UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`RPX CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES PARKER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC - Ex. 2001 - Page1
`
`
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`RPX CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES PARKER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC - Ex. 2001 - Page1
`
`
`
`
`
`I, James Parker, declare as follows.
`
`1.
`
`I am an independent consultant with over 33 year of experience in
`
`electronic security systems and electronic sensors research and development. I
`
`have been retained by counsel for MD Security Systems LLC (“MDSS”) to
`
`provide opinions and testimony in support of MDSS’s Patent Owner’s Response to
`
`Petition. If called as a witness, I could and would testify as follow.
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`2.
`
`I previously served as Vice President of Engineering for Digital
`
`Security Controls Ltd., a leading global manufacturer of electronic security
`
`systems and components with sales exceeding $400 million annually. In my work,
`
`I have been involved in and responsible for the research, development, design and
`
`manufacturing of electronic based products including security systems, burglar
`
`alarm systems, intrusion detection systems, home automation systems, occupancy
`
`detection systems, premise monitoring systems, Fresnel and Mirror Optic Passive
`
`Infra-red motion detectors, microwave doppler motion detectors, motion controlled
`
`LED illumination Systems and many other similar devices.
`
`3.
`
`I am a named inventor on over 25 patents involving security systems,
`
`burglar alarm systems, premise monitoring systems, motion detectors, and home
`
`automation systems.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC - Ex. 2001 - Page2
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`I earned a degree in Electronic Engineering Technology from RCC
`
`Institute of Technology in 1982. RCC Institute of Technology is a division of
`
`Yorkville University, located in Toronto, Canada.
`
`5.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of my current
`
`curriculum vitae. The rate being charged for my services is $400.00 per hour.
`
`6.
`
`Exhibit B contains a list of materials that I considered in connection
`
`with reaching my opinions discussed herein.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`7.
`
`I understand that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) has
`
`found that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner RPX Corporation will
`
`prevail on their challenge to the validity of certain claims of United States Patent
`
`7,864,983 (the “’983 patent”).
`
`8.
`
`In particular, I understand that the Board has found that RPX
`
`established that it is reasonably likely to prevail on its argument 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
`
`
`
`
`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”).
`
`-2-
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC - Ex. 2001 - Page3
`
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`It is my opinion that neither the proposed combination of Milinusic
`
`and Osann nor the combination of Milinusic, Osann and Ozer teach, suggest or
`
`render obvious the “processor . . . arranged to … receive the image” limitation of
`
`Claim 1 or the “processor which . . . receives the images obtained by the at least
`
`one camera” limitation of Claim 11. It is also my opinion that it would not be
`
`obvious to modify Milinusic’s system to enable the deactivation of its motion
`
`detectors, as claimed by dependent Claims 2 and 18.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`10.
`
`I have been informed by counsel for MDSS that in virtually all aspects
`
`of patent law, evaluations must be performed from the perspective of one having
`
`ordinary skill in the art. The level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through
`
`which a judge and jury view the prior art and the claimed invention. In addition to
`
`providing my opinions as to whether one of ordinary skill in the would conclude
`
`that each and every claim limitation of the ’983 patent is disclosed in the asserted
`
`prior art combinations, I have been asked to provide my opinion as to the
`
`educational level and professional experience of one having ordinary skill in the art
`
`of the ’983 patent.
`
`11.
`
`I have reviewed the ’983 patent in connection with my work on this
`
`case. The ’983 patent relates to a security alarm system for protecting a structure
`
`that includes motion detectors connected to cameras. The relevant field of art of
`
`-3-
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC - Ex. 2001 - Page4
`
`
`
`
`
`the ’983 patent is premises monitoring and alarm systems. I understand that the
`
`’983 patent was filed in April 2009 and claims priority to an application filed in
`
`March 2006, which I understand to be the time frame for evaluating the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`12.
`
` I have been informed by counsel that in determining the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, it is appropriate to consider factors such as (1) the
`
`educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3)
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made;
`
`(5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in
`
`the field. The opinions expressed in this declaration are made from the standpoint
`
`of how one of ordinary skill would have viewed or understood the issues discussed
`
`in this declaration.
`
`13.
`
`I have reviewed Dr. Lavian’s declaration, and generally agree with his
`
`opinion about the level of ordinary skill in the art, except that in the fields of
`
`electronic security systems, it is my opinion that an individual’s professional
`
`experience is more valuable than education. Accordingly, in my opinion, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in the timeframe of 2006 would have had a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering or Computer
`
`Science or the equivalent, along with 2 years of working experience in image
`
`processing and/or developing telecommunications systems such as networked
`
`-4-
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC - Ex. 2001 - Page5
`
`
`
`
`
`computer systems, or less education and 5-10 years of industry experience in
`
`electronic security systems.
`
`IV. MILINUSIC DOES NOT DISCLOSE ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE
`’983 PATENT
`14.
`
`I understand that the Board determined that the Milinusic reference
`
`discloses the “processor” limitation of Claims 1 and 11 of the ’983 patent. In
`
`particular, I understand that the Board found that the “central processing unit”
`
`described in Milinusic disclosed the “processor” element of the claims of the ’983
`
`patent. I also understand that the Board found that the CPU of Milinusic receives
`
`images in the form of surveillance data. It is my opinion that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would not conclude that the CPU disclosed in Milinusic “receives”
`
`surveillance data.
`
`15. First, Milinusic discloses a security system that includes sensor units,
`
`a network, a surveillance server, a database and surveillance client. A
`
`representative figure of the Milinusic security system is showing in Figure 2 of the
`
`’983 patent.
`
`-5-
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC - Ex. 2001 - Page6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16. Figure 3 of Milinusic, reproduced below, depicts the surveillance
`
`server 210 and its various interconnected components. The CPU that RPX and Dr.
`
`Lavian contend receives the surveillance data is found within the surveillance
`
`server.
`
`-6-
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC - Ex. 2001 - Page7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17. Figure 3 illustrates that video is received from the network 130 in
`
`real-time by the I/O Processor 375. The I/O Processor 375 passes the video to the
`
`Local Interface 370, which in turn delivers it to the Data Store 368. 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
`
`Store 368) or into the database 220 of Figure 2. Doing so would unnecessarily
`
`burden the CPU 360. The purpose of the other dedicated processors, I/O 375 and
`
`Graphics Processor 385, is to un-burden the CPU 360 and allow each processor to
`
`perform its respective tasks more efficiently.
`
`18. The role of the CPU 360 within surveillance server 210 is to direct the
`
`other processors to perform their tasks. In one scenario, for example, the CPU 360
`
`-7-
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC - Ex. 2001 - Page8
`
`
`
`
`
`would instruct the I/O Processor 375 to receive the video data from the network
`
`and pass it off to the Graphics Processor 385. The CPU 360 would then direct 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 the Data Store 368. 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 if a user makes a request to retrieve the video.
`
`This is confirmed by the disclosure in Milinusic that “CPU 360 is preferably
`
`configured to operate in 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,
`
`Col. 4:24-29. That is precisely how one of ordinary skill in the art would expect
`
`the components of the surveillance server to function in operation.
`
`19. 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 to the memory allocation table (or list) to determine where in the Data
`
`Store 368 or database the requested video is stored. The CPU then initiates the
`
`retrieval of the video by instructing the I/O Processor 375 to retrieve the video
`
`from the identified location in the Data Store 368 or database via the Local
`
`Interface 370, and pass the retrieved video to the Graphics Processor 385 which
`
`-8-
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC - Ex. 2001 - Page9
`
`
`
`
`
`takes the video data and converts it for display on a video monitor. This is
`
`confirmed by the disclosure in Milinusic 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. 4:24-29. Again,
`
`this is how one of ordinary skill in the art would design such a system and how one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would expect it to operate.
`
`20.
`
`I understand, however, that the Board relied, in part, on the disclosure
`
`in Milinusic 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, to conclude that CPU
`
`360 receives surveillance data in the same sense that the processor disclosed in the
`
`’983 patent receives images. I disagree that a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art would reach the same conclusion. To begin, the terms “retrieve” and “receive”
`
`have different meanings in the context of electronic security and surveillance
`
`systems, like those described in the ’983 patent and Milinusic. It is my opinion
`
`that “retrieval” describes an act of accessing specific data that was previously
`
`stored in memory, so that the data, such as images, may be displayed to a user
`
`monitoring the system. An item that one wishes to retrieve from memory already
`
`exists in memory. “Receive,” on the other hand, describes a general capability of
`
`accepting data and writing it to memory. A processor need not “receive” data in
`
`-9-
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC - Ex. 2001 - Page10
`
`
`
`
`
`order to “retrieve” data. It is neither a technological requirement of the system
`
`described in Milinusic or the’983 patent, nor would it be particularly efficient and
`
`desirable for a processor to receive data as opposed to issuing instructions to
`
`transmit or distribute it.
`
`21. Next, the disclosure of Milinusic does not treat the terms “receive”
`
`and “retrieve” equally. Milinusic consistently distinguishes between “receive” and
`
`“retrieve” in a manner consistent with my opinion that one describes accepting
`
`data and writing it to memory and the other describes accessing it and distributing
`
`to devices used to monitor the system. For example, in Column 4, Milinusic states
`
`that “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, Col. 4:25-29. This is a disclosure showing data being accepted by the
`
`surveillance server and written to memory.
`
`22. On the other hand, Milinusic goes on to state that “[CPU 360] is also
`
`preferably configured to retrieve and distribute surveillance data to a requesting
`
`client 240 or based upon predetermined distribution criteria.” Id., Col. 4:29-32.
`
`This is consistent with accessing previously stored surveillance data and
`
`distributing it to surveillance clients. See also id., Col. 2:39-44 (describing a
`
`processing system that includes “systems for receiving, compiling and storing data
`
`-10-
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC - Ex. 2001 - Page11
`
`
`
`
`
`received from sensor system 102” and “retriev[ing] data and distribut[ing] it
`
`according to input from command and control system 112”). Because Milinusic
`
`consistently uses “receive” and “retrieve” to reference different functions, it is my
`
`opinion that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand the
`
`statement that the CPU retrieves and distributes surveillance data means that the
`
`CPU receives the data in the same sense as the ’983 patent.
`
`23. Finally, my opinion that one having ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`understand the disclosure of the “retrieval and distribution” of surveillance data by
`
`CPU 360 to mean and include receipt of the data by the CPU is confirmed by the
`
`fact that Dr. Lavian did not testify that one having ordinary skill in the art would
`
`interpret that statement to mean that the surveillance data is received by the CPU.
`
`V. ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL WOULD NOT HAVE ADDED
`DEACTIVATION CAPABILITY TO THE MOTION DETECTOR OF
`MILINUSIC
`24.
`
`I understand that RPX contends, and the Board agreed, that it would
`
`have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a motion detector
`
`deactivation capability to the Milinusic system, sufficient to satisfy claims 2 and 18
`
`of the ’983 patent even though neither Milinusic, Osann, nor Ozer describe the
`
`deactivation of the motion detectors. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that deactivating motion detectors to save power is not practical. At the
`
`time of invention, passive infra-red (“PIR”) motion detection was, and remains
`
`-11-
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC - Ex. 2001 - Page12
`
`
`
`
`
`today, the only practical technology for detecting motion in combination with a
`
`surveillance camera of the type envisioned in Milinusic or the ’983 patent.
`
`25. PIR technology is suited to detect target motion moving across the
`
`perpendicular axis of a camera’s field of view. The only other motion detection
`
`technologies available, ultrasonic (i.e., a car back up sensor) or microwave (i.e., an
`
`automated door opener), use the Doppler principal and work best when the target is
`
`directly approaching or moving away from the sensor in the same axis as the
`
`camera. These technologies would make poor motion detection sensors for the
`
`purposes of activating a camera.
`
`26. PIR motion detectors are manufactured to be low cost and to use
`
`virtually no power when compared to a surveillance camera of the type described
`
`in Milinusic. Energy savings in such systems is derived from the motion detector’s
`
`ability to activate and deactivate the camera at relevant times. Deactivating the
`
`motion detector altogether would defeat this purpose and provide minimal, if any,
`
`energy savings.
`
`27.
`
`In addition, adding the capability of deactivating and activating a
`
`motion detector would require additional circuitry, which would increase costs and
`
`energy requirements, both of which would be contrary to the purpose of the motion
`
`detector. Also, PIR motion detectors require a “warm up” period of at least 30
`
`seconds before becoming stable. The actual sensor in a PIR motion detector is a
`
`-12-
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC - Ex. 2001 - Page13
`
`
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC - Ex. 2001 - Page14
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`It is certified that a copy of the foregoing has been served on Petitioner via
`
`electronic mail transmission addressed to the person(s) at the address below:
`
`Richard F. Giunta
`Daniel T. Wehner
`Randy J. Pritzker
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`DWehner-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`RPritzker-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Date: August 26, 2016
`
`/s/Jason S. Angell
`Jason S. Angell
`Reg. No. 51408
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC - Ex. 2001 - Page15
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
