UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`Axis Communications AB, Canon Inc., and Canon U.S.A., Inc.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Avigilon Fortress Corporation,
`
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case: IPR2019-00235
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`Issue Date: January 11, 2011
`Title: Video Surveillance System Employing Video Primitives
`
`______________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 3
`A.
`The ʼ912 Patent ..................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Overview of the Claims of the ’912 Patent ........................................... 5
`C.
`The Petition Proposes Two Obviousness Challenges ........................... 5
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................. 6
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 7
`A.
`Single Processor Claims (Claims 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 25, 27–30, 32,
`33) .......................................................................................................... 7
`“Filtering” (Claims 23–25, 31–36) ....................................................... 7
`“Stream” (Claims 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15–17, 24, 25, 27–29, 32, 33) .......... 9
`“analyzing a combination of the received determined attributes”
`or “wherein analyzing
`the combination of
`the received
`determined
`attributes
`comprises
`filtering”
`(Petitioners’
`“Independence Argument (1)” Discussion) (Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11,
`12, 16, 18, 23–27, 29–36) ...................................................................... 9
`“Event” (Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (3)” Discussion)
`(Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16–18, 22–36) .................................... 11
`“Independent” (Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (2)”
`Discussion) (Claims 1, 6, 9, 15, 18, 23–28, 30–33) ............................ 12
`“Analyzing only the attributes” (Claims 3, 8, 11) ............................... 14
`G.
`THE BOARD SHOULD REJECT THE PETITION IN ITS
`ENTIRETY. ................................................................................................. 15
`A.
`Petitioners Fail to Prove Flinchbaugh Is a “Printed Publication.”
` ............................................................................................................. 15
`Petitioners Fail To Prove Kellogg Is A “Printed Publication.” ........... 18
`
`V.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`The Art Presented Is Cumulative To That Considered In Prior
`Reexamination. .................................................................................... 23
`Petitioners’ Alleged Motivation To Combine Kellogg,
`Flinchbaugh, and Brill Is Unsupported. .............................................. 32
`Ground 1: Petitioners Fail To Prove Kellogg In Combination
`With Flinchbaugh Renders Claims 1–4 And 6–11 Obvious. ............. 33
`Overview of Kellogg ................................................................. 33
`Overview of Flinchbaugh ......................................................... 34
`Petitioners fail to prove Kellogg in combination with
`Flinchbaugh teaches a system or method that “determines
`a first event . . . by analyzing a combination of the received
`determined attributes.” (Claims 1–11) ...................................... 36
`Petitioners fail to prove Kellogg in combination with
`Flinchbaugh teaches a system or method that “determines
`attributes independent of a selection of the first event.”
`(Claims 1–11) ............................................................................ 40
`Petitioners fail to prove Kellogg in combination with
`Flinchbaugh teaches “a first processor which analyzes a
`video to determine attributes” and “a second processor,
`separate from the first . . . which determines a first event.”
`(Claims 1–4) .............................................................................. 44
`Petitioners fail to prove Kellogg in combination with
`Flinchbaugh teaches “attributes of objects detected in the
`video.” (claims 1–4). ................................................................. 48
`Ground 2: Petitioners Fail To Prove Kellogg In Combination
`With Flinchbaugh And Brill Renders Claims 1–4 And 6–36
`Obvious. .............................................................................................. 50
`Overview of Brill ...................................................................... 50
`Petitioners fail to prove Kellogg and Flinchbaugh teach
`the corresponding limitations in Claims 12–36 that relate
`to those in Claims 1–4, 6–11. .................................................... 52
`
`6.
`
`1.
`2.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Petitioners fail to prove Brill teaches a system or method
`that “determines a first event . . . by analyzing a
`combination of the received determined attributes.” (1–4,
`6–36) ......................................................................................... 53
`Petitioners fail to prove Brill teaches a system or method
`that “determines attributes independent of a selection of
`the first event.” (Claims 1–4, 6–36) .......................................... 54
`Petitioners fail to prove Brill teaches “a first processor
`which analyzes a video to determine attributes” and “a
`second processor, separate from
`the first . . . which
`determines a first event.” (Claims 1–4, 23, 26, 31) .................. 55
`Petitioners fail to prove Kellogg, Flinchbaugh, or Brill
`teach “filtering.” (Claims 23–25, 31–36) .................................. 59
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 62
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2001 Declaration of Michael W. De Vries in Support of Unopposed Motion
`to Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Patent Owner Avigilon Fortress
`Corporation.
`
`2002 Declaration of Adam R. Alper in Support of Unopposed Motion to
`Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Patent Owner Avigilon Fortress
`Corporation.
`
`2003 Declaration of Akshay S. Deoras s in Support of Unopposed Motion to
`Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Patent Owner Avigilon Fortress
`Corporation.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.132 Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger (excerpt of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,868,912 Reexamination).
`
`Thomas Olson & Frank Brill, Moving Object Detection & Event
`Recognition Algorithms for Smart Cameras, 1 PROC. 1997 IMAGE
`UNDERSTANDING WORKSHOP 159-175 (1997).
`
`Jonathan D. Courtney, Automatic Video Indexing Via Object Motion
`Analysis, 30(4) PATTERN RECOGNITION 607-625 (1997).
`
`Patent Application No. 09/987707.
`
`2008 U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835 to Brill et al.
`
`2009 Declaration of Jennifer A. Babbitt.
`2010
`SearchWorks Catalog Entry for Thomas Olson & Frank Brill, Moving
`Object Detection & Event Recognition Algorithms for Smart Cameras,
`1 PROC. 1997 IMAGE UNDERSTANDING WORKSHOP 159-175 (1997).
`
`Scanned Cover and Front Matter of Jonathan D. Courtney, Automatic
`Video Indexing Via Object Motion Analysis, 30(4) PATTERN
`RECOGNITION 607-625 (1997))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2011
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Acceleration Bay v. Activision Blizzard,
`908 F.3d 765 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .....................................................................passim
`Axis Comm’ns v. Avigilon Fortress Corp.,
`IPR2018-00138 ............................................................................................passim
`Axis Comm’ns v. Avigilon Fortress Corp.,
`IPR2018-00140 ............................................................................................. 12, 14
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 21
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .......................................................... 17, 18, 19, 20
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 31
`Impax Labs., Inc. v. Aventis Pharms, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 49, 50
`Neil Zeigmann, N.P.Z., Inc. v. Stephens,
`IPR2015-01860, Paper No. 13, 7 (Sept. 6, 2017) ............................................... 32
`Net MoneyIN v. VeriSign,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 15
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................................... 8, 12
`Trintec Indus. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp.,
`295 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 50
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Berman,
`IPR2016-01571, Paper No. 10 (Dec. 14, 2016) .................................................. 31
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 15
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 1, 5
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................................... 31
`Other Authorities
`157 CONG. REC. 2710 (statement of Sen. Grassley) ................................................ 32
`157 CONG. REC. 12992 (Sept. 6, 2011) (statement of Sen. Leahy) ......................... 32
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, 48 (2011) ............................................................................. 32
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Axis Communications AB, Canon Inc., and Canon U.S.A., Inc. (collectively
`
`“Petitioners”) filed this Petition against Avigilon Fortress Corporation’s (“Patent
`
`Owner”) U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912 (Ex. 1001, “the ’912 patent”) seeking to
`
`invalidate the patent as obvious on two grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Under
`
`Ground One, Petitioners assert that the Kellogg and Flinchbaugh references render
`
`claims 1–4 and 6–11 obvious. Under Ground Two, Petitioners assert Kellogg and
`
`Flinchbaugh, combined with the Brill reference, render claims 1–4 and 6–36
`
`obvious. Because Petitioners’ arguments fail on both grounds, trial should not be
`
`instituted on any claim.
`
`The references asserted in this petition fail at least for reasons already
`
`established during reexamination, which involved very similar prior art from the
`
`same group of authors at the same company, Texas Instruments. Petitioners rely on
`
`the Kellogg reference, the Flinchbaugh reference (by Flinchbaugh and Bannon), and
`
`the Brill reference (by Brill and Olson). References from these same authors and
`
`their colleagues, describing the same systems, were at issue and overcome in the
`
`’912 patent reexamination. In ex parte reexamination 90/012,878 (“the ’912 patent
`
`reexamination”), the Office considered U.S. No. 5,969,755 (“Courtney”) (Ex. 1021)
`
`and an article from Olson and Brill, Moving Object Detection & Event Recognition
`
`Algorithms for Smart Cameras, 1 PROC. 1997 IMAGE UNDERSTANDING WORKSHOP
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`159 (“Olson and Brill 1997”) (Ex. 2005), each in combination with a patent to U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,628,835 (“Brill and Olson Patent”) (Ex. 2008). The references
`
`Petitioners chose for the instant Petition are redundant over the reexamination prior
`
`art and suffer from the same key deficiencies that led the Patent Office to reject the
`
`previous challenge.
`
`In particular, the reexamination prior art and the references asserted here—
`
`either alone or in combination—fail to disclose a central requirement of all of the
`
`challenged ’912 patent claims requiring that events be determined by analyzing
`
`attributes. Instead, the alleged event determination process in the asserted prior art
`
`merely describes storage and retrieval of already-determined events, rather than
`
`event determination based on attributes. Indeed, the references asserted here (just
`
`like the references at issue in the reexamination) involve mere event indexing and
`
`retrieval—i.e., searching for or querying a predefined event in an index. Further,
`
`the references fail to teach the claim requirement that the alleged attributes be
`
`determined “independent” of the selection of an event. In the asserted references,
`
`the indexing process ties together the alleged attribute detection and event
`
`determination such that the alleged attribute detection is not independent of the
`
`events or the event determination process. This is the exact type of system the
`
`inventors sought to avoid with the ’912 patent.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`To the extent the current references differ from art previously considered, they
`
`still fail on the merits, as explained below. The Petition also suffers from other fatal
`
`flaws, including that Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the references were
`
`printed publications. Patent Owner therefore respectfully urges the Board to dismiss
`
`this Petition in its entirety.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. The ʼ912 Patent
`The ’912 patent teaches an improved video surveillance system that distills
`
`important information from video, determines events, and generates alarms. Ex.
`
`1001 at 2:41–53.
`
`First, video cameras and other sensors (motion, biometric, RFID, etc.) provide
`
`the initial input data. See id. at 11:39–40, 12:5–6, 12:11–12. Second, a processor
`
`determines “observable attribute[s]” of video camera subjects. See gen. id. at 13:11–
`
`15:35. Algorithms detect people, vehicles, and other items, describe their attributes
`
`(e.g., color, texture, car make or model, human gender, race, stance, etc.), and
`
`determine spatial and temporal attributes (e.g. position, time present, motion and
`
`trajectory). See id. at 13:39–43. The resulting data are “video primitives”—detailed
`
`descriptions of the video data. See id. at 13:14–15. They are concise in
`
`representation, but comprehensive. See id. at 12:53–55. They “should also contain
`
`all relevant information from the video.” See id. at 12:61–63.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Third, a processor evaluates video primitives to determine events that
`
`occurred in the original video data. See id. at 5:51–57. Real-time event detection
`
`might be accomplished via “filtering” performed by “event discriminators,” user-
`
`defined rules that determine an event as a combination or interaction of multiple
`
`characteristic, spatial, or temporal attributes. See id. at 12:47–50; 15:49–55; 20:35–
`
`41. Event discriminators for filtering are defined in a process called “tasking.” Id.
`
`at 12:41–42.
`
`Without tasking, the “video surveillance system operates by detecting and
`
`archiving video primitives and associated video imagery without taking any action.”
`
`Id. at 12:42–45. The patent describes event detection as an analysis based upon
`
`combinations of video primitives. Id. at 16:34–45. For example, for “Show me any
`
`red vehicle,” there are two parts: 1) an object classified as a vehicle; and 2) an object
`
`classified as mostly red. See id. at 16:50–54. Then, combinations of primitives are
`
`analyzed using an array of Boolean operators. See id. at 17:23–24. For example,
`
`“spatial” and “temporal modifier[s]” combine only attributes within a specified
`
`location or timespan, while “object modifier[s]” combine only attributes relating to
`
`specific observed objects. See id. at 17:25–46.
`
`Finally, the system may act in response to an event determination. See id. at
`
`20:53–54. The system may “activat[e] a visual and/or audio alert,” “lock[] a door,”
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`“contact[] a security service,” or generate an “activity record.” See id. at 15:36–38,
`
`16:20, 20:61.
`
`B. Overview of the Claims of the ’912 Patent
`The ’912 patent recites five groups of claims based upon independent claims
`
`1, 6, 9, 12, and 18. Claim 1 recites a system, is similar to independent claims 23, 26,
`
`and 31, and is the basis for dependent claims 2 through 4. Claim 6 also recites a
`
`system, is similar to independent claims 24, 27, and 32, and is the basis for dependent
`
`claims 7 and 8. Claim 9 recites a method, is similar to independent claims 25, 28,
`
`and 33, and is the basis for dependent claims 10 and 11. Claim 12 also recites a
`
`method, is similar to independent claim 29, and is the basis for dependent claims 13
`
`through 17. Claim 18 recites a device, is similar to independent claim 30, and is the
`
`basis for dependent claims 19 through 22. Claim 34 depends upon claim 23. Claim
`
`35 depends upon claim 24. Claim 36 depends upon claim 25.
`
`C. The Petition Proposes Two Obviousness Challenges
`Axis proposes two grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Ground ’912 Patent
`Claims
`1–4, 6–11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1–4, 6–36
`
`Primary
`Reference
`“Visual Memory”
`by Christopher
`James Kellogg
`(“Kellogg,” Ex.
`1003)
`Kellogg
`
`Type
`
`§ 103
`
`
`§ 103
`
`
`Secondary Reference
`
`“Autonomous Scene
`Monitoring” by Bruce
`Flinchbaugh and Tom
`Bannon (“Flinchbaugh,”
`Ex. 1005)
`Flinchbaugh and “Event
`Recognition and Reliability
`Improvements for the
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Autonomous Video
`Surveillance System” by
`Frank Brill et al. (“Brill,”
`Ex. 1004)
`
`
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Grindon, states a person of ordinary skill
`
`(“POSITA”) would have a Bachelor of Science in “electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, or computer science, with approximately two years of
`
`experience or research related to video processing and/or surveillance systems.”
`
`Ex. 1006 at ¶ 62. No explanation or factual basis is provided.
`
`Petitioners’ level of skill is incorrect because it allows for experience in
`
`“video processing” or “surveillance systems,” but does not require both. The field
`
`of the ’912 patent, “Video Surveillance System[s],” relates to both “video
`
`processing” and “surveillance systems”—both are required. See Ex. 1001 at 1:1–
`
`2; see also id. at 5:9 (“the automatic video surveillance system of the invention”).
`
`Further, the ’912 patent indicates a POSITA would be familiar with image
`
`processing techniques such as “moving target detection,” “detecting and tracking
`
`humans,” “blob analysis for trucks, cars, and people,” and “motion-based
`
`segmentation” known at the time of the patent. See Ex. 1001 at 1:27–2:25.
`
`Thus, a POSITA regarding the ’912 patent would have (i) a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`with approximately two years of experience or research in the field of video
`
`surveillance systems or (ii) equivalent training and work experience in the field of
`
`video surveillance systems.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`Single Processor Claims (Claims 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 25, 27–30, 32, 33)1
`Petitioners argue that “[a]s each ground provides a two-processor system that
`
`discloses these claims, any argument by Patent Owner regarding single-processor
`
`systems is irrelevant.” Pet. at 10. Petitioners are incorrect. Not all claims are two-
`
`processor claims. Claim 6, for example, recites only the singular “a processor.” Ex.
`
`1001, claim 6; see Ex. 1016 at 23–24 (explaining original claims 6–22 recite no
`
`second, separate processor). No language in that claim requires two processors, and
`
`Petitioners point to nothing stating otherwise. Patent Owner proposes the Board
`
`follow the plain language of the claims to determine the number of processors recited
`
`in the various claims of the ’912 patent and find that the single-processor claims only
`
`require one processor.
`
`B.
`“Filtering” (Claims 23–25, 31–36)
`As explained by Patent Owner during the ’912 patent reexamination, filtering
`
`“is a particular technique for examining streamed video attributes to determine if
`
`
`1 Dependent claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 13–17, 19–22, 35, and 36 also require no second
`processor.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`certain rules have been satisfied.” Ex. 1016 at 73; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“the inventor’s lexicography governs”). Further,
`
`filtering “has the capability of processing unlimited/unbounded/infinite data streams
`
`. . . such as a real-time data stream.” Id. at 73, 74.
`
`The patent states that “[t]he event discriminators are used to filter the video
`
`primitives to determine if any event occurrences occurred.” Ex. 1001 at 20:39–41.
`
`This is consistent with the purpose of event discriminators. Without tasking,
`
`defining the event discriminators which filter attributes, the system does not
`
`automatically detect events. See id. at 12:40–45. The patent further explains that
`
`during filtering,
`
`the “system cannot fall behind”
`
`in operating on
`
`the
`
`“unlimited/unbounded/infinite data streams.” See id. at 12:59–60; Ex. 1016 at 73.
`
`Petitioners purport to propose the “plain meaning,” but then construe
`
`“filtering” as “to select, process, and/or analyze.” Pet. at 12. This meaning is far
`
`too broad and directly contradicts the patentee’s definition. Certainly not all
`
`“selecting,” “processing,” or “analyzing” qualifies as filtering. Petitioners’ attempt
`
`to broaden the claim language, in an attempt to read it on their relied upon art which
`
`does not perform filtering, should be rejected.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`C.
`“Stream” (Claims 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15–17, 24, 25, 27–29, 32, 33)
`“Stream” should be given its plain meaning. Petitioners’ proposal, “to
`
`transmit or provide a flow (e.g., of data)” is grammatically inconsistent with the
`
`claims. See Pet. at 12. “[S]tream” is a noun in the claims; Petitioners’ proposal is a
`
`verb. See id. Petitioners’ further argument regarding storage being permitted writes
`
`additional language into the term not necessary or supported by the specification and
`
`should be rejected.
`
`D.
`
`“analyzing a combination of the received determined attributes”
`or “wherein analyzing the combination of the received determined
`attributes comprises filtering” (Petitioners’ “Independence
`Argument (1)” Discussion) (Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 16, 18, 23–27,
`29–36)
`Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (1)” is an attempt to broadly construe
`
`the terms “analyzing a combination of the received determined attributes” or
`
`“wherein analyzing the combination of the received determined attributes comprises
`
`filtering” so they improperly encompass the asserted prior art. See id. at 13.
`
`The “analyzing” term should be given its plain meaning. The “filtering” term
`
`should be construed as explained above.
`
`Petitioners contend that “a POSITA would understand the claimed ‘analyzing’
`
`or ‘filtering’ would encompass any process for determining the collected attributes
`
`satisfy an event discriminator, e.g., querying a database.” Id. at 13–14 (emphasis
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`added).2 Petitioners are incorrect because merely querying a database is not
`
`sufficient to disclose either filtering or analyzing as used in the claims.
`
`As above, filtering, consistent with the claims, specification, prosecution, and
`
`reexamination, does not encompass “any process,” nor does it cover querying a
`
`database. When data is stored in a database, and the database is then queried, the
`
`system does not have “the capability of processing unlimited/unbounded/infinite
`
`data streams . . . such as a real-time data stream,” because it is operating on discrete,
`
`stored units of data. See Ex. 1016 at 73–74; Ex. 1001 at 16:36 (“flexible queries on
`
`stored data of various types”). Although the ’912 patent does disclose storing data
`
`in a database, that is a separate embodiment from the “filtering” embodiment. See
`
`Ex. 1001 at 20:33–41 (“if the system is to be used only for real-time event detection,
`
`the archiving step can be skipped”).
`
`Additionally, the “analyzing” term is not disclosed by querying. Analysis to
`
`determine an event is more than mere data retrieval. Claim 1 recites “analyzing a
`
`combination of the received determined attributes.” Ex. 1001, claim 1. As Patent
`
`Owner argued in the ’912 patent reexamination, “the ’912 patent teaches that
`
`multiple detected attributes are to be examined and then, based upon such attributes,
`
`a decision is made as to whether or not certain events occurred.” See Ex. 1016 at
`
`
`2 All emphasis added throughout unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`18; Ex. 1001, claim 1. Indeed, one embodiment employs Boolean operators to
`
`evaluate the results of attribute queries. See Ex. 1001 at 17:23–55; id. at 15:52–54
`
`(describing event discriminators as describing an “interaction” between a
`
`“combination of one or more objects” and “one or more spatial areas”). This active
`
`evaluation of attributes cannot be satisfied simply by retrieving results from a
`
`database.
`
`Petitioners’ construction is also inapplicable to the numerous contexts in
`
`which the term, “analyzes” is used in the specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 5:15
`
`(“analyzing video data”), at 5:54–55 (“inference analysis based on previously
`
`recorded video primitives”), at 6:27 (“video content analysis”), at 7:18 (“housing the
`
`analysis component”), at 8:7–9 (“video primitives can be stored in a storage device
`
`on the back-end platform (2313) for later analysis”). Petitioners’ construction
`
`should be rejected for this additional reason, and the term should be given its plain
`
`meaning.
`
`E.
`
`“Event” (Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (3)” Discussion)
`(Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16–18, 22–36)
`As explicitly defined in the specification, “[a]n ‘event’ refers to one or more
`
`objects engaged in an activity.” Ex. 1001 at 3:44–45.3 Petitioners, however, propose
`
`
`3 Petitioners agreed with this construction in the Petition for Axis Comm’ns v.
`Avigilon Fortress Corp., IPR2018-00138 regarding a child patent of the ’912
`patent. There, U.S. Patent No. 8,564,661 defined an “event” as “one or more
`objects engaged in an activity” and Petitioners adopted that construction. See
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`an “event comprises a minimum of two attributes.” See Pet. at 16. The case law is
`
`unambiguous that “the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.
`
`Petitioners’ proposed construction should be rejected in favor of the applicant’s
`
`definition.
`
`F.
`
`“Independent” (Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (2)”
`Discussion) (Claims 1, 6, 9, 15, 18, 23–28, 30–33)
`Certain of the ’912 patent claims recite a “first processor [which] determines
`
`attributes independent of a selection of a first event by the second processor.” See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001, claim 1. Independent means the attributes are detected without regard
`
`to or knowledge of events or selection of events.
`
`In the Axis Comm’ns v. Avigilon Fortress Corp., IPR2018-00138 and
`
`IPR2018-00140 institution decisions, the Board construed the “independent” term
`
`in the claims of the related U.S. Patent 8,564,661 (“the ’661 patent”) (Ex. 1035) as
`
`meaning that “attributes are detected without regard to or knowledge of events.”4
`
`IPR2018-00138, Paper No. 8 at 10; IPR2019-00140, Paper No. 8 at 10. The Board
`
`drew this conclusion for two reasons. First, the ’661 patent “describe[d] two
`
`
`IPR2018-00138, Petition at 14 (“an ‘event’ should be construed as ‘one or more
`objects engaged in an activity.’”); see also Ex. 1001 at 3:44–45 (“An ‘event’
`refers to one or more objects engaged in an activity.”).
`4 Although the claims of the ’912 and ’661 patents contain some differences, and
`there is no terminal disclaimer from one patent to the other, the Board’s
`construction of the “independent” term should also apply in this proceeding, as
`described and modified below.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`different and distinct steps of detecting attributes and tasking event discriminators.”
`
`Id. (citing ’661 patent at 16:24–30). Second, the patent explained “detecting video
`
`primitives or attributes may be performed without tasking any event discriminators.”
`
`Id. (citing ’661 patent at 16:24–30). These reasons also apply to the ’912 patent,
`
`which contain the same specification statements: “[t]asking the video surveillance
`
`system involves specifying one or more event discriminators. Without tasking, the
`
`video surveillance system operates by detecting and archiving video primitives and
`
`associated video imagery without taking any action.” Compare Ex. 1001 at 12:41–
`
`45 with Ex. 1035 at 16:24–30. Thus, without tasking particular event determination,
`
`the attribute detection process still operates to independently detect the attributes.
`
`The ’912 patent further explains “video primitives should also contain all relevant
`
`information from the video, since at the time of extracting the video primitives, the
`
`user-defined rules are not known to the system.” Ex. 1001 at 12:61–65.
`
`Additionally, as Patent Owner’s expert in the ’912 patent reexamination, Dr.
`
`Zeger, explained, “the choice of which attributes the system is configured to detect
`
`is not dictated/determined by which events the system might be later tasked to
`
`identify.” See Ex. [ZEGER] at 11.
`
`Patent Owner proposes a slight alteration to the construction the Board
`
`adopted by appending the phrase “or selection of events.” This addition adds an
`
`important point consistent with the claim language, because not only are attributes
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`“detected without regard to or knowledge of events,” but also without regard to or
`
`knowledge of the process of selecting the event. See IPR2018-00138, Paper No. 8
`
`at 10; IPR2018-00140, Paper No. 8 at 10; Ex. 1001, claim 1 (“determin[ing]
`
`attributes independent of a selection of a first event”). Thus, “independent” means
`
`the attributes are detected without regard to or knowledge of events or selection of
`
`events.
`
`Petitioners propose a variety of constructions, none of which is correct. First,
`
`Petitioners propose
`
`the
`
`term should “be understood
`
`to require
`
`that
`
`the
`
`detection/determination of attributes be independent from, i.e., not affected by, the
`
`selected event.” Pet. at 17. Then Petitioners propose “the definition of the event
`
`does not alter the attributes that are collected.” Id. Then again, Petitioners propose
`
`“this limitation merely requires the event detection/determination process does not
`
`alter the attribute detection/determination process.” Id. The subjects of Petitioners’
`
`constructions
`
`alternate
`
`between
`
`the
`
`“attributes”
`
`and
`
`“the
`
`attribute
`
`detection/determination
`
`process”
`
`and
`
`the
`
`“event”
`
`and
`
`the
`
`“event
`
`detection/determination process.” See id. Thus, Petitioners’ proposal should be
`
`rejected.
`
`G.
`“Analyzing only the attributes” (Claims 3, 8, 11)
`“Analyzing only the attributes” should be interpreted according to its plain
`
`meaning. Petitioners seek to construe this term as “only exclude[ing] systems that
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00235
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`require every query to analyze abstractions.” Pet. at 21, 22. Thus, Petitioners believe
`
`“[s]ystems that allow detection of an event by applying the query to only the
`
`attributes themselves, however, are encompassed by these claims.”