Filed: 05/09/2023\n\n Case 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 111-8 Filed 11/19/21 Page 4 of 5\n RESTRICTED – CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE\n\n\n\n\n 37. When the proportionality constants of this equation are solved (using, for example,\nhistorical data), temperature can be predicted as a function of time or time can be predicted as a\nfunction of temperature. Note that Newton’s law does not in its simplest form comprise a heating\nor cooling device such as an HVAC system, and thus it models the system with no active energy\ndevices. But the equation can easily be modified by adding those factors.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n Appx1192\n","pdfium":"RESTRICTED – CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE \r\n15\r\n37. When the proportionality constants of this equation are solved (using, for example, \r\nhistorical data), temperature can be predicted as a function of time or time can be predicted as a \r\nfunction of temperature. Note that Newton’s law does not in its simplest form comprise a heating \r\nor cooling device such as an HVAC system, and thus it models the system with no active energy \r\ndevices. But the equation can easily be modified by adding those factors.\r\nCase 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 111-8 Filed 11/19/21 Page 4 of 5\r\nAppx1192\r\nCase: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 229 Filed: 05/09/2023","after":"RESTRICTED – CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE\n\n37. When the proportionality constants of this equation are solved (using, for example,\nhistorical data), temperature can be predicted as a function of time or time can be predicted as a\nfunction of temperature. Note that Newton’s law does not in its simplest form comprise a heating\nor cooling device such as an HVAC system, and thus it models the system with no active energy\ndevices. But the equation can easily be modified by adding those factors."},"excerpts":{"default":"Case: 23-1101\n\nDocument: 15\n\nPage: 229\n\nFiled: 05/09/2023\n\nCase 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 111-8 Filed 11/19/21 Page 4 of 5\nRESTRICTED – CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE\n\n37.\nWhen the proportionality constants of this equation are solved (using, for example,\nhistorical data), temperature can be predicted as a function of time or time can be predicted as a\nfunction of temperature. Note that Newton’s law does not in its simplest form comprise a heating\nor cooling device such as an HVAC system, and thus it models the system with no active energy\ndevices. But the equation can easily be modified by adding those factors.\n\n15\n\nAppx1192\n\n","layout":" Case: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 229 Filed: 05/09/2023\n\n Case 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 111-8 Filed 11/19/21 Page 4 of 5\n RESTRICTED – CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE\n\n\n\n\n 37. When the proportionality constants of this equation are solved (using, for example,\nhistorical data), temperature can be predicted as a function of time or time can be predicted as a\nfunction of temperature. Note that Newton’s law does not in its simplest form comprise a heating\nor cooling device such as an HVAC system, and thus it models the system with no active energy\ndevices. But the equation can easily be modified by adding those factors.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n Appx1192\n","pdfium":"RESTRICTED – CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE \r\n15\r\n37. When the proportionality constants of this equation are solved (using, for example, \r\nhistorical data), temperature can be predicted as a function of time or time can be predicted as a \r\nfunction of temperature. Note that Newton’s law does not in its simplest form comprise a heating \r\nor cooling device such as an HVAC system, and thus it models the system with no active energy \r\ndevices. But the equation can easily be modified by adding those factors.\r\nCase 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 111-8 Filed 11/19/21 Page 4 of 5\r\nAppx1192\r\nCase: 23-1101 Document: 15 Page: 229 Filed: 05/09/2023","after":"RESTRICTED – CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE\n\n37. When the proportionality constants of this equation are solved (using, for example,\nhistorical data), temperature can be predicted as a function of time or time can be predicted as a\nfunction of temperature. Note that Newton’s law does not in its simplest form comprise a heating\nor cooling device such as an HVAC system, and thus it models the system with no active energy\ndevices. But the equation can easily be modified by adding those factors."},"searchStreams":["restricted - confidential source code ","37. when the proportionality constants of this equation are solved (using, for example, historical data), temperature can be predicted as a function of time or time can be predicted as a function of temperature. note that newton's law does not in its simplest form comprise a heating or cooling device such as an hvac system, and thus it models the system with no active energy devices. but the equation can easily be modified by adding those factors. "]}]