IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of: Mark Dronge
`U.S. Patent No.:
`7,864,983
`Issue Date:
`January 4, 2011
`Appl. Serial No.: 12/430,463
`Filing Date:
`April 27, 2009
`Title:
`Security Alarm System
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 39959-0009IP1
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 7,864,983 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ........................... 2 
`A.  Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................ 2 
`B.  Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ......................................... 2 
`C.  Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..................... 3 
`D.  Service Information .................................................................................. 3 
`II. 
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................... 4 
`III.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING AND CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104 .............................................................................................................. 4 
`A.  Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)................................. 4 
`B.  Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ............... 4 
`C.  Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................. 5 
`D.  Technology Overview ............................................................................... 5 
`E.  The ‘983 Patent ......................................................................................... 6 
`IV.  CLAIM INTERPRETATION ....................................................................... 10 
`A.  “structure” ............................................................................................... 10 
`B.  “telecommunications network” .............................................................. 10 
`C.  “handheld telecommunications unit” ...................................................... 11 
`D.  “silhouette” ............................................................................................. 11 
`V. 
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ........... 12 
`VI.  CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1-20 ................................................... 13 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1-8, 11, and 18-20 Would Have Been Obvious over
`Milinusic and Osann ............................................................................... 15 
`B.  Ground 2: Claims 9, 10 and 12-17 Are Obvious over Milinusic, Osann,
`and Ozer .................................................................................................. 33 
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 38 
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`POI-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983 (“the ‘983 patent”)
`
`POI-1002
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0267605 (“Lee”)
`
`POI-1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,106,333 (“Milinusic”)
`
`POI-1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,253,732 (“Osann”)
`
`POI-1005
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0120581 (“Ozer”)
`
`POI-1006
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0070185 (“Dy”)
`
`POI-1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,463,145 (“Jentoft”)
`
`POI-1008
`
`Website: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2001/10/16Apple-
`Powers-Up-Titanium-PowerBook-G4-with-New-G4-
`Processors.html
`
`POI-1009
`
`Website:
`http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/definition/terminal
`
`POI-1010
`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`
`POI-1011
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`
`POI-1012
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,526,105
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`Protection One, Inc. (“POI”) petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 1-20 (“the Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983 (“the ‘983 patent”). The Challenged
`
`Claims are unpatentable based on teachings set forth in at least the references
`
`presented in this petition. The claimed subject matter of the ‘983 patent was well
`
`known before its filing date. See, e.g., Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`
`(“Lavian”), ¶¶16-17. An IPR should therefore be instituted, and the Challenged
`
`Claims canceled as unpatentable.
`
`The ‘983 patent is directed to a security alarm system for protecting a
`
`structure (e.g., home or building) and that can be remotely accessed via a handheld
`
`telecommunications unit such as a cell phone, personal digital assistant (PDA) or
`
`personal computer. (Ex. 1001 at 1:15-30; 5:67-6:6; 13:51-16:47). The security
`
`system includes one or more cameras and one or more motion detectors that
`
`activate the camera(s) when motion is detected in a monitored area proximate the
`
`structure. (Id.) The cameras capture images of the monitored area when the
`
`presence of a potential threat is detected and the images can be accessed locally or
`
`remotely to allow the potential threat to be evaluated. (Id.)
`
`The security system may also analyze images captured by the camera(s) to
`
`classify objects detected therein and determine whether the detected objects pose a
`
`threat (e.g., by distinguishing between a young child who is likely not a threat and
`
`1
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`an adult or by distinguishing between a bear or other large animal that may pose a
`
`threat and a small animal like a cat that does not). (Id. at 9:35-46). The ‘983 patent
`
`describes several prior art security systems that included object identification (also
`
`known as classification) functionality. (Id. at 1:51-2:26).
`
`As discussed below, systems meeting all of the requirements of the claims
`
`were known to those of skill in the art before the ‘983 patent was filed. Multiple
`
`independent grounds are provided below based upon prior art references that
`
`describe security systems that are used to protect structures, including systems that
`
`use motion-activated cameras to capture images of monitored areas, perform image
`
`analysis to classify objects to distinguish between objects that may pose a threat
`
`and those that do not, and that are accessible by the types of remote
`
`telecommunications devices described in the ‘983 patent. All of the challenged
`
`claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Protection One, Inc., Protection Holdings II, Inc., Protection One Alarm
`
`Monitoring, Inc., Prime Security Services TopCo Parent, L.P., Prime Security
`
`Services Parent, Inc., Prime Security Services Holdings, LLC and Prime Security
`
`Services Borrower, LLC are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`A decision in this proceeding could affect or be affected by the following
`
`2
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`cases pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
`
`and involving the ‘983 patent: MD Security Solutions, LLC v. Bright House
`
`Networks, LLC, No. 6:15-cv-00777, MD Security Solutions LLC v. CenturyTel
`
`Security Systems, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-01967, and MD Security Solutions LLC v.
`
`Protection 1, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-01968. This patent is also involved in the
`
`following IPR Proceeding: RPX Corporation v. MD Security Solutions LLC,
`
`IPR2016-00285 filed December 4, 2015, for which we are concurrently filing a
`
`motion for joinder.
`
` Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`C.
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`Lead Counsel
`Joshua A. Griswold, Reg. No. 46,310
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 214-292-4034
`F: 877-769-7945
`Email: IPR39959-0009IP1@fr.com
`
`Backup counsel
`Dan Smith, Reg. No. 71,278
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 214-292-4071
`F: 877-769-7945
`Email: PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`Please address all correspondence and service to the address listed above.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at IPR39959-0009IP1@fr.com
`
`(referencing No. 39959-0009IP1 and cc’ing PTABInbound@fr.com,
`
`griswold@fr.com and dsmith@fr.com).
`
`3
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`II.
`The Patent and Trademark Office is authorized to charge Deposit Account
`
`No. 06-1050 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and any
`
`additional fees.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING AND CHALLENGE UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘983 patent is available for IPR. The present
`
`petition is being filed within one year of service of a complaint against the
`
`Petitioner of infringement of the ‘983 patent. Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting this review challenging the Challenged Claims on the below-
`
`identified grounds.
`
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`
`Petitioner requests an IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds set forth
`
`in the table shown below, and that the Challenged Claims be found unpatentable.
`
`An explanation of how these claims are unpatentable under the statutory grounds is
`
`provided below, including claim construction as appropriate and an indication of
`
`where each element can be found in the cited prior art. Additional explanation and
`
`support for each ground is set forth in Exhibit 1010, the Declaration of Tal Lavian,
`
`Ph.D. (“Lavian Dec.”), referenced throughout this Petition.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Ground
`1
`
`‘983 Patent Claims
`1-8, 11, 18-20
`
`2
`
`9, 10, 12-17
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`
`Basis for Rejection
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,106,333 (“Milinusic”)
`(Ex. 1003) and U.S. Pat. No. 7,253,732
`(“Osann”) (Ex. 1004) under § 103(a)
`Milinusic (Ex. 1003), Osann (Ex. 1004),
`and Ozer (Ex. 1005) under § 103(a)
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`The ‘983 patent discloses a security alarm system that has one or more
`
`motion activated cameras, performs image analysis on images captured by the
`
`camera(s) and is accessible over a telecommunications network by a handheld
`
`telecommunications unit. A person of ordinary skill in the art in the timeframe of
`
`the 2006 priority date of the ‘983 patent (“POSITA”) would have had at least a
`
`B.S. 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 computer systems.
`
`(Lavian, ¶¶13-14).
`
`D. Technology Overview
`Security alarm systems designed to protect structures such as homes and
`
`commercial buildings often include one or more cameras to monitor the structure
`
`and capture images of possible threats (e.g., intruders). The camera(s) may provide
`
`continuous video surveillance of a monitored area or may be configured to capture
`
`images in response to an event (e.g., sound, motion, etc.) detected by a sensor (e.g.,
`
`5
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`a motion sensor, a sound sensor, etc.) monitoring the area.
`
`When an event (e.g., presence of a potential intruder) is detected by the
`
`security system, an alarm may be generated to alert personnel either on site (e.g.,
`
`residents of a home) and/or located remotely (e.g., homeowners not at home, a
`
`security/alarm company, local police, etc.). To reduce false alarms when the
`
`security system is triggered by something that is not an actual threat, some security
`
`systems analyze one or more images captured by the camera(s) to identify objects
`
`in the image, and generate an alert only when the object is classified as a threat.
`
`The ‘983 Patent
`
`E.
`FIG. 1 of the ‘983 patent, reproduced below, illustrates the components of a
`
`security alarm system.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`
`
`
`The security system includes one or more motion detectors 10 and one or
`
`more cameras 12 coupled to the motion detector(s) 10 that activate the camera(s)
`
`12 to record images in response to detecting motion. (Ex. 1001 at 6:48-53; 38-45).
`
`The motion detector(s) 10 and camera(s) 12 are mounted on or near a house, a
`
`business or other structure to monitor an area around the exterior of the structure.
`
`(Id. at 6:54-8:22; FIG. 3). The security system includes an on-site computer 14,
`
`which includes a processor, and is arranged to receive images from camera(s) 12
`
`and to control the operation of motion detector(s) 10 and/or camera(s) 12. (Id. at
`
`7
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`8:31-37; 8:46-59). Computer 14 may perform image processing to determine
`
`whether objects in captured images are a threat, and generate a countermeasure
`
`(e.g., an audible alarm or a communication to a remote location) when the object is
`
`identified as a threat. (Id. at 9:66-10:36). Computer 14 receives control commands
`
`from, and provides images to, a handheld telecommunications unit 42 over a
`
`telecommunications network. (Id. at 11:1-11; 11:31-50).
`
`The ‘983 patent includes twenty total and two independent claims (i.e.,
`
`claims 1 and 11). Claims 1-10 are directed to an alarm system for protecting a
`
`structure and claims 11-20 are directed to a method of protecting a structure.
`
`Claims 1-8, 11, and 18-20 (including independent claims 1 and 11) recite
`
`components including one or more cameras, one or more motion detectors coupled
`
`to and configured to activate the cameras upon detection of motion, a processor
`
`arranged to control the camera(s) and/or motion detector(s), a telecommunications
`
`module to couple the processor to a telecommunications network, and a handheld
`
`telecommunications unit to communicate with the processor over the network.
`
`Dependent claims 9, 10, and 12-17 recite limitations related to an object
`
`identification process that derives “silhouettes” of objects in an image to identify
`
`an object, and performs an action based on the object identification.
`
`The ‘983 patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 7,526,105 (“the ‘105
`
`patent”) and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Applications Nos. 60/743,894 filed
`
`8
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`March 29, 2006 and 60/804,660 filed June 14, 2006. The independent claims in the
`
`‘105 patent include limitations similar to those in claims 9 and 12 of the ‘983
`
`patent relating to object identification using “silhouettes.” The prior art (“Shiota”)
`
`cited during prosecution of the ‘105 patent described a security system that
`
`continuously recorded video. (Ex. 1012 at 32). The claims in the ‘105 patent were
`
`allowed in response to arguments that the cited prior art did not disclose cameras
`
`with a dormant state in which images are not obtained and an active state triggered
`
`when motion is detected (Ex. 1012 at 11; 32-33).
`
`The ‘983 independent claims replace the “silhouette” limitations of the
`
`issued independent claims of the ‘105 patent with limitations relating to
`
`transmitting commands from, and providing images to, a handheld
`
`telecommunications unit. The originally-filed claims in the ‘983 patent were
`
`allowed in a first action, with the Examiner stating that the prior art of record did
`
`not disclose transmitting commands from, and providing images to, a handheld
`
`telecommunications unit.
`
`None of the references relied upon in this Petition were of record during
`
`prosecution of either of the applications that issued as the ‘105 and ‘983 patents.
`
`The prior art relied on in each Ground meets the limitations relating to activating a
`
`camera from a dormant state to an active state in response to motion detected by a
`
`motion detector, the use of silhouettes, transmitting commands from, and providing
`
`9
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`images to, a handheld telecommunications unit, as well as all of the other
`
`limitations of each of the challenged claims as demonstrated below.
`
`IV. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`Each claim term should be given its broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(“BRI”) consistent with the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The BRI for any
`
`term defined in the specification is the definition provided. The BRI for any term
`
`not defined in the specification is the plain and ordinary meaning consistent with
`
`the specification. The BRI for every claim term is applied in this petition.
`
`“structure”
`
`A.
`All claims (i.e., claims 1-20) require an alarm system (claims 1-10) or a
`
`method (claim 11-20) for protecting a “structure.” The specification does not
`
`define “structure” but provides several examples of “premises or structure”
`
`including a house, a warehouse, and a business. (Ex. 1001 at 6:54-65). Thus, the
`
`BRI of the term “structure” includes at least the types of structures identified in the
`
`specification. The plain and ordinary meaning, consistent with the specification, of
`
`a “structure” to a POSITA in 2006 encompasses at least a house, a “business” (i.e.,
`
`a commercial building) and a warehouse. (Id. at 6:58-65; Lavian, ¶23).
`
`“telecommunications network”
`
`B.
`All of the claims (i.e., claims 1-20) require a telecommunications module
`
`capable of communications over a “telecommunications network,” which is not
`
`defined in the specification. The specification describes communications between
`
`10
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`the handheld telecommunications unit and the processor using a telephone network
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 11:23-30) or a computer network, such as the Internet. (Id. at 13:21-
`
`24). The plain and ordinary meaning, consistent with the specification, of a
`
`“telecommunications network” to a POSITA in 2006 is “a collection of nodes and
`
`links that enable the transmission of information between two computing entities,”
`
`and encompasses at least telephone networks and computer networks, such as the
`
`Internet. (Lavian, ¶24).
`
`“handheld telecommunications unit”
`
`C.
`Claims 1-20 all require a “handheld telecommunications unit” for
`
`transmitting commands for a processor via a telecommunications module.
`
`“Handheld telecommunications unit” is a term that is not defined in the
`
`specification. However, the specification provides several examples of handheld
`
`telecommunication units including a cellular telephone, an iPod, a PDA, and a
`
`laptop computer. (Ex. 1001 at 6:2-6). The plain and ordinary meaning, consistent
`
`with the specification, of a “handheld telecommunications unit” to a POSITA in
`
`2006 encompasses at least the examples provided in the specification of a cellular
`
`telephone, an iPod, a personal digital assistant (PDA), and a laptop computer.
`
`(Lavian, ¶25).
`
`“silhouette”
`
`D.
`Claims 9, 10, and 12-17 require a processor arranged to derive a “silhouette”
`
`11
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`of any objects in an image. “Silhouette” is not defined in the specification. The
`
`term silhouette generally refers to the shape or outline of an object. (Lavian, ¶26).
`
`The specification describes derivation of a silhouette of an object as being based on
`
`a number of descriptors that are typical for the object (e.g., human body), or on
`
`other factors which can be used to distinguish, discriminate and/or differentiate the
`
`object from other types of objects. (Ex. 1001 at 9:35-39). The plain and ordinary
`
`meaning, consistent with the specification, of a “silhouette” to a POSITA in 2006
`
`relates to a representation of the outline of an object and encompasses at least
`
`representations derived using the techniques described in the ‘983 specification.
`
`(Lavian, ¶26).
`
`V. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW
`
`This Petition and the supporting evidence (including Dr. Lavian’s
`
`declaration) demonstrate “a reasonable likelihood that petitioner would prevail
`
`with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. §
`
`314(a). All the claims are obvious over the prior art relied upon in this Petition, as
`
`explained in detail by Dr. Lavian (Ex. 1010), who holds a Ph.D. in computer
`
`science from the University of California, Berkeley where he is a Lecturer and
`
`Industry Fellow in the Center of Entrepreneurship and Technology, an academic
`
`center within the College of Engineering.
`
`12
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`VI. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1-20
`
`The ‘983 patent includes independent claims 1 and 11. Claims 1 and 11 are
`
`different classes of claims (system and method) but substantively recite many
`
`similar limitations. Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below. The letters in brackets
`
`preceding the claim elements (e.g., [A]) are used throughout this Petition as
`
`shorthand references for those elements:
`
`1. An alarm system for protecting a structure, comprising:
`
`[A] at least one motion detector arranged to have a field of view
`
`external of the structure and including an area proximate the structure;
`
`[B1] at least one camera associated with and coupled to each of
`
`said at least one motion detector,
`
`[B2] 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,
`
`[B3] 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
`
`13
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`obtained and being activated into the active state when the associated
`
`one of said at least one motion detector detects motion;
`
`[C] 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;
`
`[D] a telecommunications module coupled to said processor, said
`
`telecommunications module being capable of communications over a
`
`telecommunications network; and
`
`[E] 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.
`
`Elements A and B1 recite what the specification describes as “standard, off-
`
`the-shelf components.” (Ex. 1001 at 7:19-20 and 8:23). Element B2 describes a
`
`well-known arrangement where camera(s) and motion detector(s) are used to
`
`protect a structure, with each camera having a field of view that overlaps at least
`
`partially with the field of view of any motion detector that will activate the camera.
`
`(Lavian, ¶20). Element B3 recites the well-known functionality of a motion
`
`activated camera. (Lavian, ¶20). Elements C, D, and E recite well-known
`
`14
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`components of a security alarm system that can be controlled from and provide
`
`images to a handheld device over a telecommunications network. (Lavian, ¶21).
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-8, 11, and 18-20 Would Have Been
`Obvious over Milinusic and Osann
`
`Milinusic (Ex. 1003)1 is a U.S. patent with a filing date of at least February
`
`19, 2002, and is prior art to the ‘983 patent under 35 U.S.C. §102(e). Osann (Ex.
`
`1004) is a U.S. patent with a filing date of at least December 7, 2004, and is prior
`
`art to the ‘983 patent under 35 U.S.C. §102(e).
`
`Milinusic describes a surveillance system 100 that includes cameras and
`
`sensors and can be used to monitor an area, such as a warehouse (which is a
`
`structure). (5:51-52; 6:59-67; Lavian, ¶118; §IV.A, supra ). Milinusic teaches that
`
`conventional systems are deficient in not being able to determine information
`
`about an intruder. (1:37-44). Milinusic’s system detects predetermined conditions
`
`(e.g., using motion detectors), generates surveillance data representative of the
`
`detected condition, and distributes surveillance data to a surveillance client 240
`
`based upon predetermined distribution criteria. (3:3-5; 3:64-4:1; 4:30-34; Lavian,
`
`¶119).
`
`Osann describes a video surveillance system that includes cameras and
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, all citations in Section VI.A are to Ex. 1003
`
`(Milinusic)
`
`15
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`motion detectors, and can be used to protect a home or building. (Ex. 1004 at
`
`25:55-60; FIG. 28; Lavian, ¶118). Osann’s system generates an alarm upon the
`
`occurrence of an event such as detecting an intruder (Ex. 1004 at 14:4-20, Lavian,
`
`¶119).
`
`While Milinusic does not explicitly state that the disclosed system be used to
`
`protect a home or building against an intruder, a POSITA would have understood
`
`this to be among the primary intended uses for Milinusic’s system. (Lavian, ¶118).
`
`As acknowledged in the background of Milinusic, and as explicitly suggested by
`
`Osann, this was a well-known use for camera and motion detector systems. (Id.). A
`
`POSITA would have been motivated by these well-known teachings and Osann to
`
`use the Milinusic surveillance system to protect a structure such as a home or
`
`building against an intruder. (Lavian, ¶118).
`
`A POSITA would have understood that the distribution of data to a
`
`surveillance client 240 upon detection of a condition in Milinusic is an alarm that
`
`notifies the surveillance client of the condition, and that the condition may be
`
`detection of an intruder. (3:3-5; 3:64-4:1; 4:30-34; Lavian, ¶119). In addition, it
`
`was well-known to have a surveillance system that employs motion detectors and
`
`cameras generate an alarm, and Osann explicitly teaches generating an alarm upon
`
`the occurrence of an event such as detecting an intruder. (Ex. 1004 at 14:4-20;
`
`Lavian, ¶119). Thus, a POSITA would have implemented the combined
`
`16
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`Milinusic/Osann system by having it generate an alarm notifying Milinusic’s
`
`surveillance client 240 (discussed below) of a condition (e.g., an intruder) upon
`
`detection of the condition. (Lavian, ¶119).
`
`Milinusic’s surveillance system 100 includes a plurality of sensor units 250,
`
`260, 270, any of which may be configured as a motion detector. (3:41-45; 3:51-55;
`
`5:24-64; FIG. 2; FIG. 4; Lavian, ¶120). Milinusic does not explicitly state that the
`
`area monitored by the sensor units 250, 260 includes an area external of and
`
`proximate a structure. A POSITA would have understood that to protect a home or
`
`other building (including a warehouse as explicitly referenced in Milinusic at 6:64)
`
`from intruders using Milinusic’s system, it would have been desirable to arrange
`
`motion detectors to monitor the areas proximate the access points to the building
`
`(e.g., doors and windows) to detect the presence of an intruder and have cameras
`
`gather images of monitored area(s). (Lavian, ¶120). Further motivation to arrange
`
`the motion sensors and cameras in Milinusic’s system in this way is provided by
`
`Osann’s teaching of providing video surveillance and motion detector devices at
`
`the exterior of a home or building. (Ex. 1004 at 25:55-60; FIG. 28; Lavian, ¶121).
`
`Thus, in the combined system of Milinusic and Osann, motion sensors and cameras
`
`would be arranged to have a field of view external of the structure, including areas
`
`proximate the doors and windows of the structure, to detect motion of any
`
`intruders seeking to enter the structure. (Lavian, ¶120). This meets the requirement
`
`17
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`in claims 1 and 11 of the ‘983 patent that motion sensors be arranged to have a
`
`field of view external of a structure and include an area proximate the structure.
`
`The sensor units 250, 260 and 270 in Milinusic’s system may include digital
`
`or video cameras. (3:47-51; Lavian, ¶122). For example, sensor unit 250 includes
`
`cameras 451 and 452 and sensor unit 260 includes camera 461. (FIG. 4; 5:24-43;
`
`Lavian, ¶123). Each of these cameras is configured to capture an image of an area
`
`upon a predetermined occurrence such as the detection of movement with the area
`
`being monitored by sensor units 250, 260. (5:51-59; Lavian, ¶123). Thus, each of
`
`cameras 451, 452, and 461 is coupled to a motion detector that monitors the same
`
`area as the camera. (Lavian, ¶123). Additionally, the camera in any of sensor units
`
`250, 260, and 270 that includes a camera may be coupled to the motion detector in
`
`any sensor unit configured as a motion detector (3:51-55) via the network (230 in
`
`FIG. 2 and 130 in FIG. 4). (Lavian, ¶122). Accordingly, Milinusic discloses at least
`
`one camera associated with and coupled to each of said at least one motion
`
`detector. Milinusic’s teaching that image capture be set to occur upon the detection
`
`of movement within the area being monitored by the sensor unit (5:56-59) would
`
`have been understood by a POSITA as teaching that a motion detector and camera
`
`in Milinusic’s system are arranged to monitor the same area and that the camera
`
`monitoring the area has a field of view encompassing at least part of the field of
`
`view of an associated motion detector, as claimed in the ‘983 patent. (Lavian,
`
`18
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`
`¶124)
`
`A POSITA would also have understood that when a camera is set to capture
`
`an image upon the detection of movement in an area being monitored by a sensor
`
`unit’s motion detector (5:55-59), the camera has a dormant state in which images
`
`are not obtained (i.e., when motion is not detected in the area) and an active state in
`
`which images are obtained (i.e., when motion is detected in the area), and that the
`
`camera is activated into the active state when the associated motion detector
`
`monitoring the area detects motion, as claimed in the ‘983 patent. (Lavian, ¶125).
`
`Milinusic’s system also includes a surveillance server 210 and a surveillance
`
`client 240 connected via the network. (2:61-67; FIG. 2; FIG. 4; Lavian, ¶111).
`
`Sensor units 250, 260, and 270 are configured to collect surveillance data (e.g.,
`
`image data) by detecting predetermined conditions or occurrences and generating
`
`and outputting surveillance data representative of the detected conditions or
`
`occurrences to surveillance server 210 via the network. (3:41-47; 6:20-32; Lavian,
`
`¶111). The received surveillance data is incorporated by surveillance server 210
`
`into a database 220. (3:6-10 and 61-64); Lavian, ¶111).
`
`Surveillance server 210 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 360, which
`
`is a processor. (4:14-16; Lavian, ¶126). CPU 360 is coupled to at least one camera
`
`(e.g., in sensor units 250 and 260) via the network, local interface 370, and I/O
`
`processor 375. (2:61-67; FIG. 3; Lavian, ¶126). Surveillance server 210 receives
`
`19
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39959-0009IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983
`requests from surveillance client 240 to control or adjust specified sensor units and
`
`transmits those requests to the specified sensor units. (3:37-41; Lavian, ¶127).
`
`Accordingly, surveillance server 210 (including processor 360) is arranged to
`
`control at least one camera, as claimed in the ‘983 patent. The processor (i.e., CPU
`
`360 of surveillance server 210) is also arranged to receive surveillance data
`
`(including image data) from the various sensor unit cameras, as claimed in the ‘983
`
`patent. (3:10-13; 4:25-30; Lavian, ¶128).
`
`Surveillance server 210 includes a telecommunications module (i.e., I/O
`
`processor 375) coupled to the processor (i.e., CPU 360) and capable of
`
`communication over a telecommunications network (i.e., network 130/230) as
`
`claimed in the ‘983 patent. (4:16-23; FIG. 3; Lavian, ¶129). The network (230 in
`
`FIG. 2 and 130 in FIGs. 3-4) may be a wide area network (WAN) such as the
`
`Internet or a local area network (LAN), both of whi