IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OF'FICE
`
`Control No.: Unassigned
`
`r nventor:
`
`Peter L. VENETIANER et al.
`
`Patent No.:
`
`7,868,912
`
`fssued:
`
`January 11, 2011
`
`Title:
`
`VIDEO SURVEILLANCE
`SYSTEM EMPLOYING
`VIDEO PRIMITIVES
`
`Filing Date: April 5, 2005
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Central Reexamination Unit
`Office of Patent Legal Administration
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`ATTACHMENT TO REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION (FORM PTO(cid:173)
`SB/57; PTO-1465) PROVIDING INFORMATION ON U.S. PATENT NO. 7,868,912
`
`Pursuant to the provisions of35 U.S.C. §§ 302-307 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.510, the
`
`undersigned, on behalf of an anonymous Requester, requests ex parte reexamination of claims 1-
`
`22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912 ("the '912 Patent").
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`L
`
`II.
`
`CLAIMS FOR \VHICH REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED ............ , ........ ,,., ... ,.,,., ... ., ... J
`COPY OF '912 PATENT PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R .. § 1.510(b)(4),.,..,.,.,.,,.,.-. .,, .... , ....... .,J
`
`III. CERTIFICATION REGARDING 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) AND 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(l) ,..,.,.1
`
`IV. PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO THE '912 PATENT ............................. ,,_,..; .. ,.,..,., .. , .... ,._, .. l
`
`V.
`
`'912 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION ........... , .. .,, ...... .,., ....... , ........ , .. ,.,..,.,., ................... .,3
`
`VI. CITATION OF PRIOR PATENTS AND PRINTED PUBLICATIONS ....................... ,.,,,12
`
`VIL STATEMENT POINTING OUT SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTIONS OF
`PA TENT ABILITY ............. ".,.,. ...................... ., .......... , .. ., ... , .. ,.,, .... , ...... , .. , ... .,., ......... __ ...................... , 15
`A. Proposed Rejection 1: Claims 1 to 3 and 6 to 22 are anticipated by Gilge under 35 U.S.C.
`§ l 02 .................................. ,. ., . .,,.,, .. , ...... , ... ,, ... , ......... ,,., .. , ......... ,,.., .. .," ·•·•,. ,,., . , .... , ., . , .... ,. ................. 17
`
`B. Proposed Rejection 2: Claims 1 to 4 and 6 to 22 are anticipated by Lipton et al. under 35
`U. S.C. § 102 .. ,. ......... ., .. , , ...... , . , ... ,. ..................... ., ..... ., ......... ,. ,,, .. , .............. , ... ., .... , .... ,. __ ................. 22
`
`C. Proposed Rejection 3: Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 22 are anticipated
`by Courtney under 35 U.S.C. § 102 .................... , ..... _. ..... .,.,,,. ... , .... .._ . .,,., .. ,,.,., ... ,. ......................... 26
`
`D. Proposed R~jection 4: Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 22 are anticipated
`by Olson et al. under 35 U .S.C. § 102 ., ... , ....................... ,.,. ...... , ... ,., .. ,, , .................................... 31
`
`E. Proposed Rejection 5: Claims 1 to 3 and 6 to 22 are unpatentable in view of the
`combination of Giige and Brill under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ... , .... , ....... ,.,,., .. , ........................... ,.,. ....... 34
`
`Proposed Rejection 6: Claims 1 to 3 and 6 to 22 are unpatentable in view of the
`F,
`combination of Lipton et al. and Brill under 35 U.S.C. § 103,. ............ ,. .......... , ...... ,. ... ,. .... .,., ... 38
`
`G. Proposed Rejection 7: Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 22 are unpatentable
`in view of the combination of Courtney and Brill Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................. .39
`
`H. Proposed Rejection 8: Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 22 are unpatentable
`in view of the combination of Olson et al. and Brill under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................ .40
`
`Proposed Rejection 9: Claims 1 to 3 and 6 to 22 are unpatentable in view of the
`I.
`combination of Gilge and Day under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .......... , .... ,., . .,., ..................................... ..41
`
`Proposed Rejection 10: Claims 1 to 4 and 6 to 22 are unpatentable in view of the
`J.
`combination of Lipton et al. and Day under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ......... ,. .. , .............................. .,., .... 45
`
`K. Proposed Rejection 11: Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 22 are
`unpatentabie in view ofthe combination of Courtney and Day under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .......... .46
`
`Proposed Rejection 12: Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 22 are unpatentable
`L.
`in view of the combination of Olson et aL and Day under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................. 47
`
`M. Proposed Rejection 13: Claim 5 is unpatentable in view of the combination of Gilge and
`JP '783 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...... ., .... , ........................ ,, .. , ......... ,.·,."., ...... ,. ....... ., ... ,. ... ,., ....... .,,.,.,.4•8
`
`N. Proposed Rejection 14: Claim 5 is unpatentable in view of the combination of Lipton et
`al. and JP '783 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................ ., ..... ., .... ,. ............. ,., .. .-.. ,.,. .... ., ........ ., .... ,.,., ...... 50
`
`

`

`0. Proposed Rejection 15: Claim 5 is unpatentable in view of the combination of Courtney
`and JP '783 under 35 lJ.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................ 51
`
`Proposed Rejection 16: Claim 5 is unpatentable in view of the combination of Olson et al.
`P.
`and JP '783 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................ 52
`
`Q. Proposed Rejection 17: Claim 5 is unpatentable in view of the combination of Gilge, Brill
`and JP '783 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................ 53
`
`R. Proposed Rejection 18: Claim 5 is unpatentable in view of the combination of Lipton et
`al., Brill and JP '783 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ,,, .. ,.,.., ... ,.., .... .-,.,.,.,.., ... ,., . .,_, ... -. ... , ... ,.,, ... ,_,.", ... , .. 53
`Proposed Rejection 19: Claim 5 is Unpatentable in view of the combination of Courtney,
`S.
`Brill and JP '783 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ........... .,, ..... ,.,. ..... ,, .•..... , .. , .•... ,.,,.,., ...... ,., ....... ,,., ........ 54
`T. Proposed Rejection 20: Claim 5 is unpatentable in view of the combination of Olson et
`al., Brill and JP '783 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .. , .. ,.,. ....... ,. ..... ,..,.,. ... .,, ..... ,.,.., ............... ,_,.,"., ...... 55
`
`U. Proposed Rejection 21: Claim 5 is unpatentable in view of the combination of Gilge, Day
`and JP '783 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .......... ,. .......... ., ................ , .... ., ... ,.,. ..... "., ... , ........ , .. , ... -.., ... , .. ,,..56
`
`V. Proposed Rejection 22: Claim 5 is unpatentable in view of the combination of Lipton et
`al., Day and JP '783 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................................. 57
`vV. Proposed Rejection 23: Claim 5 is unpatentable in view of the combination of Courtney,
`Day and JP '783 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ..... , .... , .... , .............. .,, ...... ,.,,,..,.,."., .•. ,,, .. ,.,., .... ,., ...... .-,,,.57
`
`X. Proposed Rejection 24: Claim 5 is unpatentable in view of the combination of Olson et
`al., Day and JP '783 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ........ ,..,.,., .. , ... ., .... ,. . .,., .. , .. .,.,,,, ............ ,. ... ,.,.,.,. ... ,.,.58
`
`VIII. EXPLANATION OF PERTINENCY AND MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR
`ART TO EVERY CLAIM FOR WHICH REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED UNDER 37
`CFR § 1.510(b)(2) ......................................................................................................................... 59
`
`IX. COMMENTS ON PATENT O\VNER'S AMENDMENT AND REPLY IN RELATED
`PROCEEDING .............................................................................................................................. 60
`
`A. Comments On Patent Owner's Remarks ........................................................................... 60
`
`Patent Owner Is Not Entitled To A Priority Date Before Earlier Than The '912 Patent
`1.
`Filing Date ... ,. .. ,, ... ,. ., .. , .... , . , .. , .... , ... ,,.,.,. ... , .. , .. ,. , .. .,, ... , ... ,. , ..... ,,. , ... , .... , ... .,.,,, .................. , ............... 61
`
`2. The Rejections Based On Gilge and Lipton et al. Were Substantively Uncontested In
`The '912 Reexamination ........................................................................................................ 77
`
`Patent Owner's Arguments Against The Rejection Of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13,
`3.
`15 to 20, And 22 As Anticipated By Courtney Lack Merit.. ................................................. 77
`
`Patent Owner's Arguments Against the Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15
`4.
`to 20, and 22 As Anticipated by Olson et al. Lack Merit ...................................................... 87
`B. Comments On New Claims Presented In The '912 Reexamination ... .,.,.,,, ... .,., ..... .,.,. ..... ,95
`1.. Claim 23 ........................................................................................................ , ............. ,., .. 96
`2.~ Clain1s 46-49 .................................. ,. ~ .. ~.-- , .. , ..... ,, .. ,. ......... ,,,,.,. .. ,.. , .. -~ .. ,. .. ,.~~. , ............ ~ ...... ,, .......... ,., ............. ,_, .................. 96
`3. Clai1n 50 ............................................ ,, ................. .,.,, .................. ,. ... ,. , ..... .,. ,., .... ,. , .... , ., . ,, . 99
`
`4. Clai1n 51 .......... ",. ... " ,. .. " ...... " , .... , .. ,. ... " ... " , ...... " ,.,. ., . ,. , ... , ... ,. , ... ,.., . , ......... ",. ..... , ............... 99
`
`ii
`
`

`

`5. Clailn 52 .............. ,. ..................... ,. ............. , ... , , .. , . , .. ,.,.,.,. ., .•. , .... , .......... , ........ , ,.,. .... ,.,. ,. .... ._. .... 99
`6. Claim 53 .................. ,, ....... ,., .,.,, ........... .,.,. .... ., .............. ,. ......... ,. ,. ,. ,, ., . , .. , .. ,. ,, ., ... ,. ",.,. ., ., ., 100
`7. Claim 54., ..... ., .......... , ............. , ... ,..,., ..... ,. .,., .,. ,. ,.,, ......... .,.,, .............................................. JO 1
`8. Claim 5 5 ................ .,.,, ... ,.,, .... ., ........ ., ......... , ...... ,., ., ..... ,. ,, ., . ,. , .... , .... , .. ,.,, ... , ... , . .,.,, ... ,. .......... 102
`9. Claim 56 ......................................................................................... ,.,,, ........ ,., .............. , .. 102
`Claims 57 to 67 .................................................. , .. , ................... .,.,.,.,, ........ ,.. ·"·•• ........ __ 102
`10.
`11.
`Clahns 68 to 79 ......... ., ................... " ...... ., ............... ,. ... , ... , .......... ,.,., ..................... "..,. ... 103
`Claims 80 to 90 ................. ,, ..... ,. ,.,. .................................................. , ., .......... ,., .... ,. ,.,, ., 103
`12.
`13.
`Claims 91 to 101 , ... ,. ... ,., ... ,. ....... ,..,.,.,.,.,,., .... ., ........ , ........ ,. ........ , ............................... 104
`14.
`Claim 24 .......................... .,, .............. , ...... , ............. ,. ,.,. ,. ., . ,. .. ,. .......... ,.,. ...... ,.,. .......... ., .. 104
`15.
`Claim 25 ....................... .,, .•. ,.,, .................................................... , ........... , ..... ,. ., .,., .... ., .. 104
`16.
`Clahn 26 ................................ ,. , .. ,. , .. , . ,. , ...... ,.,.,.,. ... , ,; . .,. ,., ...... , . ., .... ., ................................ 104
`Claim 29 ........................................................... ,. .. ,. , .. ,. , .. , . , .. , ............. , .... , ., .. , .... , ., ., ....... 106
`17.
`18.
`Claim 31 ................................ ,, ................................................ ,. ......................... ,.,.,. .. 106
`19.
`Claim 34 ........................................................ , . ,.· .. , . .,., ....... ,, ........ , ..... ,.,.,., .................... 106
`20.
`Claims 37-41 ................. , ..................... ,, .................................... , ............... , ......... , ... , .. , 107
`21.
`Clahns 42 and 43 ............. , ........ , .. ,, .. ., .,.,.,., .. , .... , ............ ,,,.,. .............................. ,. ....... 107
`Claims 44 and 45 ..................................................... , ...... ,., ........ , ... ,., .... , .. , ... ,., .. , .. , .... 108
`22.
`23.
`Proposed Grounds Of Rejection For New Claims ................... '. ...... , ................... , ..... 108
`CONCLUSION ......... .,. ...... ,,.,. .......... , .... , ... , ............... ,.,., ... , ....... ,.,..,., .......... "•"" ...................... 112
`
`X.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`LISTING OF ATTACHMENTS
`
`Attachment A: Copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912, for which reexamination is requested
`
`Attachment B: Gennan Patent Publication No. DE 101 53 484 Al ("Gilge")
`
`Attachment C: Certified translation of Gilge
`
`Attachment D: Lipton et al., "ObjectVideo Forensics: Activity-Based Video Indexing and
`Retrieval For Physical Security Applications," Intelligent Distributed
`Surveillance Systems (IDSS-04), The IEE, Savoy Place, London, U.K.,
`Febmary 23, 2004.
`("Lipton et al.')
`
`Attachment E: U.S. Patent No. 5,969,755 ("Courtney")
`
`Attachment F: Olson et al, "Moving Object Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms for
`Smart Cameras" Proceedings of the 1997 Image Understanding Workshop, New
`Orleans, May 1997, pp. 159-175. ("Olson et al.")
`
`Attachment G: U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835 ("Brill et al.")
`
`Attachment H: Day et al., "Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data," Proceedings
`of the Eleventh International Conference on Data Engineering, pp. 401-408.
`IEEE March, 1995 ("Day")
`
`Attachment I: Japanese Published Patent Application No. 1997-130783 ("JP '783")
`
`Attachment .J: Certified translation of JP '783
`
`Attachment K: Claim Chart - Claims 1 to 3 and 6 to 22 are Anticipated by Gilge Under 35
`USC§ 102
`
`Attachment L: Claim Chart - Claims 1 to 4 and 6 to 22 are Anticipated by Lipton et al. Under
`35 USC§ 102
`
`Attachment M: Claim Chart - Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 22 Are Anticipated
`by Courtney Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`Attachment N: Claim Chart - Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 22 are Anticipated
`by Olson et al. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`Attachment 0: Claim Chart - Claims 1 to 3 and 6 to 22 are Unpatentable in view of the
`combination of Gilge and Brill Under 35 USC § 103
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Attachment P: Claim Chart - Claims 1 to 4 and 6 to 22 are Unpatentable in view of the
`combination of Lipton et al. and Brill Under 35 USC§ 103
`
`Attachment Q: Claim Chart - Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 22 are
`Unpatentable in view of the combination of Courtney and Brill Under 35 USC§
`103
`
`Attachment R: Claim Chart - Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 22 are Unpatentable
`in view of the combination of Olson et al. and Brill Under 35 USC§ 103
`
`Attachment S: Claim Chart - Claims 1 to 3 and 6 to 22 are Unpatentable in view of the
`combination of Gilge and Day Under 35 USC § 103
`
`Attachment T: Claim Chart - Claims 1 to 4 and 6 to 22 are lJnpatentable in view of the
`combination of Lipton et al. and Day Under 35 USC § 103
`
`Attadunent U: Claim Cha11 - Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 22 are Unpatentable
`in view of the combination of Courtney and Day Under 35 USC § 103
`
`Attachment V: Claim Chart - Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 22 are Unpatentable
`in view of the combination of Olson et al. and Day Under 35 USC§ 103
`
`Attachment X: Claim Chart - Claim 5 is Unpatentable in view of the combination of JP '783
`with any of Gilge, Gilge combined with Brill, and/or Gilge combined with Day
`
`Attachment Y: Claim Chart - Claim 5 is Unpatentable in view of the combination of JP '783
`with any of Lipton et al., Lipton et al. combined with Brill, and/or Lipton et al.
`combined with Day
`
`Attachment Z: Claim Chart - Claim 5 is lJnpatentable in view of the combination of JP '783
`with any of Courtney, Courtney combined with Brill, and/or Courtney
`combined with Day
`
`Attachment AA: Claim Chart - Claim 5 is Unpatentable in view of the combination of JP '783
`with any of Olson et al., Olson et al. combined with Brill, and/or Olson et al.
`combined with Day
`
`V
`
`

`

`t
`
`CLAIMS FOR WHICH REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED
`
`Reexamination is requested of claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912 ("the '912
`
`Patent").
`
`Pursuant to 3 7 C.F.R. § 1.51 O(b )(5), the attached Certificate of Service indicates that a
`
`copy of this Request, in its entirety, has been served on Patent Owner at the following address of
`
`the attorney of record for Patent Owner, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.33(c).
`
`ROTH\VELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W.
`SUITE 800
`vV ASHINGTON DC 20005
`Also submitted herewith is the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § l.20(c)(1).
`
`II.
`
`COPY OF '912 PATENT PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(4)
`
`A copy ofthe entire patent is attached to this Request as Attachment A, as required by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.51 O(b )( 4). Requester is not aware of any disclaimer, certificate of c01Tection, or
`
`reexamination certificate issued with respect to the '912 Patent.
`
`III.
`
`CERTIFICATION REGARDING 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) AND 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1)
`
`As required by 37 C.F.R. §l.510(b)(6), Requester certifies that the statutory estoppel
`
`provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) or 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(l) do not prohibit the Requester from
`
`filing this ex parte reexamination request.
`
`IV.
`
`PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO THE '912 PATENT
`
`The '912 patent issued on January 11, 2011 from U.S. Patent Application Serial No.
`
`11/098,385 ("the '385 application"), filed April 5, 2005, and states on its face that it is a
`
`continuation-in-part oflJ.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/057,154 ("the '154 application"),
`
`filed February 15, 2005, which is stated to be a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application
`
`Serial No. 09/987,707 ("the '707 application"), filed November 15, 2001 and now abandoned,
`
`which is stated to be a continuation-in--part of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/694,712
`
`("the '712 application"), filed October 24, 2000 and issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,954,498 ("the
`
`'498 patent").
`
`

`

`A request for inter partes reexamination of the '912 Patent was filed on February 29,
`
`2012, naming Bosch Security Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of Robert Bosch GMBH, as requester.
`
`On April 10, 2012, the Patent Office granted the request for inter partes reexamination. That
`
`inter partes reexamination proceeding was assigned reexamination Control No. 95i001,912 ("the
`
`'912 reexamination"). In the Order granting the inter partes reexamination, the Patent Office
`
`determined the following issues proposed in the request had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`
`(RLP):
`
`Claims l to 3 and 6 to 22 are Anticipated by Gi1ge Under 35 USC s 102 (Issue 1)
`
`Claims l to 4 and 6 to 22 are Anticipated by Lipton Under 35 USC s 102 (Issue 2)
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 22 Are Anticipated by Courtney Under 35
`
`U.S.C. s 102 (Issue 5)
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 22 are Anticipated by Olson et al. Under 35
`
`U.S.C. 102 (Issue 12)
`
`(See '912 Reexamination, April 10, 2012 Office Action at p. 3; see also April 20, 2012
`
`Order.)
`
`On December 3, 2012, the Patent Owner filed a "Petition to Tem1i11ate Reexamination
`
`Proceeding Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 CFR §§ 1.182, 1.907(b)" in the '912
`
`reexamination. As grounds for the petition, Patent Owner identifies a "Stipulation and
`
`(Proposed) Order of Dismissal" submitted in Civil Action No. 3:llcv217 (E.D. Va.), styled
`
`Object Video, Inc. v. Robert Bosch GmbH, et al. 1 The petition indicates:
`
`The Order stated: ( 1) "The parties jointly request that this Court
`dismiss al! claims asserted between them, with prejudice to the
`right to pursue any such claims in the future," (2) "The parties
`further stipulate and request that the Court order that the Bosch
`Defendants, namely Robert Bosch GmbH and Bosch Security
`Systems, Inc., have not sustained their burden of proving invalidity
`of any of the claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 6,970,083, any of the
`claims 1-37 of U.S. Patent No. 6,696,945, any of the claims 1-22
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912, any of claims 1-41 of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,932,923, and any of the claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,613,324' and (3) "This Order is a final and non-appealable
`
`1 The petition indicated that the action in the Eastern District of Virginia "had been stayed in its
`entirety pending the disposition of an ITC investigation (No.337-TA-795)." (Petition at p. 1.)
`
`2
`
`

`

`decision." (December 3, 2012 Petition, Control No. 95/001/914, at
`pp. 2-3)
`
`The petition proceeded to allege that:
`
`On November 13, 2012, the US. District Court for the Eastern
`District of Virginia signed the Order containing the above-quoted
`language. Exhibit 6 at 3, ("IT IS SO ORDERED,"). (December 3,
`2012 Petition, Control No. 95/001,912, at p. 3)
`
`On February 13, 2013, the Patent Office issued a Decision Granting Petition to Tem1inate
`
`Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding in the '912 Reexamination.
`
`Prior to the filing of the petition, Patent Owner filed an Amendment and Reply on June
`
`11, 2012 in the '912 reexamination. Requester Bosch Security Systems submitted Comments in
`
`response the Amendment and Reply on October 31, 2012. As of the date of the Decision
`
`Granting Petition to Terminate Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding, the Office had not acted
`
`on the Amendment and Reply.
`
`V.
`
`'912 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`The following summary of the '912 Patent and its original prosecution history is
`
`incorporated herein substantially as set forth in the '912 reexamination request.
`
`The application for the '912 Patent, the '385 application, was filed on April 5, 2005. As
`
`originally filed, the '385 application contained twenty-six claims, of which claims 1 and 18 were
`
`the only independent claims. Application claims 1 and 18 as filed are reproduced below:
`
`1. A video processing apparatus comprising:
`
`a video content analysis module to analyze an input video
`sequence and to derive at least
`
`one video primitive; and
`
`a video encoder to receive said input video sequence and to
`output compressed video.
`
`18. A method of video processing comprising:
`
`detecting whether or not there are one or more activities in
`a video sequence;
`
`encoding a video sequence to obtain encoded video; and
`
`transmitting said encoded video;
`
`3
`
`

`

`wherein at least one of the group consrntrng of said
`encoding and said transmitting depends upon at least one result of
`said detecting.
`
`On December 23, 2007, the applicants filed a Preliminary Amendment adding six new
`
`paragraphs to the specification of the '385 application. The new paragraphs ,vere numbered
`
`144.1 to 144.6 for insertion into the specification following paragraph 144, and are reproduced
`
`below:
`
`[ 144. l] In block 31, one or more objects types of interests are
`identified in tem1s of video primitives or abstractions thereo[
`Examples of one or more objects include: an object; a person; a red
`object; two objects; two persons; and a vehicle.
`
`[144.2] rn block 32, one or more spatial areas of interest are
`identified, An area refers to one or more portions of an image from
`a source video or a spatial portion of a scene being viewed by a
`video sensor. An area also includes a combination of areas from
`various scenes and/or images. An area can be an image- based
`space (e.g., a line, a rectangle, a polygon, or a circle in a video
`image) or a three-dimensional space (e,g., a cube, or an area of
`floor space in a building).
`
`[ 144,3] Figure 12 illustrates identifying areas along an aisle in a
`grocery store. Four areas are identified: coffoe; soda promotion;
`chips snacks; and bottled water. The areas are identified via a
`point-and-dick interface with the system,
`
`[144.4] rn block 33, one or more temporal attributes of interest are
`. optionally identified. Examples of a temporal attribute include:
`every 15 minutes; between 9:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.rn.; less than 5
`minutes; longer than 30 seconds; over the weekend; and within 20
`minutes of.
`[ 144.5] In block 34, a response is optionally identified. Examples
`of a response includes the following: activating a visual and/or
`audio alert on a system display; activating a visual and/or audio
`alarm system at the location; activating a silent alann; activating a
`rapid response mechanism; locking a door; contacting a security
`service; forwarding data (e.g., image data, video data, video
`primitives; and/or analyzed data) to another computer system via a
`network, such as the Internet; saving such data to a designated
`computer-readable medium; activating some other sensor or
`surveillance system; tasking the computer system 11 and/or
`another cornputer system; and directing the computer systern 11
`and/or another computer system.
`
`4
`
`

`

`[144.6] In block 35, one or more discri.minators are identlfied by
`describing
`interactions between video primitives
`( or
`their
`abstractions), spatial areas of interest, and temporal attributes of
`interest An interaction is detem1ined for a combi11ation of one or
`more objects identified in block 31, one or more spatial areas of
`interest identified in block 32, and one or more temporal attributes
`of interest identified in block 33. One or more responses identified
`in block 34 are optlonally associated with each event discrirninator.
`
`In the first Office Action, mailed on August 20, 2009, the Examiner rejected claims 25
`
`and 26 for failure to recite statutory subject matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Examiner
`
`also rejected claims 1 to 8 and 18 to 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,227,893 ("Srinivasa et al."). The Examiner further rejected claims 9 to 17, 25, and
`
`26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in vie·w of the combination of Srinivasa et aL
`
`and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0161133 ("Elazar et al."). Additionally, the Examiner
`
`rejected claims 22 to 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of the
`
`combination of Srinivasa et aL and U.S. Patent No. 7,197,072 ("Hsu et al.").
`
`According to the prosecution history of the '385 application, the applicants held an
`
`interview with the Examiner on November 24, 2009 to "discuss[] newly added claims 27- 70."
`
`(Interview Smnmary mailed December 2, 2009, page 1.) In an "Amendment and Interview
`
`Summary" filed December 22, 2009, the applicants cancelled claims 1 to 26 and added new
`
`claims 27 to 53. The applicants stated that "[s]upport for these new claims can be found
`
`throughout the disclosure, including without limitation, for example with Figures 23, 24 and 25
`
`and the corresponding description starting at paragraph [0087]" on page 9 of the Arnendment and
`
`Interview Summary. Of the newly added claims, claims 27, 33, 37, 41, and 48 are the only
`
`independent claims; claims 27, 33, 37, 41, and 48 as presented are reproduced below:
`
`27. A video system comprising:
`
`a first processor which analyzes a video to determine
`attributes of objects detected in the video, the first processor being
`in communication with a first cormmmications link to transfer the
`determined attributes over the communications link; and
`
`a second processor, separate from the first processor, in
`communication with the first communications link to receive the
`determined attributes transferred from the first processor over the
`first communications link, which detennines a first event that is
`not one of the determined attributes by analyzing a combination of
`the received detennined attributes
`
`5
`
`

`

`attributes
`processor determines
`first
`the
`wherein
`independent of a selection of the first event by the second
`processor.
`
`3 3. A video system, comprising:
`
`an input in communication with a communications cha1mel;
`
`a processor configured to receive from the input a stream of
`detected attributes received over the communications channel, the
`attributes being attributes of one or more objects detected in a
`video, the processor configured to detem1ine an event that is not
`one of the detected attributes by analyzing a combination of the
`received attributes,
`
`wherein the attributes received over the communications
`channel are independent of the event to be determined by the
`processor.
`
`3 7. A method of detecting an event from a video,
`compnsmg:
`
`stream of detected attributes over a
`rece1vmg a
`communications channel,
`the detected attributes representing
`attributes of an object detected in a video;
`
`performing an analysis of a combination of the detected
`attributes to detect an event that is not one of the detected
`attributes,
`
`wherein the detected attributes received in the stream of
`attributes are independent of a selection of the event to be detected.
`
`41. A method comprising:
`
`analyzing a video to detect an object;
`
`creating a stream of attributes at a first location by
`determining attributes of the detected object by analyzing the
`video;
`
`transmitting the stream of attributes to a second location
`removed from the first location for subsequent analysis,
`
`wherein the stream of attributes are transmitted to the
`second location over a cormnunications channel, and
`
`wherein the stream of attributes is sufficient to allow the
`subsequent analysis to detect an event of the video, the event not
`being one of the determined attributes.
`
`6
`
`

`

`48. A video device, comprising:
`
`a processor which analyzes a video to detect an object and
`to determine attributes of the object detected in the video;
`
`an output configured to transmit the attributes detennined
`by the processor over a cornmunications link,
`
`wherein the output is configured to transmit the attributes
`to a second location removed from the processor for a subsequent
`analysis of a combination of the attributes at the second location,
`
`wherein the processor detennines attributes independently
`of a subsequent analysis of a combination of attributes
`to
`determine an event that is not one of the determined attributes, and
`
`wherein the attributes are sufficient to allow detection of an
`event that is not one of the determined attributes by analyzing the
`combination of the attributes.
`
`Thereafter, the Examiner issued a Final Office Action, mailed March 22, 2010. In the
`
`Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected daims 27 to 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7,447,331 ("Brown et al."), According to the prosecution history
`
`of the '385 application, the applicants heid another interview with the Examiner on July 22, 2010
`
`and discussed "[a]mendments to claim 27 by incorporated claim 30 and an action taken response
`
`to the detected event." (Interview Summary mailed July 27, 2010, page 1.) Subsequently, in an
`
`"Amendment and Interview Summary" filed July 29, 2010, the applicants cancelled claims 30,
`
`36, 40, 46, and 52, and amended independent claims 27, 33, 37, 41, and 48. The amended
`
`independent claims are reproduced below:
`
`27. A video system comprising:
`
`a first processor which analyzes a video to determine
`attributes of objects detected in the video, the first processor being
`in communication with a first communications link to transfer the
`detennined attributes over the communications link; and
`
`a second processor, separate frorn the first processor, in
`communication with the first communications link to receive the
`detem1ined attributes transferred from the first processor over the
`first communications link, which determines a first event that is
`not one of the detennined attributes by analyzing a combination of
`the received determined attributes and which prnvides., in.response
`to a determination of the first event, at least. one __ of_an __ alert to a
`user, infonnation for a report, and an instruction for taking an
`action,
`
`7
`
`

`

`wherein
`independent of
`processor, and
`
`attributes
`processor determines
`first
`the
`a selection of the first event by the second
`
`wherein the second processor detennines the first event
`without reprocessing the video analyzed by the first processor.
`
`3 3. A video system, comprising:
`
`an input in communication with a communications channel;
`
`a processor configured to receive from the input a stream of
`detected attributes received over the communications channel, the
`attributes being attributes of one or more objects detected in a
`video, the processor configured to determine an event that is not
`one of the detected attributes by analyzing a combination of the
`received attributes and configured to p