Filed on behalf of Securus Technologies, Inc.
`By:
`Justin B. Kimble (jkimble@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone (jbragalone@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Daniel F. Olejko (dolejko@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Bragalone Conroy P.C.
`
`2200 Ross Ave.
`
`Suite 4500 – West
`
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Tel: 214.785.6670
`
`Fax: 214.786.6680
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01362
`U.S. Patent No. 9,083,850
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ALAN C. BOVIK IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`PAGE 1
`
`SECURUS EXHIBIT 2002
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-Ol362
`
`Patent 9,083,850\
`
`Patent Owner Response to Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent
`
`No. 9,083,850
`
`:1
`if
`
`Declaration of Dr. Alan C. Bovik
`
`1, Alan Bovik, do hereby declare and state, under penalty ofperjury under
`
`the laws of the United States of America, that all statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are} true and correct and that all statements made on information and
`belief are believed to be true; and flirther that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`in
`.
`.
`.
`\3
`.
`.
`or imprisonm ‘nt, or both, under Sectlon 1001 of T1tle 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Executed on April 24, 2017, at Austin, TX.
`
`
`
`Alan C. Bovik
`
`
`
`PAGE 2
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Engagement ...................................................................................................................... 4
`
`Background and Qualifications ........................................................................................ 5
`
`Compensation and Prior Expert Witness Experience ...................................................... 9
`
`Information Considered.................................................................................................. 10
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................................................................ 11
`
`A.
`
`Obviousness ................................................................................................................... 12
`
`III.
`
`THE ’850 PATENT ........................................................................................................... 18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Effective Filing Date of the ’850 Patent Claims ............................................................ 18
`
`Overview of the ’850 Patent........................................................................................... 18
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’850 Patent ................................................ 24
`
`Grounds in the Petition ................................................................................................... 28
`
`Summary of My Conclusions ......................................................................................... 29
`
`F. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................................................... 30
`
`G.
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................................ 44
`
`1.
`
`“adjusting a depth of field parameter for the video” .................................................. 46
`
`“such that an image of a first object at a first distance from the video visitation device
`2.
`is in focus and an image of a second object at a second distance from the video visitation
`device is blurred” .................................................................................................................. 54
`
`IV.
`
`PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE ’850 PATENT ................................................ 56
`
`A.
`
`The Adjusting Limitation of Claims 1, 8, and 14........................................................... 57
`
`Petitioner’s Interpretation of the Adjusting Limitation .............................................. 57
`
`Garrison’s Teaching of a Simulated Short Depth of Field ......................................... 63
`
`Digital Processing Techniques for Adjusting a Depth of Field Parameter ................. 67
`
`The Bokeh Effect ........................................................................................................ 68
`
`The Motivation to Combine Shipman and Garrison ...................................................... 71
`
`Ground 2 ......................................................................................................................... 77
`
`Ground 3 ......................................................................................................................... 80
`
`Grounds 4-5 .................................................................................................................... 84
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`PAGE 3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Engagement
`
`1. My name is Dr. Alan C. Bovik. I have been asked to submit this
`
`declaration on behalf of Securus Technologies, Inc. (“Securus” or “Patent Owner”)
`
`in connection with Patent Owner’s response (the “Response”) to the petition (the
`
`“Petition”) of Global Tel*Link Corporation (“GTL” or “Petitioner”) for inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 9,083,850 (“the ’850 patent”). Securus’ Response, I
`
`understand, is being submitted to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or the
`
`“Board”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO” or “USPTO”)
`
`in this proceeding having case number IPR2016-01362.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert by Petitioner to study and
`
`provide my opinions on the technology claimed in, and the patentability or
`
`nonpatentability of, claims 1-21 of the ’850 patent.
`
`3.
`
`As part of my study, I have reviewed and am familiar with the
`
`specification of the ’850 patent. I understand that the ’850 patent has been provided
`
`as Exhibit 1001. Previously, Patent Owner filed its Preliminary Response (Paper 9,
`
`referred to as the “Preliminary Response”) to the Petition (Paper 2, referred to as the
`
`“Petition”). And the Board issued its Decision (Paper 11, referred to and cited to as
`
`the “Decision”), which instituted review based on the finding that there was a
`
`PAGE 4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail as to all claims 1-21 of the
`
`’850 patent.
`
`B. Background and Qualifications
`
`4.
`
`I expect to testify regarding my background, qualifications, and
`
`experience relevant to the issues in this inter partes review proceeding. I hold a Ph.D.
`
`in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of Illinois, Urbana-
`
`Champaign (awarded in 1984). I also hold a Master's degree in Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (awarded
`
`in 1982).
`
`5.
`
`I am a tenured full Professor and I hold the Cockrell Family Regents
`
`Endowed Chair at the University of Texas at Austin. My appointments are in the
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, the Department of Computer
`
`Sciences, and the Department of Biomedical Engineering. I am also the Director of
`
`the Laboratory for Image and Video Engineering (“LIVE”).
`
`6. My research is in the general area of digital television, digital cameras,
`
`image and video processing, computational neuroscience, and modeling of
`
`biological visual perception. I have published over 800 technical articles in these
`
`areas and hold seven U.S. patents. I am also the author of The Handbook of Image
`
`and Video Processing, Second Edition (Elsevier Academic Press, 2005); Modern
`
`Image Quality Assessment (Morgan & Claypool, 2006); The Essential Guide to
`
`PAGE 5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`Image Processing (Elsevier Academic Press, 2009); and The Essential Guide to
`
`Video Processing (Elsevier Academic Press, 2009); and numerous other
`
`publications.
`
`7.
`
`I will receive the 2017 Edwin H. Land Medal from the Optical Society
`
`of America in September 2017 with citation: For substantially shaping the direction
`
`and advancement of modern perceptual picture quality theory, and for energetically
`
`engaging industry towards transforming his ideas into global practice. I received a
`
`Primetime Emmy Award
`
`for Outstanding Achievement
`
`in Engineering
`
`Development, for the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, in October 2015,
`
`for the widespread use of my video quality prediction and monitoring models and
`
`algorithms that are widely used throughout the global broadcast, cable, satellite and
`
`internet television industries.
`
`8.
`
`Among other awards and honors, I have received the 2013 IEEE Signal
`
`Processing Society’s “Society Award,” which is the highest honor accorded by that
`
`technical society (“for fundamental contributions to digital image processing theory,
`
`technology, leadership and education”). In 2005, I received the Technical
`
`Achievement Award of the IEEE Signal Processing Society, which is the highest
`
`technical honor given by the Society, for “broad and lasting contributions to the field
`
`of digital image processing”; and in 2008 I received the Education Award of the
`
`PAGE 6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`IEEE Signal Processing Society, which is the highest education honor given by the
`
`Society, for “broad and lasting contributions to image processing, including popular
`
`and important image processing books, innovative on-line courseware, and for the
`
`creation of the leading research and educational journal and conference in the image
`
`processing field.”
`
`9. My technical articles have been widely recognized as well, including
`
`the 2009 IEEE Signal Processing Society Best Journal Paper Award for the paper
`
`“Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity,” published
`
`in IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, volume 13, number 4, April 2004; this
`
`same paper received the 2017 IEEE Signal Processing Society Sustained Impact
`
`Paper Award as the most impactful paper published over a period of at least ten
`
`years; the 2013 Best Magazine Paper Award for the paper “Mean squared error:
`
`Love it or leave it?? A new look at signal fidelity measures,” published in IEEE
`
`Transactions on Image Processing, volume 26, number 1, January 2009; the IEEE
`
`Circuits and Systems Society Best Journal Paper Prize for the paper “Video quality
`
`assessment by reduced reference spatio-temporal entropic differencing,” published
`
`in the IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 23,
`
`no. 4, pp. 684-694, April 2013.
`
`PAGE 7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`10.
`
`I have also been honored by other technical organizations, including the
`
`Society for Photo-optical and Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE), from which I
`
`received the Technology Achievement Award (2013) “For Broad and Lasting
`
`Contributions to the Field of Perception-Based Image Processing,” and the Society
`
`for Imaging Science and Technology, which accorded me Honorary Membership,
`
`which is the highest recognition by that Society given to a single individual, “for his
`
`impact in shaping the direction and advancement of the field of perceptual image
`
`processing.” I was also elected as a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Engineers (IEEE) “for contributions to nonlinear image processing” in
`
`1995, a Fellow of the Optical Society of America (OSA) for “fundamental research
`
`contributions to and technical leadership in digital image and video processing” in
`
`2006, and as a Fellow of SPIE for “pioneering technical, leadership, and educational
`
`contributions to the field of image processing” in 2007.
`
`11. Among other relevant research, I have worked with the National
`
`Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) to develop high compression
`
`image sequence coding and animated vision technology, on various military projects
`
`for the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Phillips Air Force Base, the Army
`
`Research Office, and the Department of Defense. These projects have focused on
`
`developing local spatio-temporal analysis in vision systems, scalable processing of
`
`PAGE 8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`multi-sensor and multi-spectral imagery, image processing and data compression
`
`tools for satellite imaging, AM-FM analysis of images and video, the scientific
`
`foundations of image representation and analysis, computer vision systems for
`
`automatic target recognition and automatic recognition of human activities, vehicle
`
`structure recovery from a moving air platform, passive optical modeling, and
`
`detection of speculated masses and architectural distortions
`
`in digitized
`
`mammograms. My research has also recently been funded by Netflix, Qualcomm,
`
`Texas Instruments, Intel, Cisco, and the National Institute of Standards and
`
`Technology (NIST) for research on image and video quality assessment. I have also
`
`received numerous grants from the National Science Foundation for research on
`
`image and video processing and on computational vision.
`
`12.
`
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, work
`
`experience, and other relevant qualifications. Additional details about my
`
`employment history, fields of expertise, and publications are further described in my
`
`curriculum vitae. A true and accurate copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`C. Compensation and Prior Expert Witness Experience
`
`13.
`
`I am being compensated for the time I spend on this case at my normal
`
`consulting rate. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`PAGE 9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My compensation is
`
`not contingent upon the outcome of this matter or the substance of my testimony.
`
`D. Information Considered
`
`14. My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. I have
`
`reviewed the relevant papers and exhibits submitted in this proceeding (IPR2016-
`
`01362) up to the date of this declaration. And I have reviewed the deposition
`
`testimony of Iain Richardson, which is submitted as Securus’ Exhibit 2004, and
`
`which I cite to herein as “Richardson Depo.” provide the deposition page and line
`
`number in the format “page:line number”. In forming my opinions, I have
`
`considered the materials that I identify in this declaration and those listed in
`
`Appendix B.
`
`15.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`
`to arguments raised by the Petitioner. I may also consider additional documents and
`
`information in forming any necessary opinions – including documents that may not
`
`yet have been provided to me.
`
`16. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This report
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`PAGE 10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information and
`
`on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`17.
`
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`claims of the ’850 patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that counsel
`
`has explained to me.
`
`18. First, I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be found
`
`patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what was
`
`known before the invention was made.
`
`19.
`
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether an
`
`invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as “prior art” and generally
`
`includes patents and printed publications (e.g., books, journal publications, articles
`
`on websites, product manuals, etc.).
`
`20.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding the Petitioner has the burden of
`
`proving that the claims of the ’850 patent are anticipated by or rendered obvious
`
`from the prior art by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a
`
`preponderance of the evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more
`
`likely true than it is not.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims after
`
`PAGE 11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`being construed in this manner are then to be compared to the information in the
`
`prior art.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the information that may be
`
`evaluated is limited to patents and printed publications. My analysis below compares
`
`the claims to patents and printed publications that are prior art, which has been cited
`
`by the Petitioner.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the claim.
`
`Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. I understand that Petitioner contends that certain references
`
`render obvious the claims of the ’850 patent, but that Petitioner does not assert that
`
`any prior art anticipates any claim. My understanding of the applicable legal
`
`standards for obviousness is set forth below.
`
`A. Obviousness
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time the
`
`invention was made.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined in the patent
`
`statute (35 U.S.C. § 103(a)) as follows: A patent may not be obtained though the
`
`invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this
`
`PAGE 12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`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. A patent is not invalid because of the manner in which the
`
`invention was made.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious. I have applied these standards in my
`
`evaluation of whether claims 1-21 of the ’850 patent would have been considered
`
`obvious.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that to find a claim in a patent obvious, one must make
`
`certain findings regarding the claimed invention and the prior art. Specifically, I
`
`understand that the obviousness question requires consideration of four factors
`
`(although not necessarily in the following order):
`
` The scope and content of the prior art;
`
` The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
` The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
` Whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness
`
`may be present in any particular case.
`
`PAGE 13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`28.
`
`In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`
`done in hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art as of the effective filing date of the patent claim.
`
`29.
`
`I understand the objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may include: commercial success of products covered by the patent
`
`claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by others to make the
`
`invention; copying of the invention by others in the field; unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by the infringer or others in the
`
`field; the taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by
`
`experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee
`
`proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`30.
`
`I understand the combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
`
`I also understand that an example of a solution in one field of endeavor may make
`
`that solution obvious in another related field. I also understand that market demands
`
`or design considerations may prompt variations of a prior art system or process,
`
`either in the same field or a different one, and that these variations will ordinarily be
`
`considered obvious variations of what has been described in the prior art.
`
`PAGE 14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`31.
`
`I also understand that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a
`
`predictable variation, that variation would have been considered obvious. I
`
`understand that for similar reasons, if a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using that technique to improve the other
`
`device would have been obvious unless its actual application yields unexpected
`
`results or challenges in implementation.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, but instead
`
`can take account of the “ordinary innovation” and experimentation that does no more
`
`than yield predictable results, which are inferences and creative steps that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that sometimes it will be necessary to look to interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
`
`community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed
`
`by a person having ordinary skill in the art. I understand that all these issues may be
`
`considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known
`
`elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`PAGE 15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`34.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
`
`formalistic conception of the words “teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” I
`
`understand that in 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision in KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex, Inc. where the Court rejected the previous requirement of a “teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine” known elements of prior art for purposes of
`
`an obviousness analysis as a precondition for finding obviousness. It is my
`
`understanding that KSR confirms that any motivation that would have been known
`
`to a person of skill in the art, including common sense, or derived from the nature of
`
`the problem to be solved, is sufficient to explain why references would have been
`
`combined.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a
`
`problem will not be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same
`
`problem. I understand that under KSR standard, steps suggested by common sense
`
`are important and should be considered. Common sense teaches that familiar items
`
`may have obvious uses beyond the particular application being described in a
`
`reference, that if something can be done once it is obvious to do it multiple times,
`
`and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of
`
`multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. As such, the prior art considered
`
`can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
`
`PAGE 16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`invention and can provide a reason for combining the elements of the prior art in the
`
`manner claimed. In other words, the prior art does not need to be directed towards
`
`solving the same problem that is addressed in the patent. Further, the individual prior
`
`art references themselves need not all be directed towards solving the same problem.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that an invention that might be considered an obvious
`
`variation or modification of the prior art may be considered non-obvious if one or
`
`more prior art references discourages or lead away from the line of inquiry disclosed
`
`in the reference(s). A reference does not “teach away” from an invention simply
`
`because the reference suggests that another embodiment of the invention is better or
`
`preferred. My understanding of the doctrine of teaching away requires a clear
`
`indication that the combination should not be attempted (e.g., because it would not
`
`work or explicit statements saying the combination should not be made). I
`
`understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity.
`
`37.
`
`I further understand that in many fields, it may be that there is little
`
`discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive design
`
`trends. Where there is such a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and
`
`there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary
`
`skill has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp. If
`
`PAGE 17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of
`
`ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was
`
`obvious to try might show that it was obvious. The fact that a particular combination
`
`of prior art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was
`
`obvious even if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious
`
`to try (regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success,
`
`then it is likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation.
`
`III. THE ’850 PATENT
`
`A. Effective Filing Date of the ’850 Patent Claims
`
`38. The ’850 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 13/931,857 (the
`
`“’857 application”), which was filed on June 29, 2013. The ’857 application does
`
`not claim priority to an earlier application. For the purpose of this Response, I will
`
`assume that the priority date for the ’850 patent is June 29, 2013.
`
`B. Overview of the ’850 Patent
`
`39. The ’850 patent was filed on June 29, 2013 and is directed to
`
`communication system, such as a camera and phone system, operating in a secure
`
`environment, such as a prison. ’850 patent at Abstract, column 1, lines 52-60, and
`
`claim 1. One important goal of the ’850 patent is to “safe guard the privacy and
`
`promote the safe use of video services provided within inmate housing areas” by
`
`preventing viewers of the video services from plainly seeing unintended people
`
`PAGE 18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`and/or details such as showers, bathrooms, interiors of cells, or just other inmates.
`
`’850 patent at column 1, lines 6-25. The ’850 patent adds that “inmates who know
`
`they are on camera” may “cause disruptions which can escalate and become safety
`
`issues.” ’850 patent at column 1, lines 6-18.
`
`40. The prior art sought to solve these problems in a number of different
`
`ways: by (1) placing video terminals outside of the general inmate population; (2)
`
`designing housing units in such a way that the video terminals face an innocent area;
`
`and (3) using facial recognition technology “to ‘lock in’ on the facial features of the
`
`inmate and blur everything but those features.” ’850 patent at column 1, lines 26-48.
`
`But all of the prior art solutions had significant problems. Placing video terminals
`
`outside of the general inmate population raised “security and administrative issues
`
`associated with moving inmates from housing locations to visitation locations.” ’850
`
`patent at column 1, lines 26-33. Re-designing housing units was “impractical since
`
`most correctional institutions were constructed decades before and reconstruction
`
`would be too costly,” and the “nooks” designed for video services were difficult to
`
`monitor. ’850 patent at column 1, lines 34-42. And the facial recognition technology
`
`“suffers as the inmate moves around and has the disadvantage of blurring much of
`
`the face and or torso of the inmate thus leading to an unsatisfactory visitation
`
`experience.” ’850 patent at column 1, lines 43-48.
`
`PAGE 19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`41. The claims of the ’850 patent solve these problems by, among other
`
`things, “adjusting a depth of field parameter for the video, such that an image of a
`
`first object at a first distance from the video visitation device is in focus and an image
`
`of a second object at a second distance from the video visitation device is blurred.”
`
`’850 patent, claims 1, 8, 14 (emphasis is mine). Adjusting a depth of field parameter
`
`of a video manipulates the depth of field in an image to modify it from one state to
`
`another. Modifying the depth of field of an image causes only objects at a certain
`
`distance range from the camera to be in focus. I provide an example of a “short”
`
`depth of field in the picture below, which can be accessed at the website
`
`http://jonteaches.com/assets/images/101/emphasis-and-focal-point/depth.jpg.
`
`PAGE 20
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`
`The photo above illustrates a short depth of focus. In the photo, toy Storm Troopers
`
`are lined up diagonally with the depth of field adjusted such that only the Storm
`
`Trooper that is within a certain distance away from the camera is in focus.
`
`42. By adjusting the depth of field of the camera, the claimed invention
`
`keeps in focus all objects within a range of distances from the camera. In the context
`
`of the ’850 patent, this range of distances allows the desired party to a visitation to
`
`be located within the focal range of the camera, without requiring facial recognition
`
`technology, thereby eliminating the problems with prior art recognition technology,
`
`which targets a particular object (such as the face) or area in the frame and requires
`
`adjustment of the target region in the image whenever that object moves in the scene.
`
`PAGE 21
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`See, for example, ’850 patent at column 1, lines 43-48, column 12, lines 1-6. For
`
`example, Figure 9 provides one embodiment of a blurred video frame 900.
`
`’850 patent at Figure 9.
`
`
`
`43. Figure 9 shows a “first object 304 [that] may be a face 901.” ’850 patent
`
`at column 11, lines 64-66. A second object “may be anything located at a predefined
`
`distance from the face 901.” ’850 patent at column 11, lines 66-67. The second object
`
`in the background is blurred. ’850 patent at column 12, line 1. But “the face 901 may
`
`be able to move within the depth of field of the camera 205 without artifacts
`
`associated with facial recognition, but all objects located outside of the depth of field,
`
`for example in the background 902, will be blurred or obscured.” ’850 patent at
`
`column 12, lines 1-6 (emphasis is mine). As shown in Figure 9, “the second inmate
`
`903 may be so obscured that his actions or demeanor are also blurred and obscured.”
`
`PAGE 22
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`
`
`’850 patent at column 12, lines 17-19. The depth of field in Figure 9, therefore, is a
`
`range of distances from the camera about which the face 901 is able to move.
`
`44. Petitioner characterizes the claims as merely applying “blurring
`
`techniques to the specific scenario of a video call involving a resident of a secure
`
`environment.” Petition at page 1. The ’850 patent, however, does not merely (or
`
`only) describe blurring techniques, as Petitioner alleges. Put another way, the ’850
`
`patent claims cover methods and systems that do not require identifying or targeting
`
`the content of a specific portion of an image, in the way that Petitioner (incorrectly)
`
`alleges the prior art achieves the claimed invention. In contrast, the claims clearly
`
`require “adjusting a depth of field parameter for the video, such