Paper No. ____
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on Behalf of Petitioner
`By: Richard F. Giunta
`
`Daniel T. Wehner
`
`Randy J. Pritzker
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`Tel: (617) 646-8000
`Fax: (617) 646-8646
`RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`RPX CORPORATION and
`PROTECTION ONE, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-002851
`Patent No. 7,864,983
`
`_____________
`
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Protection One, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2016-01235, has been joined as a
`party to the petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`
`II. POR'S SOLE ARGUMENT CHALLENGING THE INSTITUTED
`GROUNDS FOR CLAIMS 1, 3-10 AND 12-20 IS THAT THE PRIOR
`ART ALLEGEDLY DOES NOT TEACH A PROCESSOR THAT
`RECEIVES AN IMAGE OBTAINED BY AT LEAST ONE CAMERA ........ 4
`
`A. MD Security’s Argument is Premised On an Improperly Narrow
`Interpretation of "Receive" That Is Unsupported by the
`Specification of the '983 Patent ................................................................... 5
`
`B. MD Security's Own Extrinsic Evidence Illustrates that Milinusic's
`CPU Receives Image Data Under the BRI of "Receives" .......................... 7
`
`C. Milinusic's CPU "Receives" Image Data Even Under MD Security's
`Improperly Narrow Interpretation ............................................................... 9
`
`1. MD Security’s Assertions Regarding the Internal Operations of
`Milinusic's Server Are Unsupported ..................................................... 9
`
`2. MD Security’s Expert Conceded That When Image Data is
`Initially Received by Milinusic's Server 210, CPU 360
`"Receives" That Image Data Even Under MD Security's
`Narrow Construction .......................................................................... 10
`
`3. Mr. Parker's Qualifiers on his Admission That Milinusic's CPU
`360 Receives Image Data Are Not Credible, Legally Irrelevant
`and New Arguments that Should Not Be Considered.........................12
`
`4. Additional Disclosures in Milinusic Refute Patent Owner's
`Assertion That Milinusic's CPU Does Not Receive Image Data
`Under Patent Owner's Narrow Construction .......................................18
`
`D. Conclusion Regarding Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-20 .....................................21
`
`III. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2 AND 18 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS OVER MILINUSIC AND OSANN .............................................21
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States,
`702 F. 2d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .................................................................... 14, 23
`
`Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Progressive Casualty Insurance,
`CBM2013-00009 ..................................................................................................18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
`DESCRIPTION
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983 (“the ‘983 patent”)
`
`1002
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0267605 (“Lee”)
`
`1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,106,333 (“Milinusic”)
`
`1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,253,732 (“Osann”)
`
`1005
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0120581 (“Ozer”)
`
`1006
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0070185 (“Dy”)
`
`1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,463,145 (“Jentoft”)
`
`1008 Website: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2001/10/16Apple-Powers-
`
`Up-Titanium-PowerBook-G4-with-New-G4-Processors.html
`
`1009 Website: http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/definition/terminal
`
`1010
`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`
`1011
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`
`1012
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,526,105
`
`1013
`
`Deposition Transcript of James Parker, taken October 27, 2016
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ‘983 patent is directed to a security system with motion detectors that
`
`activate cameras when motion is detected in a monitored area to capture video or
`
`still image data of a potential threat. Ex. 1001 at 1:15-30; 5:67-6:6; 13:51-16:47.
`
`The captured image data can be viewed by a person and/or image processing can
`
`be performed on the captured images to evaluate the threat. Id.; see also Id. at
`
`9:35-46.
`
`The instituted grounds (claims 1-8, 11 and 18-20 obvious over Milinusic and
`
`Osann, and claims 9, 10 and 12-17 obvious over Milinusic, Osann and Ozer)
`
`demonstrate the unpatentability of all claims (1-20) of the ‘983 patent.
`
`The Patent Owner Response (“POR”) does not challenge the reasons for
`
`combining the references in either ground, nor that the resulting combinations meet
`
`the majority of the limitations in claims 1-20. The POR raises only two challenges
`
`to the instituted grounds.
`
`For independent claims 1 and 11 and most of the dependent claims, the POR
`
`raises only the same argument the Board has twice rejected - that CPU 360 in
`
`Milinusic’s server allegedly does not receive an image obtained by at least one
`
`camera. POR at 1-2. This argument is based on (1) a narrow interpretation of
`
`“receive” that is not its broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”); and (2) a
`
`mischaracterization of Milinusic. Milinusic’s CPU “receives” image data under
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`
`
`the BRI of that term and even under MD Security’s narrow interpretation. At
`
`deposition, MD Security’s expert Mr. Parker conceded that, contrary to assertions
`
`in the POR, Milinusic’s CPU 360 “receives” image data even under MD Security’s
`
`improperly narrow construction. Ex. 1013 at 104:23-105:15 (“Q. Okay. So when
`
`the CPU 360 implements the functionality of the graphics processor 385, you
`
`would agree that the CPU 360 receives image data right? A. In the context of
`
`what I just said, yes.”)2.
`
`The Board should once again reject MD Security’s argument that the
`
`grounds do not meet the claim limitations reciting a processor that receives image
`
`data. Doing so would be determinative of the grounds of unpatentability for claims
`
`1, 3-10 and 12-20, as the POR presented no other argument challenging the
`
`unpatentability of any of those claims.
`
`
`
`The POR’s only other argument is that dependent claim 23 would not have
`
`been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) allegedly
`
`would have known that a passive infra-red (“PIR”) motion detector was the only
`
`“practical” detector that would be used in Milinusic and that it would have been
`
`impractical to deactivate a PIR detector to save power. POR at 22-24. This
`
`argument fails for numerous reasons.
`
`
`2 Emphasis is added unless otherwise indicated.
`
` Claim 18 has a similar limitation.
`
` 3
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Milinusic does not even mention PIR detectors. The POR acknowledges
`
`that other types of motion detectors were known, and the “practical” commercial
`
`considerations the POR alleges would have led to use of PIR detectors are legally
`
`irrelevant to the question of obviousness. Tellingly, Patent Owner’s expert
`
`testified that PIR detectors were also the only “practical” detectors for use in
`
`system of the ‘983 patent and could not reconcile why the claimed system that
`
`allows deactivation of the motion detector was “practical” but the same system
`
`suggested by the prior art was not. Ex. 1013 at 133:6-135:17.
`
`In addition, the POR and its accompanying expert declaration entirely
`
`ignored the “additional” rationale offered by Petitioner’s expert Dr. Lavian that it
`
`would have been obvious to incorporate the known capability of allowing remote
`
`activation/deactivation of the security system into the Milinusic/Osann system.
`
`Petition at 47. Patent Owner’s expert admitted that he (1) did not consider this
`
`rationale, (2) did not review the prior art (Lee, Ex. 1002) Dr. Lavian cited to
`
`support his testimony that it was known to deactivate a motion detector that
`
`triggers a camera in a security system, and (3) erroneously believed this capability
`
`to be a new and inventive contribution of the ‘983 patent. Ex. 1013 at 123:14-
`
`124:8; 130:18-132:18.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`
`
`II.
`
`POR’S SOLE ARGUMENT CHALLENGING THE INSTITUTED
`GROUNDS FOR CLAIMS 1, 3-10 AND 12-20 IS THAT THE PRIOR
`ART ALLEGEDLY DOES NOT TEACH A PROCESSOR THAT
`RECEIVES AN IMAGE OBTAINED BY AT LEAST ONE CAMERA
`
`In connection with the instituted grounds for claims 1, 3-10 and 12-17 based
`
`on obviousness over Milinusic and Osann (or over Milinusic, Osann and Ozer), the
`
`POR does not challenge the rationale for combining the references, or assert that
`
`the resulting combinations fail to meet any claim limitation, other than the
`
`limitations in claims 1 and 11 reciting a processor that controls (or is arranged to
`
`control) at least one camera and receives an image obtained by the camera. POR at
`
`11-21; Ex. 2001 ¶¶17-23; Ex. 1013 at 89:17-90:1; 154:21-155:10 (conceding
`
`same).
`
`The Board has twice rejected – in its Institution Decision and its Denial of
`
`MD Security’s request for rehearing – MD Security’s argument that CPU 360 in
`
`Milinusic’s surveillance server 210 does not receive surveillance data (e.g., image
`
`data) obtained by at least one camera. Paper 9 at 14; Paper 12 at 3-4. In its POR,
`
`MD Security argues, for the third time, that Milinusic’s CPU does not receive
`
`image data obtained by Milinusic’s cameras. POR at 2. But MD Security’s expert
`
`conceded at deposition multiple times (Ex. 1013 at 104:23-105:14; 156:9-158:14)
`
`that this argument is contradicted by the disclosure of Milinusic. On the now fully
`
`developed record, the Board should once again reject MD Security’s erroneous
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`
`
`argument that the CPU in Milinusic’s server does not receive image data obtained
`
`from Milinusic’s cameras.
`
`A. MD Security’s Argument Is Premised On an Improperly
`Narrow Interpretation of “Receive” That Is Unsupported
`by the Specification of the ‘983 Patent
`
`MD Security concedes that Milinusic explicitly discloses that surveillance
`
`image data is received by server 210, and by I/O processor 375, graphics processor
`
`385, and data store 365 within server 210. POR at 13; Ex. 1003 at 3:12-13; 4:25-
`
`30; Ex. 1013 at 33:7-21. MD Security also concedes that Milinusic’s CPU 360
`
`controls the operation of each of those other components in server 210 to cause
`
`them to receive the image data, but its expert asserted at deposition that the basis
`
`for his opinion that CPU 360 itself does not receive the image data is that “[i]f you
`
`could look inside the CPU 360, and you could look at the memory, at no time …
`
`would you see the image data video or still. Because it doesn’t go into and out of
`
`the CPU 360.” Ex. 1013 at 34:11-15; 35:21-23. This narrow construction of
`
`“receive” – requiring that the processor store the received data in internal memory
`
`– is unsupported by the intrinsic or extrinsic evidence.
`
`Milinusic’s disclosure is commensurate with that in the specification of the
`
`‘983 patent. While the Abstract and “Summary of the Invention” (2:27-6:27)
`
`sections of the ‘983 specification refer to a “processor” that receives images, in the
`
`only embodiment described in the “Detailed Description of the Invention,” it is
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`
`
`on-site computer 14 that is described as receiving data from the cameras. Ex. 1001
`
`at Fig. 1; 8:47-51 (“computer 14 receives data from the cameras 12”). When asked
`
`to identify the claimed “processor” in the figures of the ‘983 patent, MD Security’s
`
`expert pointed to computer 14 in Fig. 1 and stated that a POSA would know that it
`
`“contains a processor.” Ex. 1013 at 65:22-25. Computer 14 is described only as a
`
`black box - the ‘983 specification provides no description whatsoever of any
`
`internal component(s) that implement computer 14. No disclosure is provided of
`
`whether on-site computer 14 includes a single processor or multiple processors that
`
`collectively perform the functions of computer 14 (e.g., receiving and storing
`
`images from cameras, performing image processing, and generating
`
`communications to a remote location). Ex. 1001 at 8:46-51; 9:15-20; 10:26-32.
`
`The ‘983 patent does not even disclose a processor within computer 14, let
`
`alone support MD Security’s narrow construction that an undisclosed processor in
`
`computer 14 could only be understood to have received the image data received by
`
`computer 14 if that data were stored within internal memory of the undisclosed
`
`processor. MD Security’s narrow construction is not supported by the
`
`specification of the ‘983 patent.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`
`
`B. MD Security’s Own Extrinsic Evidence Illustrates that
`Milinusic’s CPU Receives Image Data Under the BRI of
`“Receives”
`
`Mr. Parker admitted that his declaration does not cite anything to support his
`
`narrow interpretation that a processor only “receives” data if it stores the data in
`
`the processor’s internal memory. Ex. 1013 at 36:11-16.
`
`The POR argued that “receive” should be interpreted differently. POR at 19
`
`(“‘receive’ describes a general act of setting up the conditions necessary to bring a
`
`video stream into memory” and cited a Microsoft Computer Dictionary (Ex. 2004)
`
`defining “receive” as – “[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.”). Mr. Parker testified at deposition that he agreed with the definition from
`
`Ex. 2004 but believed a POSA would have understood “receive” even more
`
`broadly to include only accepting data and not necessarily storing that accepted
`
`data as a file. Ex. 1013 at 40:4-41:10.
`
`Mr. Parker conceded that Milinusic’s CPU 360 directs the other processors
`
`in server 210 “to perform their tasks” and that when the server receives image data,
`
`it is CPU 360 that determines whether to accept that data from an external
`
`communications system. Ex. 2001 at ¶18; Ex. 1013 at 30:21-31:11 (“Q. So it is the
`
`CPU 360 in Milinusic that determines whether the server will accept data from the
`
`network? A. Yes, it is.”); 52:4-7. Given that Milinusic’s CPU 360 sets up the
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`
`
`conditions necessary to bring the image data into memory, accepts the image data
`
`sent to server 210 and stores that image data in data store 365, CPU 360 receives
`
`that image data according to the meaning of “receive” advanced in the POR and
`
`illustrated by the dictionary definition MD Security itself submitted. Ex. 2001 at
`
`¶18; Ex. 1013 at 30:21-31:11, 52:4-7
`
`This broader and more reasonable interpretation of “receives” is consistent
`
`with the manner in which the Board implicitly construed the term in its Institution
`
`Decision and Decision on Rehearing. As the Board correctly noted, CPU 360
`
`receives the image data in the course of retrieving and distributing that data. Paper
`
`9 at 14; Paper 12 at 3-4. MD Security’s expert conceded that CPU 360 controls the
`
`functions of server 210 and directs its other processors. Ex. 2001 at ¶18. He also
`
`testified that CPU 360 could “retrieve” data by “issuing instructions to transmit or
`
`distribute it.” Id. at ¶20. Thus, CPU 360 need not store data in its own internal
`
`memory to receive the data, as CPU 360 may instruct other components in server
`
`210 to receive the image data on its behalf, just like a principal may instruct an
`
`agent to receive a package on the principal’s behalf, and just like MD Security’s
`
`expert alleges that CPU 360 can retrieve data by instructing other components to
`
`do so on its behalf.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`
`
`C. Milinusic’s CPU “Receives” Image Data Even Under Mr.
`Parker’s Improperly Narrow Interpretation
`
`1. MD Security’s Assertions Regarding the Internal
`Operations of Milinusic’s Server Are Unsupported
`
`Mr. Parker cites only two sentences in Milinusic that allegedly confirm his
`
`assertion that the image data from the cameras is received in Milinusic’s server
`
`210, by memory 365 and processors 375 and 385, but not by CPU 360. Ex. 2001
`
`at ¶¶18-19. Neither does.
`
`As Mr. Parker conceded at deposition, the first sentence (Ex. 1003 at 4:24-
`
`25 cited in Ex. 2001 at ¶18) merely states that the CPU is programmable and says
`
`nothing about what it is programmed to do. Ex. 1013 at 44:9-25; 45:16-20. (“Q.
`
`So that sentence doesn’t say anything about what functions the CPU is or is not
`
`programmed to do, right? A. That’s correct.”).
`
`The second sentence (Ex. 1003 at 4:24-29 cited in Ex. 2001 at ¶19) merely
`
`states that the CPU is preferably configured to control operation of the server to
`
`receive and store in database 220 surveillance data from the sensors, but says
`
`nothing about how the server performs that function. Mr. Parker conceded that
`
`CPU 360 could, of course, be programmed so that the surveillance data passed
`
`through CPU 360 and was stored in the CPU 360’s internal memory. Ex. 1013 at
`
`59:15-22; 37:3-8.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Neither of the portions of Milinusic alleged to “confirm” Mr. Parker’s
`
`assertions about how Milinusic’s server operates do so. Mr. Parker’s assertions
`
`are unsupported by any disclosure in Milinusic.
`
`2. MD Security’s Expert Conceded That When Image Data is
`Initially Received by Milinusic’s Server 210, CPU 360
`“Receives” That Image Data Even Under MD Security’s
`Narrow Construction
`
`The Petition cites Milinusic’s teaching at 4:25-30 that CPU 360 controls
`
`operation of server 210 to receive surveillance data and incorporate it into database
`
`220. Petition at 42, 45. Mr. Parker testified that a POSA would have understood
`
`Milinusic’s server to process received surveillance data (video or still images) to
`
`encode (e.g., compress) the data prior to storing it in internal data store 368. Ex.
`
`2001 at ¶18; Ex. 1013 at 155:15-157:7, 28:8-24. That testimony is fatal to MD
`
`Security’s assertion that Milinusic’s CPU does not “receive” surveillance data. Ex.
`
`2001 at ¶14.
`
`Mr. Parker testified that CPU 360 would instruct I/O processor 375 to pass
`
`newly received image data to graphics processor 385 for processing before storing
`
`the image data in data store 368. Ex. 2001 at ¶18. Mr. Parker’s assertion that
`
`graphics processor 385, rather than CPU 360, would process the received data
`
`prior to storing is unsupported. But even if accepted as true, Mr. Parker’s
`
`testimony establishes that CPU 360 receives the image data because Milinusic
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`
`
`teaches that in one embodiment CPU 360 performs the functions of graphics
`
`processor 385.
`
`Milinusic states that “[t]he processor 385 may be configured to incorporate
`
`or otherwise carry out the functions of CPU 360. CPU 360 may also be configured
`
`to incorporate or otherwise carry out the functions of processor 385.” Ex. 1003
`
`at 4:57-60. Thus, Milinusic explicitly describes an embodiment where CPU 360
`
`performs the functions otherwise carried out by a separate graphics processor 385,
`
`which according to MD Security’s own expert include encoding newly-received
`
`image data prior to storing it. Mr. Parker conceded that to perform the encoding a
`
`POSA would have understood as being performed when image data is first
`
`received by server 210, the processor that performs the encoding must “receive”
`
`the image data even under MD Security’s narrow interpretation of “receive.” Ex.
`
`1013 at 157:11-13. Thus, Mr. Parker conceded that in the embodiment disclosed
`
`by Milinusic where CPU 360 carries out the functions of graphics processor 385,
`
`when surveillance image data is first received by server 210, CPU 360 receives and
`
`encodes that image data prior to storing it. Id. at 155:15-158:14 and 105:11-15;
`
`Petition at 42 (citing Milinusic’s disclosure at 4:25-30 of the server 210 being
`
`controlled so that surveillance data may be received from the sensor units and
`
`incorporated into database 220 as teaching that CPU 360 receives the surveillance
`
`data).
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`
`
`The portion of Milinusic (4:25-30) cited in the Petition as teaching that CPU
`
`360 controls operation of server 210 to receive surveillance data and incorporate it
`
`into database 220 (Petition at 42, 45) is not limited to any of the particular internal
`
`architecture or implementation(s) of server 210 that Milinusic describes as the
`
`functions performed by server 210 are the same for those different embodiments.
`
`Thus, this disclosure cited in the Petition encompasses the implementation where
`
`CPU 360 is configured to “incorporate or otherwise carry out the functions of
`
`processor 385.” Ex. 1003 at 4:57-60.
`
`If the Board were to consider the implementation of server 210 where CPU
`
`360 implements the functions of graphics processor to not be among the
`
`implementations of CPU 360 that perform the functions of Milinusic 4:57-60 cited
`
`in the Petition, it is proper to cite to that implementation in this Reply in response
`
`to MD Security’s unexpected narrow interpretation of “receives” and its
`
`unqualified assertions that Milinusic does not disclose the CPU as receiving image
`
`data for the reasons discussed in §II.C.4 below.
`
`3. Mr. Parker’s Qualifiers on his Admission That Milinusic’s
`CPU 360 Receives Image Data Are Not Credible, Legally
`Irrelevant and New Arguments That Should Not Be
`Considered
`
`Milinusic indisputably discloses an embodiment in which CPU 360 is
`
`“configured to incorporate or otherwise carry out the functions of [graphics]
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`
`
`processor 385.” Ex. 1003 at 4:57-60. Mr. Parker conceded that. Ex. 1013 at 97:3-
`
`8 (“Q. So does that mean that there can be a single processor in Milinusic that
`
`does the functions that are described for the CPU 360 and the graphics processor
`
`385? A. As we discussed, it would not be practical, but it is theoretically
`
`possible”; Id. at 97:21-98:1 (“Q. But Milinusic – Milinusic specifically discloses
`
`that the functionality of the graphics processor can be incorporated into the CPU
`
`360 right? A. Yes, I agree with you, it discloses that. I’m not arguing what it
`
`says.” ).
`
`Mr. Parker testified numerous times that graphics processor 385 processes
`
`image data and that to do so it necessarily “receives” the image data even under
`
`MD Security’s narrow interpretation. Ex. 2001 at ¶¶18-19; Ex. 1013 at 32:20-24;
`
`33:7-10; 104:23-105:9; 156:9-158:14.
`
`Despite those admissions, at deposition Mr. Parker repeatedly qualified his
`
`testimony by asserting that he considered the implementation Milinusic describes
`
`in which the CPU itself performs the functions of graphics processor 385 to be
`
`“impractical” because using a single hardware processor to implement the
`
`functions of the CPU and graphics processor would somehow result in a more
`
`expensive server than employing two hardware processors. Ex. 1013 at 157:14-
`
`158:14. Mr. Parker’s testimony is unavailing because it is legally irrelevant to the
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`
`
`obviousness grounds, simply not credible and a new argument not raised in the
`
`POR.
`
`Legally irrelevant - Mr. Parker’s new4 argument that an implementation of
`
`server 210 that Milinusic expressly describes is “impractical” because it would be
`
`too expensive is legally irrelevant to the question of obviousness. Orthopedic
`
`Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“that the two
`
`disclosed apparatus would not be combined by businessmen for economic reasons
`
`is not the same as saying that it could not be done because skilled persons in the art
`
`
`4 Neither the POR nor Mr. Parker’s accompanying declaration challenged
`
`whether a POSA would have modified Milinusic’s system based on Osann and/or
`
`Ozer for the reasons alleged in the Petition. Ex. 1013 at 154:14-20. Thus, the
`
`POR raised no challenge to the obviousness of the Milinusic/Osann or
`
`Milinusic/Osann/Ozer combinations. Those combinations rely on Milinusic’s
`
`server 210 to meet the claimed processor limitations (e.g., Petition at 42, 45 and
`
`53). Milinusic describes several implementations of server 210, including one in
`
`which CPU 360 performs the functions of graphics processor 385. Any assertion
`
`that this Milinusic server implementation could not be used in the combinations in
`
`the instituted grounds because it is “impractical” is a new argument not raised in
`
`the POR.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`
`
`felt that there was some technological incompatibility that prevented their
`
`combination. Only the latter fact is telling on the issue of nonobviousness.”).
`
`“What matters in the §103 nonobviousness determination is whether [a POSA],
`
`having all of the teachings of the references before him, is able to produce the
`
`structure defined by the claim.” Id. at 1013. Mr. Parker conceded that, of course, a
`
`POSA could have implemented what Milinusic expressly describes. Ex. 1013 at
`
`59:15-22 (admitting it is “technically possible” to implement Milinusic’s CPU 360
`
`so that surveillance data flows through it because “it is programmable after all”);
`
`97:3-8 (“it would not be practical, but it is theoretically possible.”). His assertion
`
`that Milinusic’s embodiment where CPU 360 performs the functions of graphics
`
`processor 385 is costlier, even if true, does not mean that it would not have been
`
`obvious to use this implementation in the combinations relied upon in the grounds.
`
`Lacks credibility - Mr. Parker’s testimony that a POSA would not have
`
`implemented Milinusic’s server to have CPU 360 perform the functions of
`
`graphics processor 385 because it would be costlier lacks credibility because it is
`
`irreconcilably inconsistent with his other testimony and directly contrary to the
`
`evidence of record. Mr. Parker testified that it would be “very expensive” in
`
`Milinusic to implement the functions of the graphics processor with those of the
`
`CPU in a single processor. Ex. 1013 at 97:3-20; 74:14-75:24. However, before
`
`being made aware that Milinusic describes an embodiment where the CPU is
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`
`
`configured to perform the functions of the graphics processor, Mr. Parker testified
`
`that the physical hardware for the CPU and graphics processor could “be the same”
`
`as they “are quite often capable of performing the same task” and “can be
`
`interchangeable” because the difference in functionality between them is “just a
`
`matter of software.” Ex. 1013 at 22:24-23:11. His later testimony that it would be
`
`less expensive in Milinusic to use two hardware processors rather than one to run
`
`software that performs the functions of the CPU and graphics processor is not
`
`credible. Mr. Parker’s own earlier testimony reveals exactly the opposite to be
`
`true.
`
`Mr. Parker also refused to concede that the “black box” computer 14 in the
`
`‘983 patent could be implemented, like Milinusic’s server, with multiple
`
`processors. Mr. Parker testified that a POSA would not have implemented
`
`computer 14 in that way because it was less expensive to “use a single processor
`
`that performs all the functions in the Milinusic server of the I/O processor and the
`
`graphics processor as well as the CPU.” Ex. 1013 at 82:13-19. This testimony
`
`directly contradicts Mr. Parker’s testimony that in Milinusic it would be “very
`
`expensive” to implement the functions of the graphics processor and CPU in the
`
`same processor and “too expensive” to implement the functions of the I/O
`
`processor and CPU in the same processor. Id. at 97:3-20; 62:17-63:1.
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Mr. Parker attempted to explain his inconsistent testimony by characterizing
`
`Milinusic’s server 210 and computer 14 in the ‘983 patent as performing very
`
`different tasks. Given that this is manifestly untrue, his attempts at reconciling the
`
`irreconcilable resulted in repeated misstatements directly contradicted by the
`
`record. He asserted that the ‘983 patent deals only with still images and not video
`
`and that there was no requirement in the ‘983 patent to interface to a network. Ex.
`
`1013 at 83:11-20; 87:23-89:9; 158:15-159:5; 168:1-169:5. Both statements are
`
`directly contradicted by the ‘983 patent. Ex. 1001 at 14:4-7; 15:33-36; 6:15-20;
`
`10:29-36; 13:24-27 (referring to “threat recognition by video analysis.”); 2:44-46
`
`(“A telecommunications module is coupled to the processor and capable of
`
`communications over a telecommunications network.”).
`
`Similarly, Mr. Parker’s assertions that image processing was not known in
`
`2006 (Ex. 1013 at 145:13-146:12) is flatly contradicted by the record. Ex. 1005
`
`(Ozer) (teaching image processing); Ex. 1013 at 149:9-150:8 (Mr. Parker conceded
`
`that Ozer was on the list of materials he reviewed and did indeed teach image
`
`processing before 2006).
`
`Mr. Parker’s testimony that it would be too expensive and impractical to do
`
`precisely what Milinusic taught – use the same hardware processor to run the
`
`software that performs the functions of CPU 360 and graphics processor 385 – is
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`
`
`
`directly contradicted by common sense, substantial evidence of record and his own
`
`testimony. It is simply not credible.
`
`4.
`
`Additional Disclosures in Milinusic Refute Patent
`Owner’s Assertion that Milinusic’s CPU Does Not
`Receive Image Data Under Patent Owner’s Narrow
`Construction
`
`The POR asserts that a POSA “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.” POR at 13. In addition to the above-discussed portions of Milinusic
`
`cited in the Petition, additional portions of Milinusic directly refute Patent Owner’s
`
`assertions.
`
`As the Decision denying rehearing noted, Patent Owner cited no authority
`
`for its assertion that the Board is constrained to the column and line numbers of
`
`Milinusic cited in the Petition in determining whether Milinusic’s CPU meets the
`
`claimed “receives” limitation. Paper 12 at 4. Given that “the patent owner
`
`response makes an argument that reasonably could not have been anticipated by
`
`Petitioner, the Petitioner properly may, as a part of its reply, rely on new evidence
`
`or cite to different portions of the same prior art reference.” Liberty Mutual
`
`Insurance v. Progressive Casualty Insurance, CBM2013-00009, Paper 68 at 44.
`
`Petitioner could not have anticipated that Patent Owner would advance its
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`
`
`
`unreasonably narrow interpretation of “receives” and make the unqualified
`
`assertion that Milinusic’s CPU 360 does not receive image data in the face of clear
`
`teachings in Milinusic to the contrary. Therefore, this Reply may properly cite
`
`other portions of Milinusic that refute MD Security’s erroneous assertions. Id.
`
`Image Processing - Milinusic states that surveillance data may include still
`
`images and/or video captured by cameras, and that CPU 360 may be “configured
`
`to determine duration of detected occurrences and preceding conditions or
`
`occurrences” and “configured to predict future conditions occurrences or
`
`conditions based on detected conditions or occurrences represented by surveillance
`
`data.” Ex. 1003 at 3:12-18; 4:34-38. MD Security’s expert conceded that the
`
`reference to the surveillance data representing a detected condition or occurrence
`
`means that the video/image data captures the environment where motion was
`
`detected, and that Milinusic teaches that server 210 “analyzes video and image data
`
`to predict future conditions or occurrences.” Ex. 1013 at 18:10-19:23; 151:22-
`
`152:5. Mr. Parker also testified that a processor cannot process data without
`
`“receiving” it by storing the data within the processor. Id. at 36:17-37:8. Thus,
`
`Milinusic’s teaching that CPU 360 is configured to predict future
`
`conditions/occurrences based on detected conditions/occurrences in the
`
`surveillance image data is an additional teaching that CPU 360 receives the image
`
`data even under Mr. Parker’s narrow interpretation.
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Despite Milinusic’s express teaching that it is CPU 360 that is “configured”
`
`to do this processing of the surveillance image data, MD Security’s expert insisted
`
`that instead it was Milinusic’s graphics processor 385 that does this processing,
`
`even though he conceded he could point to nothing to substantiate that assertion.
`
`Ex. 1013 at 152:7-154:13. Mr. Parker’s unsupported