throbber
Paper 9
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket