UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________
`
`
`
`RPX CORPORATION
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, TRENTON A. WARD, AND WILLIAM M. FINK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FINK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`___________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________
`
`
`
`RPX CORPORATION
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, TRENTON A. WARD, AND WILLIAM M. FINK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FINK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................................................. 2
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND AND THE INVENTOR’S
`SOLUTION .................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. RPX BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROVING OBVIOUSNESS ................... 5
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standards Governing Obviousness ............................................ 5
`
`IV. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`Summary Of The Institution Decision ................................................. 7
`
`B. MD Security Seeks Rehearing Based On An Apparent
`Misapprehension Of The Milinusic Disclosure ................................. 10
`
`V.
`
`RPX FAILS TO PROVE THAT COMBINATIONS OF MILINUSIC
`AND OSANN OR MILINUSIC, OSANN, AND OZER DISCLOSE
`“A PROCESSOR” AS IN CLAIMS 1 AND 11 ........................................... 11
`
`A. One of Ordinary Skill Would Not Understand that Milinusic’s
`CPU 360 “Receives” The Surveillance Data ..................................... 13
`
`B.
`
`The Terms “Receive” and “Retrieve” Are Not Equivalent ................ 17
`
`VI. RPX FAILS TO PROVE THAT COMBINATIONS OF MILINUSIC
`AND OSANN OR MILINUSIC, OSANN, AND OZER DISCLOSE
`“A PROCESSOR” AS IN CLAIMS 1 AND 11 ........................................... 21
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...................................................................... 7, 22
`
`In re Dembiczak,
`175 F.3d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .............................................................................. 6
`
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Patent of Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`No. IPR2012-00001 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2013) ........................................................ 7
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .............................................................................................. 6, 7
`
`In re Kotzab,
`217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 6
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 18
`
`In re Rijckaert,
`9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ................................................................................ 6
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................... 7, 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ................................................................................................ 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ........................................................................................................ 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ................................................................................................. 1, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`United States Patent Act Section 103(a) ................................................................ 5, 6
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 18
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner MD Security Solutions LLC (“MD Security) respectfully
`
`submits this response to RPX Corporation’s (“RPX”) Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983 (“’983 patent”). This filing is timely under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.120.
`
`The ’983 patent claims and describes an improved system and method for
`
`monitoring a structure, which uses motion detectors, video cameras, image
`
`processing, and telecommunications networks and devices, to provide the user of
`
`the system with a more intelligent and responsive means of monitoring the
`
`structure. RPX contends that Claims 1-8, 11, and 18-20 of the ’983 patent are
`
`unpatentable as obvious over Milinusic1 and Osann,2 and that claims 9, 10 and 12–
`
`17 are obvious over Milinusic, Osann, and Ozer.3
`
`“In an inter partes review instituted under this chapter, the petitioner shall
`
`have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). RPX fails to meet its burden to establish
`
`obviousness as to any claim of the ’983 patent because each of the proposed
`
`combinations fails to teach, suggest or otherwise disclose the “processor”
`
`limitations of independent Claims 1 and 11. In system Claim 1, a “processor” is
`
`“arranged to control said at least one camera and receive the image obtained by
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 7,106,333 B1, issued September 12, 2006 (“Milinusic”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 7,253,732 B2, issued August 7, 2007 (Ex. 1004) (“Osann”).
`3 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0120581 A1, published June 24,
`2004 (Ex. 1005) (“Ozer”).
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`said at least one camera.” In method Claim 11, a “processor” is provided “which
`
`controls the at least one camera and receives the image obtained by the at least one
`
`camera.” The Milinusic reference, on which RPX relies, discloses a “central
`
`processing unit” of a “surveillance server” that allegedly maps to the “processor”
`
`of the ’983 patent. The CPU does not “receive” images as required by the claims
`
`of the ’983 patent and the petition should therefore be dismissed.
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316, MD Security respectfully requests that the
`
`Board determine that originally instituted claims 1-20 of the ’983 patent are valid
`
`and patentable in view of Milinusic, Osann, and Ozer.
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND AND THE INVENTOR’S
`SOLUTION.
`
`The ’983 patent is titled Security Alarm System. See Ex. 1001. The patent
`
`was issued on January 4, 2011 and is the result of a continuation of an application
`
`filed March 28, 2007 that issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,526,105 (“’105 patent”). The
`
`’105 patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/804,660 filed
`
`June 14, 2006 and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/743,894 filed March 29,
`
`2006.
`
`The ’983 patent is directed to a “[s]ecurity system for protecting a structure
`
`includ[ing] motion detectors connected to cameras” whereby a processor is
`
`coupled to the cameras, arranged to control the cameras, and to receive the image
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`obtained thereby. Ex. 1001 at Abstract. “A handheld telecommunications unit
`
`transmits commands to the processor . . . to cause the processor to provide images,
`
`obtained from the camera(s) . . . to be transmitted to the telecommunications unit.”
`
`Id. The ’983 patent is also directed to an alarm system which is designed to
`
`determine whether a potential threat to a property exists, e.g., where the threat is
`
`posed by wild animals. See id. at Col. 1:22-30 . The alarm system provides for
`
`remote activation of security features to reduce or eliminate the potential threat.
`
`Id.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’983 patent, reproduced below, depicts an exemplary
`
`embodiment of an alarm system in accordance with the invention. See id., FIG. 1,
`
`Col. 6:48–7:6.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 1. At a site at which an exemplary alarm system is installed, one or more
`
`motion detectors 10, one or more cameras 12, and an on-site computer 14 are
`
`included. See id., Col. 6:48-54. Each motion detector 10 is mounted to the
`
`structure, e.g., a house, being monitored, such that its field of view includes an area
`
`from which an intruder could approach the structure. See id., Col. 6 54–7:6. Each
`
`camera 12 is associated with a motion detector 10, and each camera 12 is mounted
`
`to the structure depending on the field of view of its associated motion detector.
`
`See id., Col. 7:29-56. The ’983 patent states that “each 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. Since it is this motion (or the cause
`
`thereof) for which an image is sought,” the camera 12 must be positioned to be
`
`able to obtain an image of the portion of the field of view of the motion detector
`
`10. Id.
`
`All of the cameras 12 of the Figure 1 embodiment are connected to an on-
`
`site computer 14 and on-site computer 14 receives images from the cameras 12.
`
`See id., Col. 8:31-59. The on-site computer 14 includes a telecommunications
`
`module that enables communications with a handheld telecommunications unit 42.
`
`See id., Col. 11:1-16. The handheld telecommunications unit 42 receives images
`
`from the alarm system and can remotely control the system. Id.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`At the time of the invention, alarm systems were known to “generate loud
`
`noises when a door is opened without authorization or a window is broken.” See
`
`id., Col. 1:35-42. Also known were alarm systems “which notif[ied] security
`
`personnel of [an open door or broken window] to enable such personnel to respond
`
`to the house.” Id. “When the image which caused the on-site computer 14 to
`
`generate the communication is provided as part of the communication, in particular
`
`when the communication is sent to police or fire personnel, the police and fire
`
`personnel can prepare a better response.” Id., Col. 10:52-58. When, for example,
`
`“the image reveals the presence of multiple people, more police or [fire] personnel
`
`can be directed to respond.” Id., 10:56-58.
`
`III. RPX BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROVING OBVIOUSNESS.
`
`“In an inter partes review instituted under this chapter, the petitioner shall
`
`have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). The Board’s institution decision identifies two
`
`questions: (1) whether a combination of Milinusic and Osann renders obvious
`
`claims 1-8, 11, and 18-20 of the ’983 patent; and (2) whether a combination of
`
`Milinusic, Osann, and Ozer renders obvious claims 9, 10, and 12-17 of the ’983
`
`patent. See IPR2016-00285, Paper 9 (“Inst. Dec.”) at 20.
`
`A. Legal Standards Governing Obviousness.
`
`Section 103(a) of the United States Patent Act provides that “[a] patent may
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`not be obtained, though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as
`
`set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter
`
`sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Obviousness cannot be predicated on what was unknown at the time of the
`
`invention. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (reversing
`
`obviousness rejection where prior art combination did not teach or suggest all
`
`claim limitations). “A critical step in analyzing the patentability of claims pursuant
`
`to section 103(a) is casting the mind back to the time of invention, to consider the
`
`thinking of one of ordinary skill in the art, guided only by the prior art references
`
`and the then-accepted wisdom in the field.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2000). These fundamental principles prohibit hindsight reconstruction
`
`of the claimed invention. See In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998-99 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999) (“[T]he phrase ‘at the time of the invention was made’ . . . guards against
`
`entry into the ‘tempting but forbidden zone of hindsight. . . .’”).
`
`Section 103 builds upon the novelty bars of section 102 and extends them
`
`even further. The Supreme Court described the factual inquiries necessary to
`
`determine whether an invention is obvious. First, the scope and content of the
`
`prior art must be assessed. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1,
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`17-18 (1966). Second, the differences between the claimed invention and the prior
`
`art must be identified. Id. Third, the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`
`must be resolved. Id. If a single element of the claim is absent from the prior art,
`
`the claim cannot be considered obvious because that element is wholly novel. See
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`(“Obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim”) (citing In re
`
`Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)); Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Patent of Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs. LLC, Case No. IPR2012-00001, slip op. at 15 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2013)
`
`(denying inter partes review request under 35 U.S.C. § 103 where prior art
`
`combination did not disclose all claim limitations).
`
`IV. PROCEDURAL HISTORY.
`
`A.
`
`Summary Of The Institution Decision.
`
`RPX filed its petition on December 4, 2015. The petition asserted that the
`
`’983 patent is unpatentable over several prior references. See Inst. Dec. at 5. MD
`
`Security filed a preliminary response on March 14, 2016, in which it argued, inter
`
`alia, that the Milinusic reference does not disclose “a processor” as required by
`
`claims 1 and 11 of the ’983 patent. IPR2016-00285, Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”) at
`
`16-20. MD Security also argued that the Lee4 reference failed to disclose the
`
`“processor” limitation of claim 1 and 11. Id. at 14-16.
`
`4 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0267605 A1, published December
`1, 2005 (Ex. 1002) (“Lee”).
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`RPX argues that the “processor” of the ’983 patent is disclosed by the
`
`“CPU” of Milinusic, and that the “CPU” receives images as is required by the ’983
`
`patent. The preliminary response, however, pointed out that Milinusic plainly
`
`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 “CPU 360.” See Col. 1003, Col. 1:52-57 (“A surveillance
`
`server is provided that is associated with the memory and is configured to receive
`
`surveillance data from a surveillance sensor.”); id., Col. 3:10-12 (“Database 230
`
`may be configured to include surveillance data received from, for example, sensor
`
`units 250, 260 and/or 270.”); id., Col. 3:61-64 (“Surveillance server 210 is
`
`preferably configured to receive surveillance data from the various sensor units
`
`250, 260 and 270 (FIG. 2) and to incorporate collected surveillance data into the
`
`database 220 (FIG. 2).”); id., Col. 4:25-29 (“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 (FIG. 2) and incorporate into the
`
`surveillance database 220 (FIG. 2).”).
`
`In its June 6, 2016 Institution Decision, however, the Board dismissed MD
`
`Security’s argument that “the surveillance server 210, not the processor CPU 360,
`
`receives surveillance data,” explaining, in essence, that because “CPU 360 is
`
`within server 210,” CPU 360 must receive whatever data server 210 receives. See
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`Inst. Dec. at 14. The Board explained that this interpretation was justified
`
`“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 14 (citing Milinusic at 4:30–32) (emphasis added).
`
`The Board further credited RPX’s expert, stating “[b]ecause 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 is supported by the record before us.” Id. (citation omitted).
`
`Accordingly, the Board authorized the institution of inter partes review for
`
`claims 1-20 on the following grounds:
`
` Claims 1–8, 11, and 18–20 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Milinusic and Osann; and
`
` Claims 9, 10 and 12–17 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Milinusic, Osann, and Ozer.
`
`Inst. Dec. at 20. The Board declined to institute inter partes review of claims 1-8,
`
`11, and 18-20 on the proposed grounds of obviousness over Lee. Id. at 9 (“[W]e
`
`find Petitioner has not shown sufficiently how Lee teaches the recited processor
`
`limitation of claims 1 and 11.”).
`
`The portion of the Milinusic specification on which the Board relied to
`
`conclude that Dr. Lavian’s testimony was supported by the record, however, does
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`not state that the CPU “receives” images. It states that the CPU “retrieve[s] and
`
`distribute[s] surveillance data to a requesting surveillance client.” Ex. 1003, Col.
`
`4:31-32.
`
`B. MD Security Seeks Rehearing Based On An Apparent
`Misapprehension Of The Milinusic Disclosure.
`
`On June 20, 2016, MD Security filed a rehearing request. See IPR2016-
`
`00285, Paper 11 (“Req. for Reh’g”). MD Security explained that, contrary to the
`
`Board’s finding in the Institution Decision, Milinusic “does not disclose that CPU
`
`360 ‘receives’ surveillance data. To the contrary, the Milinusic specification states
`
`that the CPU 360 ‘is also preferably configured to retrieve and distribute
`
`surveillance data to a requesting surveillance client 240.’” Req. for Reh’g at 5.
`
`The Board acknowledged a mistake in its Decision Denying Patent Owner’s
`
`Request for Rehearing, but stated that transposing “receive” for “retrieve” did not
`
`impact its prior decision that CPU 360 receives data. See IPR2016-00285, Paper
`
`12 (“Denial of Req. for Reh’g”) at 4 (citing Inst. Dec. at 14). Without citing
`
`testimony of a person of ordinary skill in the art, the Board explained that
`
`Milinusic’s disclosure that “[CPU 360 can] retrieve and distribute surveillance data
`
`to a requesting surveillance client 240,” Ex. 1003, Col. 4:30-32, “does not
`
`undermine the teaching that server 210 and CPU 360 receive the data as well in the
`
`course of retrieving and distributing the data to client 240.” Denial of Req. for
`
`Reh’g at 4.
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`V. RPX FAILS TO PROVE THAT COMBINATIONS OF MILINUSIC
`AND OSANN OR MILINUSIC, OSANN, AND OZER DISCLOSE “A
`PROCESSOR” AS IN CLAIMS 1 AND 11.
`
`Independent system Claim 1 of the ’983 patent provides as follows:
`
`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 hen
`the associated one of said at least one motion detector
`detects motion;
`
` 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;
`
` telecommunications module coupled to said processor,
`said telecommunications module being capable of
`communications over a telecommunications network;
`and
`
` handheld telecommunications unit for transmitting
`commands for said processor via said
`telecommunications model to cause said processor to
`provide images to said telecommunications module to
`be transmitted to the telecommunications unit.
`
`-11-
`
` a
`
` a
`
` a
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 1. This response primarily focuses on the claim limitation
`
`requiring “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.” Ex. 1001, Col. 14:1-3. Method Claim 11 of the ’983patent has a similar
`
`processor claim that requires “providing a processor which controls the at least one
`
`camera and receives the image obtained by the at least one camera.” Id. at Col.
`
`15:30-32. The processor elements in the two independent claims of the ’983 patent
`
`require the processor to “receive” an image obtained by the camera of the security
`
`system. RPX cannot establish that Milinusic discloses a processor that receives an
`
`image.
`
`RPX contends that that Milinusic5 discloses a “processor” as required by
`
`Claims 1 and 11 because Milinusic discloses a surveillance server 210 that
`
`includes a central processing unit (CPU 360). See Petition at 42. RPX cites
`
`Column 4, lines 25-30 of Milinusic as disclosing that a processor receives an
`
`image from at least one camera. This passage is the only support cited by RPX’s
`
`expert for his assertion that one of ordinary skill “would have understood that the
`
`CPU 360 is arranged to receive images obtained by the cameras in the sensor
`
`units.” Lavian Decl. at ¶ 128.
`
`5 RPX argues only that the “processor” limitation is provided by the disclosure of
`CPU 360 in the Milinusic reference and does not cite support for the “processor”
`limitation from any of the references asserted in the obviousness combinations,
`like Osann or Ozer.
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`in
`to operate
`is preferably configured
`CPU 360
`accordance with software 367 stored on memory 365.
`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
`(FIG. 2) and incorporated into the surveillance database
`220 (FIG. 2).
`
`Ex. 1003 at Col. 4 ll. 25-30.
`
`That portion of Milinusic cited in the Petition and by RPX’s declarant only
`
`explains that surveillance server 210 receives surveillance data. There is no
`
`disclosure that CPU 360 within surveillance server 210 receives surveillance data.
`
`As explained below, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand that
`
`Milinusic’s CPU 360 receives image data as is required by the ’983 patent.
`
`Moreover, the disclosure of Milinusic does not provide the requisite support to
`
`reach such a conclusion. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
`
`words “retrieve” and “receive” have different meanings, the terms are used
`
`differently throughout the two patents, and the fact that the CPU 360 is
`
`“configured to retrieve and distribute surveillance data” does not mean that the
`
`CPU 360 actually “receives” the surveillance data, even when CPU 360 retrieves
`
`and distributes the data to a surveillance client.
`
`A. One of Ordinary Skill Would Not Understand that Milinusic’s
`CPU 360 “Receives” The Surveillance Data.
`
`Figure 2 of Milinusic, reproduced below, depicts surveillance system 100.
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003, FIG. 2. Milinusic discloses that the surveillance server 210 receives
`
`surveillance data over the network. See id., FIG. 2, Col. 3:46-47 (“Surveillance
`
`data may be transmitted to, for example, the surveillance server 210 via the
`
`network 230.”). The surveillance data can include images obtained from sensor
`
`units. See id., Col. 3:41-51 (identifying a digital camera or video camera).
`
`The surveillance server explicitly receives the surveillance data. See id.,
`
`Col. 1:52-57 (“A surveillance server is provided that is associated with the memory
`
`and is configured to receive surveillance data from a surveillance sensor.”). In one
`
`embodiment, the server is merely a pass through device because the surveillance
`
`data is received from the sensor units and incorporated into a database 220. Id.,
`
`Col. 3:10-12 (“Database 230 [sic] may be configured to include surveillance data
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`received from, for example, sensor units 250, 260 and/or 270.”); Col. 3:61-64
`
`(“Surveillance server 210 is preferably configured to receive surveillance data
`
`from the various sensor units 250, 260 and 270 (FIG. 2) and to incorporate
`
`collected surveillance data into the database 220 (FIG. 2).”). Milinusic teaches that
`
`the “[d]atabase 220 may be stored on a memory device that is directly connected to
`
`the surveillance server 210 as shown. Alternatively, database 220 may be stored
`
`on a memory device that is connected to the network 230 and accessible to the
`
`surveillance server 210 via network 230.” Id., Col. 3:6-10; see also id., FIG. 2.
`
`Figure 3, below, depicts the surveillance server 210 and its components.
`
`Ex. 1003, FIG. 3. Figure 3 illustrates that surveillance data may be received from
`
`the network 130 by the I/O Processor 375. Id., Col. 4:16-18 (“An input/output
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`(I/O) processor 375 is provided for interfacing with associated input and output
`
`devices.”); see also Declaration of Jim Parker (“Parker Decl.”) at ¶ 17. The I/O
`
`Processor 375 passes the data to the Local Interface 370, which in turn may deliver
`
`it to Data 368. Ex. 1003, Col. 4:18-20 (“A local interface 370 is provided for
`
`transferring data between the CPU 360, memory 365 and/or I/O processor 375.”);
`
`see also Parker Decl. at ¶ 18. One of ordinary skill would understand that it would
`
`not make sense for the video to be delivered to the CPU 360 for processing before
`
`being placed into memory (Data 368). Parker Decl. at ¶ 19. Doing so would
`
`unnecessarily burden the CPU 360. Id. The whole purpose of the other dedicated
`
`processors, I/O 375 and Graphics 385, is to un-burden the CPU and allow each
`
`processor to perform their respective tasks more efficiently. Id.
`
`Further, the role of the CPU 360 within surveillance server 210 is to direct
`
`the other processors to perform their tasks. Id. at ¶ 18. In one scenario, for
`
`example, the CPU 360 would instruct the I/O Processor 375 to receive video data
`
`from the network and pass it off to the Graphics Processor 385. The CPU 360
`
`would then instruct the I/O Processor 375 to take the video data back from the
`
`Graphics Processor 385 and place it in a specific memory location in Data 368 or
`
`in Database 220. During this process, the CPU 360 would maintain a list or
`
`memory allocation table so that it would be able to direct the I/O Processor 375 in
`
`the future if a request to retrieve the video is made. Id.
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`When the Client 320 requests video playback, the request is passed via the
`
`I/O Processor 375 and the Local Interface 370 to the CPU 360 which then accesses
`
`the memory allocation table (or list) to determine where in Data 368 the requested
`
`video is stored. Id. at 19. The CPU then directs the retrieval of the video by
`
`instructing the I/O Processor 375 to retrieve the video from the identified location
`
`in Data 368 via the Local Interface 370, then pass the retrieved video to the
`
`Graphics Processor 385 which takes the video data and converts it for display on a
`
`video monitor. Id.
`
`As explained by Mr. Parker, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that even though surveillance server 210 receives surveillance data,
`
`CPU 360 does not receive the data. Dr. Lavian’s contrary assertion is conclusory,
`
`lacks the explanation provided by Mr. Parker, and fails to carry RPX’s burden to
`
`proving obviousness by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`B.
`
`The Terms “Receive” and “Retrieve” Are Not Equivalent.
`
`Milinusic teaches that CPU 360 is “preferably configured to retrieve and
`
`distribute surveillance data to a requesting surveillance client 240 or based upon
`
`predetermined distribution criteria.” Ex. 1003, Col. 4:29-32. Although RPX did
`
`not argue that the teaching of a “retrieve and distribute” operation establishes that
`
`Milinusic’s CPU 360 receives the surveillance data, the Board determined that it
`
`did. Denial of Req. for Reh’g at 5 (“[W]e looked at the next sentence, starting on
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`line 30, and determined it explicitly supported Petitioner’s position.”) (emphasis in
`
`original). The Board’s finding, however, impermissibly equates the meanings of
`
`“receive” with “retrieve.” The two terms are not synonymous to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art and the terms are used differently in Milinusic and the ’983
`
`patent.
`
`As explained above, Claim 1 of the ’983 patent includes “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.” Ex. 1001, Claim 1;
`
`see also id., Col. 2:42-44 (“A processor . . . arranged to . . . receive the image
`
`obtained thereby.”); Col. 3:52-54; Claim 11. If “receive” includes “retrieve,” the
`
`construction of “receive” exceeds the broadest reasonable interpretation.6 In an
`
`inter partes review, claims on an unexpired patent are construed according to their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which they appear. But the Board may not “construe claims during inter partes
`
`review so broadly that its constructions are unreasonable under general claim
`
`construction principles.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`
`6 RPX did not offer a construction of the term “receive,” despite an affirmative
`obligation to do so. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (“[T]he petition must set forth:
`(3) [h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.”).
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`
`“Retrieve” and “receive” have different meanings, both in plain English and
`
`in the context of the electronic security and surveillance system described in the
`
`’983 patent and Milinusic.7 Parker Decl. at ¶ 20. To a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art, “receive” describes a general act of setting up the conditions necessary to
`
`bring a video stream into memory, while “retrieve” refers to the act of getting a
`
`specific video clip from memory. Id.
`
`The ’983 patent utilizes both terms but the terms clearly have different
`
`meanings. Various elements of the invention of the ’983 patent receive “images,”
`
`Ex. 1001, Col. 8:55, “data,” id., Col. 8:49, and “commands,” id., Col. 5:39-40.
`
`“Retrieve” is only used in the context of accessing “object identification” data
`
`from memory. See id., Col. 3:58-59.
`
`Milinusic also utilizes both terms and it is clear that the usage of the terms is
`
`not synonymous. Milinusic draws a distinction between the act of receiving data
`
`and the act of retrieving it. In Column 2, Milinusic describes Figure 1, a block
`
`diagram representative of an embodiment of surveillance server 100. “The
`
`surveillance system 100 is structured to include a sensor system 102, a processing
`
`7 According to the Microsoft Computer dictionary, a leading technical dictionary
`published by Microsoft Corporation, to “receive” is “[t]o accept data from an
`external communications system, such as a local area network (LAN) or a
`telephone line, and store that data as a file.” Ex. 2004 Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary 376 (4th ed. 1999). To “retrieve,” on the other hand, is “[t]o obtain a
`specific requested item or set of data by locating it and returning it to a program or
`to the user. Computers can retrieve information from any source of storage—
`disks, tapes, or memory.” Id. at 385.
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`
`
`system 104, a network server 106 and a command and control system 112.” Ex.
`
`1003, Col. 2:16-20.
`
`Processing system 104 includes systems for receiving,
`compiling and storing data received from sensor
`system 102. It includes processing unit 108 and database
`unit 110. Processing system 104 is also configured t
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
