`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: June 6, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RPX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, TRENTON A. WARD, and WILLIAM M.
`FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FINK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`RPX Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`
`“the ’983 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, MD Security Solutions
`
`LLC, filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes
`
`review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the
`
`petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition.”
`
`
`
`For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–20 of the ’983 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify the following pending judicial
`
`matters as relating to the ‘983 patent: MD Security Solutions, LLC v. Bright
`
`House Networks, LLC, No. 6:15-cv-00777 (M.D. Fl.), MD Security
`
`Solutions LLC v. CenturyLink, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-01967 (M.D. Fl.), and MD
`
`Security Solutions LLC v. Protection 1, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-01968 (M.D. Fl.).
`
`Pet. 2–3; Paper 7, 1.
`
`B. The ’983 Patent
`
`The ’983 patent relates to a “[s]ecurity alarm system for protecting a
`
`structure [that] includes motion detectors connected to cameras.” Ex. 1001,
`
`Abstract. At least one of the motion detectors has an external field of view
`
`of the protected structure in order to detect an approaching intruder, and a
`
`camera arranged such that the camera has a field of view encompassing at
`
`least part of the field of view of the associated motion detector. Id. at 2:31–
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`35, 6:66–7:1. The system also includes a handheld telecommunications unit
`
`
`
`that allows a user to activate, deactivate, and make adjustments to the alarm
`
`system. Id. at 11:31–34. Figure 1 of the ’983 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a schematic embodiment of an alarm system in
`
`accordance with the invention. Id. at 6:36–37. The schematic of Figure 1
`
`includes motion detector 10, camera 12, on-site computer 14, and hand-held
`
`telecommunications unit 42. Id. at 6:48–53, 11:1–3. “[E]ach camera 12 is
`
`triggered to obtain an image only when its associated motion detector 10
`
`detects motion in the field of view of the motion detector 10.” Id. at 7:37–
`
`40. On-site computer 14 will receive these images from these cameras 12.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`Id. at 8:51–58. A processor sends these images via a telecommunications
`
`
`
`module to hand-held telecommunication unit 42. Id. at 2:40–45.
`
`Additionally, hand-held telecommunications unit 42 may send a command
`
`causing the cameras 12 to obtain and transmit images to the
`
`telecommunications unit. Id. at 2:46–50.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claims 2–10 depend directly
`
`or indirectly from claim 1 and claims 12–20 depend directly or indirectly
`
`from claim 11. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
`
`1. An alarm system for protecting a structure, comprising:
`at least one motion detector arranged to have a field of
`view external of the structure and including an area proximate
`the structure;
`at least one camera associated with and coupled to each
`of said at least one motion detector, each of said at least one
`camera being arranged relative to the associated one of said at
`least one motion detector such that said camera has a field of
`view encompassing at least part of the field of view of the
`associated one of said at least one motion detector, each of said
`at least one camera having a dormant state in which images are
`not obtained and an active state in which images are obtained
`and being activated into the active state when the associated one
`of said at least one motion detector detects motion;
`a processor coupled to said at least one camera and
`arranged to control said at least one camera and receive the
`image obtained by said at least one camera;
`a telecommunications module coupled to said processor,
`telecommunications module
`being
`capable
`of
`said
`communications over a telecommunications network; and
`a handheld telecommunications unit for transmitting
`commands for said processor via said telecommunications
`module to cause said processor to provide images to said
`telecommunications module
`to be
`transmitted
`to
`the
`telecommunications unit.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 13:53–14:11.
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–20 are unpatentable based on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`References
`
`Lee1
`Lee and Ozer2
`Milinusic3 and Osann4
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1–8, 11, and 18–20
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`9, 10 and 12–17
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1–8, 11, and 18–20
`
`Milinusic, Osann, and Ozer
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`9, 10 and 12–17
`
`
`Pet. 4. Petitioner also relies on the declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian (“Ex.
`
`1010”) for support. Id. at 1.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress
`
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`
`enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`
`regulation”), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0267605 A1, published
`December 1, 2005 (Ex. 1002) (“Lee”)
`2 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0120581 A1, published June
`24, 2004 (Ex. 1005) (“Ozer”)
`3 U.S. Patent No. 7,106,333 B1, issued September 12, 2006 (Ex. 1003)
`(“Milinusic”)
`4 U.S. Patent No. 7,253,732 B2, issued August 7, 2007 (Ex. 1004) (“Osann”)
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`S. Ct. 890 (mem.) (2016). Under the broadest reasonable construction
`
`
`
`standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
`
`entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007). Only terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the
`
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`
`Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Petitioner proposes construction of the terms “handheld
`
`telecommunications unit” and “silhouette.” Pet. 11–12. Patent Owner
`
`disputes Petitioner’s proposed construction of “handheld
`
`telecommunications unit.” Prelim. Resp. 4–7. We have reviewed the
`
`parties’ contentions and, in view of our determination below, determine that
`
`at this stage in the proceeding that explicit construction of the proposed
`
`terms is not necessary to resolving the disputed issues before us.
`
`A. Alleged Obviousness Grounds Based on Lee
`
`Petitioner contends claims 1–8, 11, and 18–20 are unpatentable as
`
`obvious over Lee, and claims 9, 10, and 12–17 are unpatentable as obvious
`
`over Lee and Ozer. Pet. 14–37. Petitioner also relies on Dr. Lavian to
`
`support its contentions. Patent Owner counters that Lee does not provide a
`
`basis for instituting trial. Prelim. Resp. 7–16. We begin our discussion with
`
`a brief summary of the prior art and then address the parties’ contentions.
`
`1. Lee (Ex. 1002)
`
`
`
`Lee relates to a “home security, surveillance, and automation control
`
`system capable of . . . retrieving information from a plurality of cameras and
`
`sensors.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 5. The system includes surveillance and security
`
`device 212 that further comprises at least one power line camera module and
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`at least one power line sensor module. Id. ¶104. The system also includes
`
`
`
`user input devices including a remote controller 281 and wireless PDA 282
`
`for transmitting commands to control unit 100. Id. ¶ 59. Figure 1 of Lee is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic illustration of the home entertainment, security,
`
`surveillance, and automation control system of Lee. Id. ¶ 35.
`
`
`
`In operation, when a motion sensor is triggered, the surveillance
`
`camera can be activated. Id. at ¶¶ 110–111. The camera communicates with
`
`the camera interface and the camera interface sends the image data and
`
`sensor data to the main control unit 100. Id. ¶ 108. The user will be alerted
`
`and a text message corresponding to information sensed by the sensors sent
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`to display device 50 in order to inform the user which sensor is triggered.
`
`
`
`Id. ¶ 111.
`
`2. Analysis
`
`
`
`Petitioner presents a proposed mapping of Lee to the limitations of
`
`claims 1–8, 11, and 18–20. Pet. 14–30. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s
`
`proposed mapping, arguing that Lee does not teach several limitations of
`
`claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 11–16. For example, Patent Owner contends
`
`Petitioner does not establish that Lee discloses or teaches “a processor
`
`coupled to said at least one camera and arranged to control said at least one
`
`camera and receive the image obtained by said at least one camera,” as
`
`recited in claim 1, and a similar limitation of claim 11. Id. at 14–15 (quoting
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:1–3).
`
`
`
`We agree with Patent Owner. Independent claims 1 and 11 require “a
`
`processor,” which “receive[s] the image obtained by said at least one
`
`camera.” Ex. 1001, 14:1–3, 15:31–32. Relying on Dr. Lavian, Petitioner
`
`contends paragraph 108 of Lee teaches this limitation:
`
`A POSA would have recognized that microprocessor 150 is a
`“processor” as claimed in the ‘983 patent and is coupled to
`camera 922 via a power line communication module 101, power
`line 200, and camera interface 921. (FIGs. 2 and 9; Lavian, ¶¶46-
`48). The microprocessor 150 is arranged to receive surveillance
`data (e.g., images) from the camera in S&S device 212. ([0108];
`Lavian, ¶48).
`
`
`Pet. 17 (emphasis added). However, as Patent Owner points out, paragraph
`
`108 of Lee describes the operation of the control unit, but does not expressly
`
`mention a microprocessor, let alone one that receives the images. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 15 (quoting Ex. 1002 ¶ 108). Paragraph 108 from Lee discloses that
`
`“the sensor 923 can send sensor data to the camera module 921,” and that
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`the “[camera] interface sends the image data and sensor data to the main
`
`
`
`control unit 100,” but fails to provide any disclosure regarding
`
`microprocessor 150 receiving images. Ex. 1002 ¶ 108. Thus, although
`
`claim 1 requires a “processor” to “receive the image obtained by said at least
`
`one camera,” the cited paragraph from Lee does not disclose that
`
`microprocessor 150 receives surveillance data (e.g., images).
`
`
`
`Although Dr. Lavian asserts a person of ordinary skill would have
`
`understood that microprocessor 150 “is also arranged to receive surveillance
`
`data (e.g. images),” he also relies solely on paragraph 108 for this
`
`conclusion. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 48. As Patent Owner points out, he provides no
`
`further explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`recognized that microprocessor 150 receives the images, when no
`
`microprocessor is mentioned. Prelim. Resp. 16. In the absence of further
`
`explanation or support, we find Dr. Lavian’s assertion that microprocessor
`
`150 would have been arranged to receive the image to be conclusory.
`
`Consequently, we find Petitioner has not shown sufficiently how Lee teaches
`
`the recited processor limitation of claims 1 and 11.
`
`
`
`For at least the foregoing reason, we determine Petitioner’s proposed
`
`ground of obviousness over Lee is deficient with respect to claims 1 and 11.
`
`Accordingly, it is unnecessary to address claims 2–8 and 18–20, which
`
`depend directly or indirectly from either claim 1 or 11 and are alleged to be
`
`unpatentable as obvious over Lee. It is also unnecessary to address claims 9,
`
`10, and 12–17, which also depend directly or indirectly from either claim 1
`
`or 11, and are alleged to be unpatentable as obvious over Lee and Ozer, as
`
`Petitioner’s contentions do not address the foregoing deficiency. We decline
`
`to institute inter partes review of claims 1–8, 11, and 18–20 on the proposed
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`grounds of obviousness over Lee and claims 9, 10, and 12–17 on the
`
`
`
`proposed grounds of obviousness over Lee and Ozer.
`
`B. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–8, 11, and 18–20
`by Milinusic and Osann
`
`Petitioner contends claims 1–8, 11, and 18–20 are obvious over the
`
`combination of Milinusic and Osann. Pet. 37–55. Petitioner also relies upon
`
`Dr. Lavian to support its contentions. Patent Owner counters that Milinusic
`
`and Osann fail to disclose “a processor,” Prelim. Resp. 17–20, and Petitioner
`
`fails to provide a motivation to combine the references, id. at 20–21. We
`
`begin our discussion with a brief summary of the prior art and then address
`
`the parties’ contentions.
`
`1. Milinusic (Ex. 1003)
`
`Milinusic relates to “a surveillance system . . . for collection, analysis,
`
`and distribution of surveillance data.” Ex. 1003, 1:16–19. The surveillance
`
`system includes sensors to detect movement in a predefined area and
`
`cameras configured to capture an image of the area. Id. at 5:52–59. Figure
`
`4 of Milinusic is reproduced below:
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 depicts an embodiment of the surveillance system. Id. at 2:12–14.
`
`The system includes sensors (250 and 260), cameras (451, 452, and 461),
`
`surveillance server 210, and surveillance client 240. Id. at 5:23–30, 2:61–
`
`65.
`
`The cameras are configured to capture an image of an area upon the
`
`occurrence of predetermined events, such as the detection of movement
`
`within the area being monitored by the sensor units. Id. at 5:55–59. The
`
`surveillance server 210 receives surveillance data from the various sensor
`
`units and incorporates the data into the surveillance database 220. Id. at
`
`4:14–15, 4:25–29. The surveillance system also includes a surveillance
`
`client that may be implemented as a personal digital assistance (PDA) that is
`
`configured to control or adjust specified sensor units. Id. at 3:33–39.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`
`2. Osann (Ex. 1004)
`
`
`
`Osann relates to a “home security/surveillance system.” Ex. 1004,
`
`1:21–24. The surveillance system includes Energy Monitoring and Control
`
`(EMAC) points to enable communication with an exterior camera and
`
`motion sensor. Id. at 9:22–30. Figure 28 of Osann is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 28 depicts a video camera and motion detector. Id. at 8:51–54.
`
`Motion detector 85 and video camera 86 are “mounted on the exterior wall
`
`84 of a home or building.” Id. at 25:55–60. Using these elements, the
`
`detection of a possible intruder can set off an alarm. Id. at 14:4–12. When
`
`motion is detected, the video information from that area of the home or
`
`building can be recorded and buffered. Id. at 14:24–26.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`
`3. Analysis
`
`
`
`Petitioner presents a proposed mapping of Milinusic and Osann to the
`
`limitations of claims 1–8, 11, and 18–20. Pet. 37–55. With respect to claim
`
`1, Petitioner contends surveillance system 100 of Milinusic discloses the
`
`recited “alarm system for protecting a structure,” such as a warehouse. Id. at
`
`43-44 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003, 6:59–67). Petitioner relies on both Milinusic
`
`and Osann as disclosing the recited “at least one motion detector arranged to
`
`have a field of view external to the structure and including an area proximate
`
`the structure.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:41–45, 3:51–55; Ex. 1004,
`
`25:55–60, Fig. 28 (reproduced above)). Among other limitations, claim 1
`
`recites “a processor coupled to said at least one camera and arranged to
`
`control said at least one camera and receive the image obtained by said at
`
`least one camera” (the “processor limitation”). Ex. 1001, 14:1–3. Petitioner
`
`contends that Milinusic description of a central processing unit (CPU)
`
`configured to control the operation of the server so that images may be
`
`received from a camera discloses the processor limitation of claim 1. Pet. 45
`
`(citing Ex. 1003, 3:12–15, 4:14–16, 4:25–30). Petitioner presents a similar
`
`mapping for claim 11. Pet. 52–55.
`
`Patent Owner contends Milinusic does not disclose a processor as
`
`required by claims 1 and 11 for the same reasons as discussed with respect
`
`to Lee. Prelim. Resp. 17. Specifically, Patent Owner argues:
`
`The Petition cites Column 4, lines 25-30 of Milinusic as
`disclosing that a processor receives an image from at least one
`camera. However, the cited portion of Milinusic states that the
`surveillance server 210, not the CPU 360, receives surveillance
`data, and that the surveillance data are incorporated into the
`surveillance database 220, not the CPU 360.
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`Id. at 18 (emphasis added). Patent Owner also contends Dr. Lavian’s
`
`
`
`declaration fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand a processor to receive the surveillance data (i.e., image) instead
`
`of the surveillance server 210. Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 128).
`
`
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we determine that Petitioner has shown
`
`sufficiently how Milinusic teaches that CPU 360 (i.e., the processor)
`
`receives the image obtained by the camera. Patent Owner contends column
`
`4, lines 25–30 states that the surveillance server 210, not the processor CPU
`
`360, receives surveillance data. However, CPU 360 is within server 210
`
`(see Ex. 1003, 4:14–16) and is “preferably configured” to control the sensor
`
`units to obtain the image information and incorporate it into the surveillance
`
`database (see id. at 4:24–30 (“CPU 360 is preferably configured to control
`
`the operation of server 210 so that surveillance data may be received from
`
`the various sensor units 250, 260, and 270.”)). We understand Patent Owner
`
`to be arguing that this cited portion does not explicitly require the processor
`
`(as opposed to other parts of server 210) to receive the data. We have
`
`considered this, but we do not agree because the next sentence in Milinusic,
`
`referring to CPU 360, states: “[i]t is also preferably configured to receive
`
`and distribute surveillance data to a requesting surveillance client 240” (id.
`
`at 4:30–32). Because CPU 360 expressly “receives . . . surveillance data,”
`
`Dr. Lavian’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood CPU 360 is arranged to receive images obtained by a camera
`
`(see Ex. 1010 ¶ 128) is supported by the record before us. We have
`
`reviewed Petitioner’s contentions regarding the remaining limitations of
`
`claims 1 and 11, and, for purposes of this decision, we find Petitioner has
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`sufficiently shown how the combination of Milinusic and Osann teaches
`
`
`
`these limitations.
`
`
`
`Regarding dependent claims 2–8 and 18–20, Patent Owner provides
`
`no specific arguments regarding Petitioner’s contentions. We have reviewed
`
`Petitioner’s proposed mapping of the combination of Milinusic and Osann to
`
`these dependent claims (see Pet. 46–55), and determine, for purposes of this
`
`decision, Petitioner has sufficiently shown how the combination of Milinusic
`
`and Osann teaches the limitations of these claims.
`
`Patent Owner also contends Petitioner and its declarant make only
`
`conclusory statements in support of its argument that a person of ordinary
`
`skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Milinusic and
`
`Osann. Prelim. Resp. 20–21. On this record, we disagree. For example,
`
`Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood a primary use of Milinusic’s system was to protect a home or
`
`building against an intruder. Id. at 38–40 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:37–44; Ex.
`
`1004, 14:4–20, 25:55–60; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 118–121). Moreover, the cited
`
`portion of Osann teaches detecting an intruder, including allowing the police
`
`to view inside of or around a home or building, using elements of its
`
`invention (see Ex. 1004, 14:4–14 (“could allow a Security Company or even
`
`the Police to view inside and around the home or building in the case of an
`
`alarm being set off”)), which includes an externally mounted security
`
`camera and motion sensor (id. at 25:54–56). Given these explicit teachings
`
`and suggestions, relied upon by Petitioner and Dr. Lavian, the conclusion
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the would have been motivated to combine
`
`Milinusic’s security system with Osann’s externally mounted security
`
`camera and motion sensor to protect against intruders (see Pet. 39–40), is
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`supported sufficiently for purposes of this decision. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`
`
`Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
`
`988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`
`In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded Petitioner has established a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the proposed ground of obviousness
`
`under § 103(a) over Milinusic and Osann against claims 1–8, 11, and 18–
`
`20.5
`
`D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 9, 10 and 12–17
`by Milinusic, Osann and Ozer
`
`Petitioner contends claims 9, 10 and 12–17 are unpatentable as
`
`obvious over the combination of Milinusic, Osann, and Ozer. Pet. 55–60.
`
`Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s contentions with regard to these
`
`claims. We begin our discussion with a brief summary of Ozer and
`
`Petitioner’s contentions.
`
`1. Ozer (Ex. 1005)
`
`
`
`Ozer discloses an invention that utilizes a multiple camera system to
`
`detect the presence of objects (e.g., people) and identify their activities in
`
`real-time. Ex. 1005 ¶ 3. Figure 1 of Ozer is reproduced below:
`
`
`5 We have also considered Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner
`improperly incorporates Dr. Lavian’s arguments by reference. Prelim. Resp.
`21 (citing Pet. 4, 12–60). Patent Owner cites to the Board’s decision in
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, Case IPR2014-00454 (PTAB
`Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) (informative) as not permitting conclusory
`statements not otherwise supported in the Petition. Pet. 21. We find this
`argument unavailing under the circumstances here. As explained in Cisco,
`improper incorporation may result from citations to “large portions of
`another document, without sufficient explanation of those portion.” Case
`IPR2014-00454, slip op. at 8. Here, Patent Owner does not identify with
`specificity those conclusory statements that allegedly rely on “large
`portions” of Dr. Lavian’s declaration.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts identification of a human object after comparing attributes
`
`with a model database. Id. at ¶ 52. The system in Ozer builds a model of
`
`the object for each video frame and only tracks objects that fit the model,
`
`such as a human. Id. at ¶ 54. The tracking of objects occurs over multiple
`
`frames to calculate probabilities of activities for security purposes. Id. at
`
`
`
`Abstract, ¶ 66.
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Petitioner presents a proposed mapping of Milinusic, Osann, and Ozer
`
`to the limitations of claims 9, 10, and 12–17. Pet. 55–60. For example,
`
`claim 9 recites:
`
`said processor [of claim 1] is further arranged to derive a
`silhouette of any objects in the image, compare the silhouettes to
`a
`library of stored silhouettes having associated object
`identification to determine an exact or closest match of the
`derived silhouette to one of the stored silhouettes and retrieve the
`object identification associated with the exact or closest match,
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`
`said processor being arranged to react to the detection of motion
`by said at least one motion detector based on the object
`identification.
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:49–57. Ozer’s system is designed to generate a silhouette of an
`
`
`
`object such as a human, dog, unattended bag, or any rigid object. Ex. 1005
`
`¶¶ 26, 52, and 54. The system also compares the silhouettes to a set of
`
`stored silhouettes, called reference models, to obtain a match.6 Id. at ¶¶ 34,
`
`64. In addition, the system tracks movement (or “activities”) of the desired
`
`object to identify, for example, intrusion or other suspicious activities, and
`
`generate an alarm. Id. at ¶¶ 52–54, 64–67. Petitioner cites these and other
`
`portions of Ozer as teaching the foregoing limitations of claim 9. See Pet.
`
`31–33, 56–57. For purposes of this Decision, we agree with Petitioner the
`
`cited portions of Ozer in combination with Milinusic and Osann, teach or
`
`suggest the limitations of claim 9.
`
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions regarding claims 10 and
`
`12–17 (see Pet. 56–60) and, on this record, we find Petitioner has
`
`sufficiently shown how the combination of Milinusic, Osann, and Ozer
`
`teaches or suggests the recited limitations.
`
`Petitioner also provides a proposed rationale for combining Ozer with
`
`Milinusic and Osann. According to Petitioner, a person would have
`
`implemented the identification techniques of Ozer in CPU 360 in
`
`surveillance server 210 of Milinusic:
`
`to analyze captured images and identify an object (e.g., as human
`or not) detected as moving by the motion detector, and react to
`
`
`6 Because Ozer expressly discloses generating a silhouette, we determine it
`is unnecessary to construe the claim term “silhouette,” as Petitioner
`proposes.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`
`the detected motion based on the object identification by
`generating the countermeasure only when the object is
`determined to be a threat (e.g., human) to reduce false alarms as
`taught by Ozer.
`
`Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 166). At this stage of the proceeding, we
`
`
`
`determine Petitioner has presented articulated reasoning with some rational
`
`underpinning in support of the combination. As discussed above, Ozer
`
`describes reducing false alarms by, in security systems, identifying objects
`
`and activities in multiple frames of images. Ex. 1005 ¶ 64. Consequently,
`
`for purposes of this decision, Petitioner has provided sufficient articulated
`
`reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to improve upon
`
`the security system taught by the combination of Milinusic and Osann,
`
`would have implemented Ozer’s teachings. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418
`
`(2007).
`
`In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded Petitioner has established a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the proposed ground of obviousness
`
`under § 103(a) over Milinusic, Osann, and Ozer against claims 9, 10, and
`
`12–17.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`
`presented establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`
`showing that claims 1–20 of the ’983 patent are unpatentable. At this stage
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`
`of the proceeding, the Board has not made a final determination with respect
`
`to the patentability of the challenged claims.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1–20
`
`of the ’983 patent on the following grounds:
`
`Claims 1–8, 11, and 18–20 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Milinusic and Osann;
`
`Claims 9, 10 and 12–17 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Milinusic, Osann, and Ozer;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`
`partes review of the ‘983 patent is instituted with trial commencing on the
`
`entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.4, notice is given of the institution of the trial; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`
`identified immediately above, and no other ground is authorized.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Richard Giunta
`Rgiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Daniel Wehner
`Dwehner-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Randy Pritzker
`Rpritzker-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jason Angell
`jangell@fawlaw.com
`
`
`21