Traeger Pellet Grills LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 16, 2020

PGR2019-00024 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2020)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 35
571-272-7822 Entered: July 16, 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.
____________

PGR2019-00024
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)

PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

2

I. INTRODUCTION
We have authority to hear this post-grant review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(c) 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 assertions, we determine that GMG Products LLC (“Petitioner”) has not
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 12, 16, 19, 21,
and22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,158, 720 B2 (hereinafter, “’720 Patent”) are
patentable but has shown that claims 23–29 are unpatentable.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 3 (“Pet.”)) requesting a post-grant
review of claims 1–3, 12, 16, 19, and 21–29 of the ’720 (Ex. 1001) (35
U.S.C. § 321). Petitioner challenges claims 1–3, 12, 16, 19, and 21–29 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Pet. 5).
Traeger Pellet Grills LLC1 (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a
Preliminary Response (Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”)) to the Petition. With our
approval (Ex. 3001), Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary
Response (Paper 14) and Patent Owner Filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 15).
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 17 (“Dec.”).

1 We note that in both Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notice (Paper 4) and
Patent Owner’s Updated Mandatory Notice (Paper 8), Patent Owner
indicates their name as Traeger Pellet Grills LLC. In the Patent Owner
Preliminary Response (Paper 10), however, Patent Owner indicates their
name as Traeger Pellet Grills, LLC (with a comma included between
“Grills” and “LLC”). In light of the inconsistency, reference to Traeger
Pellet Grills LLC includes Traeger Pellet Grill, LLC.
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

3
The standard for instituting a post-grant review is set forth in
35 U.S.C. § 324, which provides as follows:
(a) THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize a post-grant
review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if
such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is
more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
petition is unpatentable

(35 U.S.C. § 324(a)).
Accordingly, we instituted this post-grant review on all the grounds
asserted in the Petition, as set forth in our Decision on Institution (Dec. 43).
Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 22 (“PO
Resp.”)). Petitioner filed a Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
(Paper 27 (“Pet. Reply”)). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply in response to
Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 31 (“PO Sur-Reply”)).
At the parties’ request (Papers 29, 30), an Oral Hearing was held on
August 4, 2020, a transcript of which is included in the record (Paper 34
(“Tr.”)).
Real Parties in Interest
Petitioner identifies GMG Products LLC as the real party-in-interest
(Pet. 2). Patent Owner states the real party-in-interest is Traeger Pellet
Grills LLC (Paper 8, 2).
The ’720 Patent
The ’720 Patent, titled “Cloud System for Controlling Outdoor Grill
with Mobile Application,” issued December 18, 2018 (Ex. 1001, Title). 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. at Abstract).
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

4
The ’720 Patent uses “a cloud computing platform . . . for
communicating with and controlling operation of electronically-controlled
appliances” (4:25–27; see 3:57–58). Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates
an exemplary cloud computing platform (6:26–34).

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
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

5
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
Case PGR2019-00024
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).

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
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

7
computing platform is communicably connected to the electronically-
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).
Illustrative Claims
Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 12, 16, and 23 are independent
(’720 Patent, 15:36–16:2, 16:54–17:20, 17:55–18:21, 18:53–19:28).
Claims 2 and 3 depend directly from claim 1; claims 19, 21, and 22
depend directly from claim 16; and claims 25–29 depend directly or
indirectly from claim 23 (’720 Patent, 16:3–13, 18:34–40, 18:46–52, 19:32–
20:24). Independent claims 1 and 23 are illustrative of the challenged claims
and are reproduced below:
1. 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
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

8
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, the electronically-
controlled appliance comprising an outdoor
barbecue grill or outdoor barbecue smoker;
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;
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;
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
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.
(’720 Patent, claim 1).

Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

9
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 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 selections made on the
mobile device regarding control of the outdoor
cooking device;
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

10
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.
(’720 Patent, Claim 23).
Evidence
Petitioner relies upon the following references (Pet. 4–5):
Reference Publication Number Exhibit
Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”) US 2015/0134727 A1 1003
Henderson et al. (hereinafter
“Henderson”) US 2015/0025687 A1 1004
Amer et al. (hereinafter “Amer”) US 2016/0072638 A1 1005
Tucker US 9,759,429 B2 1006
Logue et al. (hereinafter “Logue”) US 8,539,567 B1 1007

Petitioner supports its challenge with a Declaration by Dr. Henry H.
Houh, dated December 18, 2018 (Ex. 1002). Patent Owner supports its
Response with a Declaration by Mr. Daniel Minoli (Ex. 2006) and a
Declaration by Mr. James M. Tomaszewski (Ex. 2007).
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

11
The Asserted Grounds
In its Petitioner, Petitioner challenges claims 1–3, 12, 16, 19, and 21–
29 of the ’720 Patent on the following grounds (Pet. 5–6):
Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–3, 16, 19, 21, 22 103 Lee, Henderson
12, 23–26, 28 103 Lee, Henderson, Amer
27 103 Lee, Henderson, Amer, Tucker
29 103 Lee, Henderson, Amer, Logue

II. 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. 29 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 32)).
Patent Owner argues Petitioner’s “definition of a POSITA is incorrect
because it does not account for the context of the invention” (PO Resp. 18
(citing Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 34–37, 69–72)). According to the Patent Owner,
[p]roperly considering the relevant factors in the field of outdoor
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

12
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. 2007 ¶¶ 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).
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)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely
a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art” (id.).
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,
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
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

13
“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 admitted that proximity is one aspect of the problem
trying to be solved, 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. 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
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, 17:53–18:21, 18:34–20:24). In particular, independent claims
1 and 12 and dependent claims 2 and 3 are directed to “[a] cloud computing
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

14
platform for communicating with and controlling operation of an
electronically-controlled appliance”; independent claim 16 and dependent
claims 19–22 are directed to “[a] method for remotely controlling an
electronically controlled appliance”; and independent claim 23 and
dependent claims 24–29 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 system and, particularly, cloud computing
environments communicating with multiple devices.
Lastly, we note that Patent Owner relies on Mr. Minoli as its expert
with respect to the claim limitations (Ex. 2006). 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
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

15
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 Patent Owner also presents Mr. Tomaszeski as an expert,
Mr. Tomaszeski only testifies as to the level of skill in the art (Ex. 2007).
We are not persuaded that five job postings (Exs. 2010–2014) by
manufacturers in the industry, 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 2011 summarizes the job as
“design[ing] and test[ing] all aspects of mechanical equipment and
machinery” (Ex. 2011, 1 (emphasis added)). Nothing in the other job
postings describes any job responsibility related to cloud-computing or
network communications (Exs. 2010, 2012–2014).
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)).

III. 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
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

16
and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill
in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent” (37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b) (Nov. 2018); see 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 indicates “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” (Pet. 28 (citing Ex 1002 ¶ 96). Patent Owner also indicates, “[f]or
purpose of Patent Owner Response, . . . no claim construction is necessary”
(PO. Resp. 17).
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))).

IV. REFERENCES RELIED UPON
Overview of Lee (Ex. 1003)
Lee, a U.S. 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. 1003, Title, Abstract).
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

17
Figure 1 of Lee, reproduced below, illustrates “a system in which
states of one or more home appliances 150 may be monitored and functions
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.

Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

18
As shown, 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).
Case PGR2019-00024
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
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

20
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, home gateway 130 “may transfer the metadata
from the home appliances 150 . . . the data server 110” (id. ¶ 194, 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 550, “[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).

Overview of Henderson (Ex. 1004)
Henderson, a U.S. 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. 1004, Title, Abstract).
Case PGR2019-00024
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).

Overview of Amer (Ex. 1005)
Amer, a U.S. Publication titled “System and Method for Remotely
Controlling IR-Enabled Appliances via Networked Device,” discloses a
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

22
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. 1005, Title,
Abstract). 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
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
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

23
platform 50’s network connection to the cloud-enabled remote control
devices 10 (id. ¶ 53, Fig. 2). Amer further describes “the technology can
connect directly with the user’s Wi-Fi router” or connect via Wi-Fi Direct to
a mobile device, “intelligently switching between on board communication
subsystems (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 34, 89).
Overview of Tucker (Ex. 1006)
Tucker, a U.S. Patent titled “Pellet Grill,” discloses “an automated
self-contained pellet grill” that uses “compressed hardwood sawdust” as
cooking fuel (Ex. 1006, Title, Abstract, 1:19–20). Further, Tucker teaches
that its pellet grill includes “a communication device to exchange data
wirelessly with a remote control device” (id. 4:33–45).
Overview of Logue (Ex. 1007)
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. 1007, Title,
Abstract). 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 the
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).

Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

24
V. ANALYSIS
Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
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
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.
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

25
Alleged Obviousness Over Lee and Henderson:
Claims 1–3, 16, 19, 21, and 22
Petitioner contends claims 1–3, 16, 19, 21, and 22 of the ’720 Patent
would have been obvious over Lee and Henderson (Pet. 30–64). Patent
Owner asserts Petitioner has failed to show any teaching, suggestion, or
motivation to combine the prior art (PO Resp. at 31–39). Additionally,
Patent Owner asserts Petitioner has failed to show the prior art discloses all
of the features of the claimed invention (id. at 20–28).
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. 36–39). Petitioner references Lee’s Figure 5 (with annotations added
by Petitioner (Pet. 37)), shown below, which illustrates “a signal flowchart
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

26
illustrating a method of providing a home appliance management service”
(Ex. 1003 ¶ 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. 37; see also id. (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84, 201, Figs. 2, 5)
(“Lee’s monitoring service module (‘MSM’) [residing] on the cloud-based
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

27
data server 110 . . . may receive, from the terminal apparatus, 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 MSM (i.e., asserted receiver) (id. (citing Ex. 1003
¶ 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 claim” (id.). 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. at 38). 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
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. 38–
39 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68, 122–124, 177)). As such, Petitioner concludes a
“person of ordinary skill in the art 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. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 119, 121)). 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 38–39). According to Petitioner,
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

28
the signal request in step 545 requests state information knowing the
appliance is connected to the network, and that itself is an indication (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. 2006 ¶ 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, Claim 1). 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
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

29
first place” (Pet. 38 (emphasis added); see Ex. 1001, 59). In response,
Patent Owner counters “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). 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).
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. 1003, 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. 2006 ¶ 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). However, we find Petitioner’s assertion 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
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

30
show terminal apparatus 160 makes the request with knowledge that home
appliance 150 is in network communication with data server 110.
We likewise are unpersuaded that a request for metadata itself is an
indication of network communication between home appliance 150 and data
server 110 (Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 123). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Houh
testifies that because the metadata is sent to data server 110 by home
appliance 150, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
that a request for the metadata would indicate home appliance 150 is in
network communication with data server 110 (Ex. 1002 ¶ 123). 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” (id. ¶ 122). 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. 2006 ¶ 95). In the Reply, Petitioner does not rebut Mr. Minoli’s
testimony. 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
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

31
sending an input to data server 110 indicating home appliance 150 is in
network communication with data server 110 (Ex. 1003, 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
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 additionally asserts that a skilled artisan would understand
the “metadata . . . generated by the home appliance 150 and received by the
data server 110” in Step 535 of Figure 5 indicates that the home appliance is
in communication with the cloud computing platform (Pet. 39 (citing Ex.
1003, Fig. 5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 121)). According to Petitioner, Lee’s signals 525
and 535 “show that the requested metadata derives from the appliance” (Pet.
Reply 11, n. 4 (citing Pet. 38–39)) and signals 525 and 535 are signals
requesting and transmitting metadata between Lee’s cloud-based data server
and Lee’s appliance (Pet. 13). Patent Owner disputes that the metadata
received by MSM 245 (i.e., asserted “receiver”) includes information about
home appliance 150’s network connection (PO Resp. 23–25).
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

32
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
step 535 does not originate from terminal apparatus 160. Accordingly,
under Petitioner’s mapping, the transfer of metadata in step 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 (“Lee’s metadata is received from home gateway 130—not
from terminal apparatus 160 (which the Petition identifies as the claimed
‘computing system,’ from which the first input must be received.”))). 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.
Accordingly, 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
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

33
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 (Ex. 1001, Claims).
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.
It follows also that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance
of the evidence that dependent claims 2, 3, 19, 21, and 22 are unpatentable.2

Alleged Obviousness Over Lee, Henderson, and Amer:
Claim 12
For the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, on the record before
us, we are not persuaded 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 communications with the cloud computing
platform,” as recited in claim 12. 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 claim 12 is
unpatentable.

2 Claims 2 and 3 depend from independent claim 1, and claims 19, 21, and
22 depend from independent claim 16.
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

34
Alleged Obviousness Over Lee, Henderson, and Amer:
Claims 23–26, and 28
Petitioner contends claims 23–26, and 28 of the ’720 Patent would
have been obvious over Lee, Henderson, and Amer (Pet. 65–94). Petitioner
identifies where Lee, Henderson, and Amer disclose or teach the preamble
and each limitation of claims 23–26 and 28, and provides a rationale to
combine these references (id.).
Patent Owner asserts the combined references 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, 44–45). 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 46–53).
1. 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 Ex. 1001, 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 device to perform certain
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

35
functions. 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” (Ex. 1001, claim 23). 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. (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
from the mobile device.” The ’720 Patent describes in some embodiments,
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

36
“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 devices’ 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. 69 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 223), 81). Petitioner relies on Figure 8 of Amer
to show the disputed limitation (Pet. 67–69, 81–83). Figure 8, reproduced
below, illustrates “a flow diagram showing steps typically performed by a
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

37
device at power up in accordance with some embodiments of the
technology” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 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 upon power up,
at block 802, the system searches for settings (id. at ¶ 90, Fig. 8). When the
settings are absent, as shown in block 806, remote control device 10
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

38
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. 1002 ¶ 222); Ex. 1005 ¶ 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. 1005 ¶ 90,
Fig. 8; Pet. 68–69). 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 POSITA
would have known how Amer could be ‘configured’ to arrive at the claimed
invention” (PO Resp. 29). More specifically, according to Patent Owner,
“Amer’s design introduces an intermediate device—infrared remote control
device 10–that otherwise replaces the appliance’s convention IR remote”
(PO Resp. 45, 31 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 116, 120)). Therefore, Patent Owner
asserts, no direct communications exist between the cloud and the appliance
because Amer teaches “the appliance remains unchanged” and the
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

39
“conventional IR appliances are unidirectional” (id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1005
¶¶ 25, 33)).
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. 1005 ¶ 46
(emphasis added); see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 47 (describing an embodiment with
the cloud enabled remote control device 10 embedded internally in an
appliance); Pet. Reply 25). Indeed, Amer teaches this embedding of device
10 may occur at the manufacturing stage (Ex. 1005 ¶ 46.). Thus, Amer
teaches device 10 may be an element of the appliance. We note the ’720
Patent teaches the 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. 1005 ¶ 49, Fig. 2; Pet. Reply 21). 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-
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

40
directional remote control (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 25, 33–34). Other disclosure in
Amer teaches device 10 includes IR transceiver 101 and thus, Amer’s
device 10 communicates bi-directionally (Ex. 1005 ¶ 40; see also Ex. 1005
¶ 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 (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 “Petitioner 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. 2006
¶ 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. 1005
(Amer) ¶ [0089].
(PO Resp. 30).
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
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

41
“‘switching’ models involves exiting a first mode and activating a second
mode” (Ex. 1036 ¶ 54) because this is consistent with the disclosure in
Amer. As noted by Petitioner, Amer teaches “switching” amongst various
modes of operation (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 34, 89–90; Pet Reply 22). 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. 1005 ¶ 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. 1005
¶ [0062]; see also id. ¶ [0081], Fig. 5G; Ex. 2006 ¶ 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. 1005 ¶ 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-
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

42
executable instructions that “cause the appliance to disconnect from the
mobile device,” as recited in claim 23.
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. 1005 ¶ 25; Ex.
2006 ¶ 116)). Amer, however, as discussed supra, teaches device 10,
embedded in the appliance (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45–47), is bi-directional (id. ¶¶ 40–
41). 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. 1005 ¶¶ 56–
57; see Pet. Reply 26). 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. 1005 ¶ 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.
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

43
(Pet. 82–83). Patent Owner contends that “Amer never discloses
disconnecting any device as a response to receiving or not receiving a
heartbeat” (PO Resp. 32 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 122). However, in light of our
findings above in which 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:
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.
2. Remaining Limitations

Petitioner sets forth for each of the other limitations of claim 23,
where the combination of Lee, Henderson, and/or Amer teaches or suggests
each of the limitations (Pet. 76–81, 83–86). 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.
3. Rationale to Combine Lee and Henderson
Petitioner states that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to use Lee’s cloud-based system with Henderson’s
networked grill” (Pet. 33). In response, Patent Owner contends Petitioner
“fails to articulate adequate reasoning for combining the complex IoT
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

44
gateway-based system of Lee with the outdoor grills/smoker of Henderson”
to combine the teachings of Lee and Henderson” (PO Resp. 46).
Alleged Incorrect 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” (PO Resp. 46). As discussed supra, however, we adopt
Petitioner’s articulated level of skill in the art for an ordinarily skilled
artisan.
Alleged Failure to Articulate a Sufficient 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. 30–31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 247, Fig. 4), 32 (citing Ex. 1003
¶ 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 33 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 108)). Petitioner identifies “prior art patents
from 2013” that disclose controlling devices such as an outdoor grill, using a
cloud-computing platform (id. at 33–34 (citing Ex. 1019; Ex. 1020)).
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 grill and extending Henderson’s solution
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

45
to the problem (id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 111; Ex. 1012, 317; Ex. 1004
¶ 2)). Petitioner states “[t]here is nothing unique about a grill that would
dissuade a person of ordinary skill in the art from following Lee’s
suggestion to add home appliances to the cloud-based network” (id. at 33).
Petitioner further contends:
[A] skilled artisan would recognize that there are many
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 34). 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 34). 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 35). 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.).
Lee contemplates use of its system with home appliances which “may
refer to electrical devices used at home” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 61). Based on the
record before us, we are unpersuaded that an outdoor grill, as described in
the ’720 Patent, is not 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
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

46
¶ 62 ). Thus, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s assertion that Lee
“encourag[es] the connection of any home appliance to that network” (Pet.
33 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 6; Ex. 1019, 1:16–22, 3:16–20, 3:30–33, 4:63–5:5,
11:37–42; Ex. 1020 ¶ 37)). 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
be connected to a communication network and controlled by a remote
computing device (Ex. 1004 ¶ 13).
Patent Owner argues, however, “outdoor grills are unique as
compared to indoor home appliances” (PO Resp. 48 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 40–
44; Ex. 2006 ¶ 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. 2007 ¶¶ 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 including the gateway introduces a potential
failure point that may negatively impact the safety, reliability, and
robustness of the remote control” (PO Resp. 49 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 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. 1002 ¶¶ 108–109) because prior art discloses that
“IoT devices may include . . . grills” (Ex. 1020 ¶ 37 (hereinafter, “Gupta”))
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

47
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. 1019,
Abstract, 1:41–47, 3:17–33, 4:63–5:5, 11:37–42 (hereinafter “Jablokov”)
(Pet. 12–13). Moreover, in Rethinking the Internet of Things, Figures 1-2
and 1-3, an outdoor grill is shown as one of the end devices that will be
connected to the IoT (Ex. 1017, Figs. 1-2, 1-3).
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, and Jablokov describes internet-based systems
for remotely controlling an outdoor grill (Ex. 1020 ¶ 37; Ex. 1019, Abstract,
1:41–47, 3:17–33, 11:37–42). 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. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53–57)).
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
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

48
“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
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 any ordinarily skilled
artisan would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Lee and
Henderson.
4. 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. 77 (citing Ex. 1002
¶¶ 258)). According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
been motivated to combine Amer’s teaching because “Lee does not describe
how the home appliance is initially connected to the local wireless access
point” (id. at 70 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 228)). 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. (citing Ex. 1002
¶¶ 229–230)).
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

49
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. 50). According
to Patent Owner,
IR communication requires both line-of-sight and a clear path
between transmitter and receiver. An outdoor environment is
generally unpredictable, as there are numerous objects that may
interfere with the line-of-sight between objects.
(PO Resp. 51 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 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 26; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 46–47). Amer describes an appliance
with an embedded device, as illustrated in Figure 1C (Ex. 1005 ¶ 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. 1005 ¶ 47).
Additionally, as discussed supra, communication between cloud platform 50
and device 10 is not IR communication (Ex. 1005 ¶ 56; Pet. Reply 26).
Patent Owner further contends “IR involves 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
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

50
persuasive given Amer’s teaching of device 10 being embedded in the
appliance and communicating directly (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 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. 52 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 193–
194)). Patent Owner relies on Mr. Minoli’s testimony, but does not proffer
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.”
Accordingly, we are persuaded Petitioner has articulated why an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the
teachings and suggestions of Lee, Henderson, and Amer.
5. Conclusion

Based on the record before us, Petitioner has persuaded us the
combination of Lee, Henderson, and Amer teaches claim 23. Claims 24–26
and 28 depend from claim 23. Patent Owner has not proffered arguments
specifically directed to these dependent claims. Upon review of and based
on the record before us, (see e.g., Pet. 87–94; Exs. 1003–1005), we are
persuaded Petitioner has shown the combination of Lee, Henderson, and
Amer teaches claims 24–26 and 28. 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 claims 23–26 and 28
of the ’720 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

51
Alleged Obviousness Over Lee, Henderson, Amer, and Tucker and
Over Lee, Henderson, Amer, and Logue:
Claims 27 and 29
Claims 27 and 29 depend from independent claim 23. Patent Owner
has not proffered any arguments specifically directed to claims 27 and 29.
Upon review of the record (see e.g., Pet. 94–100; Exs. 1003–1007),
Petitioner has persuaded us the combination of Lee, Henderson, Amer, and
Tucker teaches claim 27 and the combination of Lee, Henderson, Amer, and
Logue teaches claim 29.
VI. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence:
Claims 23–26 and 28 of the ’720 Patent would have been obvious
under 35 U.S.C. ¶ 103 over Lee, Henderson, and Amer;
Claim 27 of the ’720 Patent would have been obvious under 35
U.S.C. ¶ 103 over Lee, Henderson, Amer, and Tucker; and
Claim 29 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 1–3, 16, 19, 21, and 22 of the ’720 Patent would have been
obvious under 35 U.S.C. ¶ 103 over Lee and Henderson; and
Claim 12 of the ’720 Patent would have been obvious under 35
U.S.C. ¶ 103 over Lee, Henderson, and Amer.
VII. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 23–29 of the ’720 Patent are unpatentable;
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

52
FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner has not shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 1– 3, 12, 16, 19, 21, and 22 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.

Claims

35
U.S.C. §
Basis/Reference(s) Claims
Shown
Unpatentable
Claims
Not shown
Unpatentable
1, 3, 16,
19, 21–
22
103 Lee, Henderson
1– 3, 16, 19,
21, 22
12 103 Lee, Henderson, Amer
12
23–26,
28 103
Lee, Henderson,
Amer
23–26, 28
27 103 Lee, Henderson, Amer, Tucker
27
29 103 Lee, Henderson, Amer, Logue
29
Overall
Outcome
23–29 1, 2, 3, 12, 16,
19, 21, 22
Case PGR2019-00024
Patent 10,158,720 B2

53
For PETITIONER:
David Cavanaugh
Richard Goldenberg
Richard Crudo
Jeffrey Soler
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
David.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
Richard.goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
Richard.crudo@wilmerhale.com
Jeff.soller@wilmerhale.com

For PATENT OWNER:

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