`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`——————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`——————————
`
`Axis Communications AB, Canon Inc., and Canon U.S.A., Inc.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`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
`——————————
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
` I.
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ...................................................................... 1
`III.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES.................................................... 1
`A.
`Claims for Which Review is Requested ................................................ 1
`B.
`The Prior Art and Specific Grounds on Which the Challenge to
`the Claims is Based ............................................................................... 1
`C. How the Challenged Claims are Unpatentable ..................................... 3
`D.
`Supporting Evidence ............................................................................. 3
`IV. THE ’912 PATENT ........................................................................................ 4
`A. Overview ............................................................................................... 4
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 6
`Original Examination .................................................................. 6
`Reexaminations ........................................................................... 7
`Prior Proceedings Involving Related Patents.............................. 8
`Level of Skill ......................................................................................... 9
`C.
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS........................................................................ 9
`A.
`Single Processor Arguments (claims 6-22) .........................................10
`B.
`“filtering” (claims 23-25, 31-36) .........................................................10
`C.
`“stream” (claims 6-17, 20-21, 24-25, 27-29, 32-33, 35-36) ...............12
`D.
`Independence-based limitations (claims 1-4, 6-36) ............................13
`Independence Argument (1) .....................................................13
`Independence Argument (3) .....................................................14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`Independence Argument (2) .....................................................16
`“determines the first event by analyzing only the attributes
`transferred by the communications link” (claim 3); “determine
`an event by analyzing only attributes of the received stream of
`attributes” (claim 8); “determines an event by analyzing only
`attributes received in the stream of detected attributes” (claim
`11) ........................................................................................................21
`VI. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART ...................................................................22
`A.
`Kellogg ................................................................................................22
`B.
`Flinchbaugh .........................................................................................25
`C.
`Brill ......................................................................................................27
`D. Motivation to Combine .......................................................................30
`E. Motivation for Two-Processor System ...............................................35
`VII. THE PETITION PRESENTS NEW ISSUES OF
`PATENTABILITY AND THE BOARD SHOULD NOT
`EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO REJECT THE PETITION ...........36
`A. Dispute Regarding the Independence-Based Claim Elements in
`the Prior Proceedings ..........................................................................36
`VIII. CLAIMS 1-4, 6-36 ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER THE PRIOR
`ART ...............................................................................................................40
`A. Ground 1: Kellogg and Flinchbaugh Render Obvious Claims 1-
`4, 6-11 ..................................................................................................40
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................40
`Claims 2, 7, 10 ..........................................................................47
`Claims 3, 8, 11 ..........................................................................48
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................49
`Independent Claim 6 .................................................................50
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`Independent Claim 9 .................................................................51
`B. Ground 2: Kellogg, Flinchbaugh, and Brill Render Claims 1-4,
`6-36 Obvious .......................................................................................53
`Two-Processor System - All Claims .........................................53
`Stream of Detected Attributes - Independent Claims 6, 9,
`12 and Dependents 7-8, 10-11, 13-17 .......................................54
`Over a Network - Claims 2, 7, 10, 14, and 21 ..........................54
`Independent Claim 12 ...............................................................55
`Claim 13 ....................................................................................59
`Claim 15 ....................................................................................59
`Claim 16 ....................................................................................60
`Claim 17 ....................................................................................61
`Independent Claim 18 ...............................................................62
` Claims 19, 22 ............................................................................64
` Claim 20 ....................................................................................64
` Claims 23-25 .............................................................................65
` Claims 26-30 .............................................................................66
` Claims 31-33 .............................................................................68
` Claims 34-36 .............................................................................69
`IX. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..............................69
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest ..........................................................................69
`B.
`Related Matters ....................................................................................69
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information ........................70
`X. CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d) ....................................71
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912 B2 and Reexamination Certificate
`7,868,912 C1 (“the ’912 patent”)
`
`
`Ex. 1002
`Prosecution History of the ’912 patent (excluding references cited by
`Examiner or the applicant)
`“Visual Memory” by Christopher James Kellogg (“Kellogg”)
`“Event Recognition and Reliability Improvements for the
`Autonomous Video Surveillance System” by Frank Brill et al.
`(“Brill”)
`“Autonomous Scene Monitoring System” by Bruce Flinchbaugh et al.
`(“Flinchbaugh”)
`Ex. 1006 Declaration of John R. Grindon, D.Sc.
`Ex. 1007 Declaration of Emily R. Florio
`Ex. 1008
`February 29, 2012 Request for inter partes Reexamination of the ’912
`Patent, excluding Exhibits and Appendices
`Ex. 1009 April 10, 2012 Order Granting/Denying Request for inter partes
`Reexamination of the ’912 Patent
`Ex. 1010 April 10, 2012 Office Action in inter partes Reexamination of the
`’912 Patent
`June 11, 2012 Amendment and Reply in inter partes Reexamination
`of the ’912 Patent
`February 13, 2013 Decision Granting Petition to Terminate inter
`partes Reexamination Proceeding of the ’912 Patent
`Ex. 1013 May 24, 2013 Attachment to Request for ex parte Reexamination of
`the ’912 Patent, excluding Exhibits and Appendices
`June 20, 2013 Order Granting/Denying Request for ex parte
`Reexamination of the ’912 Patent
`
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`
`Ex. 1015 August 30, 2013 Office Action in ex parte Reexamination of the ’912
`Patent
`Ex. 1016 October 30, 2013 Amendment and Reply in ex parte Reexamination
`of the ’912 Patent
`Ex. 1017 March 27, 2014 Final Office Action in ex parte Reexamination of the
`’912 Patent
`Ex. 1018 April 16, 2014 Amendment and Reply in ex parte Reexamination of
`the ’912 Patent
`Ex. 1019 April 29, 2014 Notice of Intent to Issue ex parte Reexamination
`Certificate of the ’912 Patent
`Ex. 1020 Reserved
`
`Ex. 1021 U.S. Patent No. 5,969,755 to Courtney (“Courtney”)
`Ex. 1022
`“Object-Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data” by Young
`Francis Day et al., (“Day”)
`Ex. 1023 Declaration of Christopher James Bailey-Kellogg, submitted as
`Exhibit 1011 in IPR2018-00138 and as Exhibit 1011 in IPR2018-
`00140
`Ex. 1024 Applicant Response of August 27, 2012 in inter partes Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923 (“the ’923 patent”)
`Ex. 1025 Decision Granting Petition to Terminate inter partes Reexamination
`of the ’923 patent
`Ex. 1026 May 23, 2013 Attachment to Request for ex parte Reexamination of
`the ’923 patent
`June 17, 2013 Order Granting/Denying Request for ex parte
`Reexamination of the ’923 patent
`Ex. 1028 August 30, 2013 Office Action in ex parte Reexamination of the ’923
`patent
`Ex. 1029 Applicant Response of October 30, 2013 in ex parte Reexamination of
`the ’923 patent
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`
`Ex. 1030 April 4, 2014 Final Office Action in ex parte Reexamination of the
`’923 patent
`Ex. 1031 April 16, 2014 Amendment and Reply in ex parte Reexamination of
`the ’923 patent
`Ex. 1032 Notice of Intent to Issue ex parte Reexamination Certificate of the
`’923 patent
`Ex. 1033 Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger for the ex parte Reexamination of
`the ’923 patent
`Ex. 1034 U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923 B2 and Reexamination Certificate
`7,932,923 C1 (“the ’923 patent”)
`Ex. 1035 U.S. Patent No. 8,564,661
`Ex. 1036 Curriculum Vitae of John R. Grindon, D.Sc.
`Ex. 1037 Reserved
`Ex. 1038 U.S. Application No. 09/987,707, filed November 15, 2001 (“the ’707
`application”)
`Ex. 1039 Reserved
`Ex. 1040 Reserved
`Ex. 1041 U.S. Patent No. 7,447,331 to Brown (“Brown”)
`Ex. 1042
`“A Novel Method for Tracking and Counting Pedestrians in Real-
`Time Using a Single Camera” by Osama Masoud et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`
`Axis Communications AB (“Axis”), and Canon Inc. and Canon U.S.A., Inc.
`
`(“Canon”) (collectively “Petitioner”), request inter partes review of claims 1-4, 6-
`
`36 of U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912 B2 and Reexamination Certificate 7,868,912 C1
`
`(collectively “the ’912 patent,” Ex. 1001), owned by Avigilon Fortress Corporation
`
`(“Avigilon”).
`
`As demonstrated in this Petition, all claims of the ’912 patent are
`
`unpatentable over Kellogg, Flinchbaugh, and Brill.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies the ’912 patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review of the
`
`’912 patent and challenging claims 1-4, 6-36 on the grounds identified in this
`
`Petition.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES
`A. Claims for Which Review is Requested
`Petitioner requests inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 of claims 1-4,
`
`6-36 of the ’912 patent.
`
`B.
`
`The Prior Art and Specific Grounds on Which the Challenge to
`the Claims is Based
`The specific statutory grounds, claims challenged, and the prior art relied
`
`upon for each ground are:
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`
`Grounds for Challenged Claims
`Claims 1-4, 6-11 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) by “Visual Memory” by Christopher James
`Kellogg (“Kellogg,” Ex. 1003) and “Autonomous
`Scene Monitoring System” by Bruce Flinchbaugh et
`al. (“Flinchbaugh,” Ex. 1005)
`
`Claims 1-4, 6-36 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Kellogg, Flinchbaugh, and “Event
`Recognition and Reliability Improvements for the
`Autonomous Video Surveillance System” by Frank
`Brill et al. (“Brill,” Ex. 1004)
`
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 2
`
`The ’912 patent issued January 11, 2011, based on U.S. Application No.
`
`11/098,385 (“’385 application”), filed April 5, 2005. Ex. 1001, 1. The ’912 patent
`
`claims priority, through continuations-in-part applications, to U.S. Application No.
`
`09/694,712, filed October 24, 2000. Id. Therefore, the earliest possible priority date
`
`for the ’912 patent is October 24, 2000.1
`
`
`1 Petitioner does not concede that October 24, 2000 is the effective filing date and
`
`reserves the right to challenge priority.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`Kellogg was made publicly accessible by the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`
`
`Technology library in September 1993. Ex. 1003, 1; Ex. 1007, ¶¶19-26; Ex. 1023,
`
`1-3.
`
`Flinchbaugh was published in the Proceedings of the 10th Annual Joint
`
`Government-Industry Security Technology Symposium& Exhibition. The
`
`Symposium occurred in June 1994 and the Proceedings were published by at least
`
`1995. Id.; Ex. 1007, ¶¶27-31.
`
`Brill was published in the Proceedings of the Image Understanding
`
`Workshop, Vol. 1. Ex. 1004, 1. The Workshop occurred in November 1998 and the
`
`Proceedings were published in December 1998. Ex. 1007, ¶¶32-36.
`
`Each of Kellogg, Flinchbaugh, and Brill is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b).
`
`C. How the Challenged Claims are Unpatentable
`A detailed explanation of how the challenged claims are unpatentable in
`
`view of the prior art is provided in Section VIII.
`
`D. Supporting Evidence
`Exhibits supporting this Petition are attached. Ex. 1006 is a Declaration of
`
`John R. Grindon, D.Sc. under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68. Section VIII describes the
`
`relevance of the evidence to the challenged claims, including an identification of
`
`the specific portions of the evidence supporting the challenges.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IV. THE ’912 PATENT
`
`A. Overview
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`
`The ’912 patent relates to a video surveillance system for extracting video
`
`“primitives” (including “attributes” of a detected object) and determining the
`
`occurrence of an “event” based on the primitives. Ex. 1001, Abstract. Examples of
`
`video primitives include a classification, a size, a shape, a color, a texture, a
`
`position, a trajectory, a speed and direction of motion, a salient motion,
`
`classification, etc. Id., 13:35-43.
`
`Events are defined in terms of attributes using event discriminators. Id.,
`
`5:28-39. Using event discriminators, the ’912 patent states “video content can be
`
`reanalyzed…in a relatively short time because only the video primitives are
`
`reviewed and because the video source is not reprocessed.” Id., 24:42-45.
`
`The ’912 patent does not describe the technical aspects of its system. Ex.
`
`1006, ¶¶49-51. It states objects are detected (Ex. 1001, 18:66-19:2) and attributes
`
`of the objects are detected (id., 20:12-22). But it simply describes using “any”
`
`motion detection algorithm to detect objects, assuming such detecting techniques
`
`are known in the art. Id., 19:3-4, 19:8-10, 19:64-66, 20:12-21. Moreover, the patent
`
`merely lists examples of attributes/primitives without describing how to identify
`
`those attributes. See, e.g., id. at 13:35-43, 14:1-41.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`The ’912 patent provides example of events and generally describes how
`
`
`
`they may be queried through Boolean expressions with combinations of detected
`
`attributes/primitives. Id., 16: 29-59, FIGs. 17a-17b. The ’912 patent also lists
`
`examples of events where an object interacts with a location but does not provide
`
`implementation details beyond the high-level overviews and corresponding
`
`disclosure of FIGs. 18a-18c. Id., 16:66-17:16, FIGs. 18a-18c.
`
`FIG. 23 shows the general configuration of the claimed two-processor
`
`system. Ex. 1006, ¶52. At a first location, a “Video Processor” (block 232)
`
`generates (“identifies”) and provides the video attributes/primitives to a second
`
`location, the “back-end.” Id., 7:17-19, 7:66-8:1. At the second location, there is a
`
`separate processor (block 239) that receives the detected attributes from the first
`
`location/processor over a communication channel 238, analyzing the attributes and
`
`determines event occurrences. Id., 7:31-35, 7:66-8:6. Much of the disclosure
`
`related to this figure refers to conventional equipment. For example, the hardware
`
`platforms are described as being implemented on “any” processing platform or
`
`hardware. Id., 7:50, 57-58.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`
`When an event is identified, a response may be taken. Id. 8:2-6, 15:36. For
`
`example, a report containing data about the event may be displayed to the user. Id.,
`
`
`
`21:15-33.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
` Original Examination
`Claims reciting a two-processor system (or similar) were added during
`
`prosecution of the ’385 application. Ex. 1002, 131-142. Those claims were rejected
`
`based on Brown, U.S. 7,447,331 (“Brown”), which was found to teach a two-
`
`processor system with a first processor for detecting attributes and a second
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`
`processor for independently determining an event based on a combination of the
`
`
`
`attributes. Ex. 1002, 103-112; Ex. 1041.
`
`
`
`After an Examiner interview (id., 89-91), the claims were amended to recite
`
`providing a response to determining an event occurrence (id., 69-82). The claims
`
`were then allowed over Brown (id., 58-61), and the ’912 patent issued January 11,
`
`2011 (Ex. 1001, 1).
`
`Reexaminations
`
`Claims 1-4, 6-22 of the ’912 patent were challenged in Inter Partes
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,912 by Bosch Security Systems, Inc. Ex. 1008.
`
`The Patent Office instituted on four grounds. Ex. 1009. The first Office Action
`
`rejected all challenged claims (Ex. 1010), and the patentee filed a response without
`
`amendments to the challenged claims (Ex. 1011). Before further action, the
`
`patentee and Bosch settled their dispute, and the Patent Office terminated the
`
`reexamination. Ex. 1012.
`
`On May 24, 2013, all claims 1-22 of the ’912 patent were anonymously
`
`challenged in Ex Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/012,878. Ex. 1014. The
`
`Patent Office rejected the claims on eight grounds and presented sixteen alternative
`
`rejections. Ex. 1015. In response, claim 5 was cancelled and new claims 23-44
`
`were submitted. Ex. 1016. The patentee argued several references were not prior
`
`art and the remaining references, including Courtney (Ex. 1021), did not teach
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`
`“independence-based” elements. Ex. 1016, 29-58. After an Examiner interview,
`
`
`
`the Patent Office issued a final Office Action, finding claims 1-4, 6-31, and 33
`
`allowable, objecting to claim 32, and rejecting new claims 34-44. Ex. 1017, 27-46.
`
`In response, the patentee amended claim 32 and cancelled claims 34-41. Ex. 1018.
`
`A reexamination certificate then issued June 25, 2014. Ex. 1001, 37.
`
`Prior Proceedings Involving Related Patents
`
`The ’912 patent is part of a family ultimately claiming priority to U.S.
`
`Application No. 09/694,712, filed October 24, 2000. U.S. Patent Nos. 7,932,923
`
`(“the ’923 patent”) (Ex. 1034) and 8,564,661 (“the ’661 patent”) (Ex. 1035) are
`
`related, but the ’923 patent is not in the ’912 patent’s direct priority chain, and the
`
`’661 patent is a continuation-in-part of a continuation-in-part of the ’912 patent.
`
`The ’923 patent was also challenged in an inter partes reexamination
`
`brought by Bosch (Ex. 1024), which terminated when the patentee and Bosch
`
`settled their dispute. Ex. 1025. Subsequently, around the same time as the ’912
`
`patent, the ’923 patent was challenged in an ex parte reexamination. Ex. 1026. The
`
`Patent Office rejected all claims on multiple grounds. Ex. 1027. After back-and-
`
`forth with the Patent Office (Ex. 1028-1032), a reexamination certificate issued
`
`May 21, 2014 (Ex. 1034, 21).
`
`The ’661 patent was not challenged in reexaminations, but two inter partes
`
`reviews have been brought by Petitioners: IPR2018-00138 and IPR2018-00140
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`
`(“the Related IPRs”). The Related IPRs were filed October 31, 2017, instituted
`
`
`
`June 1, 2018, and are currently pending. The ’923 patent is also challenged by
`
`Petitioners in two inter partes reviews filed concurrently herewith.
`
`C. Level of Skill
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have (i) a Bachelor
`
`of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer
`
`science, with approximately two years of experience or research related to video
`
`processing and/or surveillance systems, or (ii) equivalent training and work
`
`experience in computer engineering and video processing and/or surveillance
`
`systems. Ex. 1006, ¶¶61-65.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`Claims are to be given their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification” (“BRI”). 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Terms not discussed should be
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a POSITA under the
`
`BRI standard and need not be further construed.
`
`This Petition adopts the definitions provided in the Definitions section of the
`
`’912 patent (Ex. 1001, 3:21-4:17) for any claim terms listed there, except as
`
`explained below.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`Single Processor Arguments (claims 6-22)
`A.
`In the ’912 ex parte reexamination, the patentee argued claims 6-22 (and
`
`presumably claims 24-25, 27-30, 32-33, 35-36) do not require a two-processor
`
`system. Ex. 1016, 24-27. The patentee argued, however, that even when the claims
`
`do not recite two processors, they cover systems with two processors wherein one
`
`processor met the claim elements. Id., 25; Ex. 1006, ¶¶71-72. As each ground
`
`provides a two-processor system that discloses these claims, any argument by
`
`Patent Owner regarding single-processor systems is irrelevant. Id.
`
`“filtering” (claims 23-25, 31-36)
`B.
`Independent claims 23-25 and 31-33 recite analyzing the combination of the
`
`received/detected attributes comprises “filtering” and dependent claims 34-36
`
`recite “filtering comprises filtering the combination of the…attributes to determine
`
`if the event/first event occurred.”
`
`The ’912 patent explains that “event discriminators are used to filter the
`
`video primitives to determine if any event occurrences occurred.” Ex. 1001, 20:39-
`
`40. Video attributes/primitives may be archived or stored before they are filtered to
`
`detect events or, “if the system is to be used only for real-time event detection, the
`
`archiving step can be skipped.” Id., 20:28-31; FIG. 4 (blocks 43 and 44). The
`
`patent specification also discloses the use of event discriminators to filter stored
`
`attributes using, for example, queries. Id., 16:2-18:48. It does not provide,
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`
`however, a disclosure of how to filter attributes for real-time event detection other
`
`
`
`than a general statement that archiving can be skipped. Id., 20:32-34; Ex. 1006,
`
`¶77. Thus, the storage of attributes for event detection is not prohibited. Also, in
`
`the prior art, real-time event detection of stored attributes was known. Ex. 1003, 79
`
`(Kellogg’s disclosure of continuous polling). Regardless, the specification’s
`
`disclosure of “filtering” neither prohibits searching for stored attributes nor
`
`requires attributes to be reviewed before or without storage. Id., ¶¶77-78.
`
`In the ex parte reexamination, the patentee argued “[f]iltering in the context
`
`of the ‘912 patent is a particular technique for examining streamed video attributes
`
`to determine if certain rules (i.e., event discriminators) have been satisfied.” Ex.
`
`1016, 73. According to the patentee, filtering is a data processing technique that
`
`“has the capability of processing unlimited/unbounded/infinite data streams,” as
`
`opposed to other data processing techniques, such as querying, that can only be
`
`applied to finite data sets. Id. This is incorrect. There is no support for this
`
`interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, or prosecution history.
`
`Ex. 1006, ¶¶76-78. Moreover, the patentee itself indiscriminately referred to the
`
`specification’s disclosure of using event discriminators to “filter the video
`
`primitives” that are stored and that are not stored. Id., 132; see also id., 44 (citing
`
`to Courtney when discussing query to “filter” stored data).
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`Accordingly, no special construction of “filtering” is required as a POSITA
`
`
`
`would understand its plain meaning in the context of the claims and specification,
`
`i.e., to select, process, and/or analyze. Ex. 1006, ¶¶73-79.
`
`“stream” (claims 6-17, 20-21, 24-25, 27-29, 32-33, 35-36)
`C.
`Several claims recite elements involving a “stream” of attributes, e.g., from
`
`the first processor to the second processor. To a POSITA, the plain meaning of
`
`“stream” is to transmit or provide a flow (e.g., of data). Ex. 1006, ¶¶80-82. These
`
`claims do not require any particular type of streaming nor analysis of the stream of
`
`attributes. Id. They merely require attributes to be transmitted or streamed, and
`
`then after the attribute stream is received and potentially stored, a processor (e.g., a
`
`second processor) can analyze a combination of the attributes. Id.
`
`This is supported by the plain language of the claims, which recites
`
`“comprising” and does not contain any prohibition against storing the attributes
`
`before analyzing them. Id., ¶82. The specification also describes in Figure 24 that
`
`“a single stream of video primitives” may be transmitted to various back-end
`
`systems for various purposes, e.g., physical security or business intelligence. Ex.
`
`1001, 8:53-55. Figure 24 is “an extension of the configuration described in Figure
`
`23,” and Figure 23 shows video primitives may be streamed to “a storage device
`
`on the back-end platform (2313) for later analysis.” Id., 8:49-50, 8:7-9.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`Independence-based limitations (claims 1-4, 6-36)
`D.
`During ’912 patent’s reexaminations and the Related IPRs, Patent Owner
`
`argued the claimed “independence-based” limitations distinguish the prior art.
`
`Patent Owner argued the claims have the following three requirements: (1)
`
`identifying an event that refers to one or more objects engaged in an activity by
`
`analyzing the detected attributes; (2) the detected attributes are independent of the
`
`event identified; and (3) the identified event is not one of the detected attributes.
`
`IPR2018-00138, Paper No. 11, 25 (Sept. 4, 2018); Ex. 1016, 20-23; Ex. 1006,
`
`¶¶83-85.
`
`Each of these claimed concepts is addressed below using Patent Owner’s
`
`numbering scheme. Argument (2) is addressed last for ease of analysis.
`
`Independence Argument (1)
`
`Patent Owner asserts the claims require identifying an event by analyzing
`
`detected attributes. IPR2018-00138, Paper No. 11, 16 (Sept. 4, 2018); Ex. 1016,
`
`20-21. The claims of the ’912 patent articulate this concept rather generically,
`
`merely reciting that the event is identified “by analyzing a combination of
`
`the…attributes,” and in some claims stating the analyzing “comprises filtering.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 35-38; Ex. 1006, ¶87. The ’912 patent does not provide any specifics to
`
`explain the terms analyze or filtering in this context. See, e.g., id., 20:39-41
`
`(merely stating that “event discriminators are used to filter the video primitives to
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`
`determine if any event occurrences occurred”). Thus, 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. Ex. 1006, ¶87-89.
`
`Independence Argument (3)
`
`Argument (3) corresponds to the claim recitation that the determined event is
`
`not one of the detected attributes. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 35-38; Ex. 1006, ¶90. This
`
`argument traces from the patentee’s efforts to distinguish the prior art and results in
`
`a departure from the general definition of “event” in the “Definitions” section of
`
`the ’912 patent specification. Ex. 1006, ¶¶91-97.
`
`Specifically, the patentee admitted the ’912 patent specification considers
`
`single activity attributes to be events by explaining in the reexamination that:
`
`the specification of the ‘912 patent discloses some determined
`events that are the same as a determined attribute. See `707
`application at ¶ 98 (“an object appears”).
`
`Ex. 1016, 23 (emphasis added). The example the patentee provided—“an object
`
`appears”—determines any object that “appears.” Id. Thus, it identifies every
`
`occurrence of the “appear” attribute and equates the event to that singular attribute.
`
`However, to distinguish the claims over prior art like Courtney applied in the
`
`reexaminations, the patentee argued the claimed event is more than a single
`
`attribute. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 35-38. Specifically, the patentee argued:
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`[T]he specification of the ‘912 patent also discloses events that
`are not detected attributes. See, e.g., id at ¶ 98 (“a person
`appears; a red object moves faster than 10 m/s”); & ¶ 99 (“two
`objects come together; a person exits a vehicle; a red object
`moves next to a blue object”). The claims of the ‘912 patent
`require identification of an event that is not a detected attribute
`and are silent regarding identification of an event that is a
`detected attribute. See Zeger Dec., ¶ 35.
`
`Ex. 1016, 23. Here, the patentee identified “a person appears” as an event within
`
`the scope of the claim because it is not merely a single event attribute. Instead, this
`
`event requires two attributes, the “appear” activity attribute plus a “person” object
`
`classification attribute. Ex. 1006, ¶¶91-92. Thus, the patentee admits single activity
`
`attributes are not events within the scope of the claim—although they would be
`
`events in the context of the patent disclosure—and two attribute events are events
`
`within the scope of the claim. Id.
`
`In the Related IPRs, Patent Owner attempted to distinguish the prior art by
`
`conflating single activity attributes with events, arguing activities like appear,
`
`enter, or exit, when recorded by the prior art are merely predetermined events.
`
`IPR2018-00138, Paper No. 11, 9-10, 52-53 (Sept. 4, 2018). That argument is
`
`completely inconsistent with the disclosure of the ’912 patent, which records those
`
`same activities. Ex. 1001, 3:29-32, 13:39-43, 14:36-40. Thus, the fact a prior art
`
`system records activity attributes does not provide an adequate basis to distinguish
`
`that art from this limitation. Ex. 1006, ¶¶93-95.
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`Moreover, the language of the ’912 patent claims preclude them from
`
`
`
`covering a single activity attribute. For example, the independent claims recite
`
`determining an “event that is not one of the determined attributes by analyzing a
`
`combination of the…attributes.” Id., ¶94. This limitation further clarifies the
`
`claimed event cannot be a single activity attribute.
`
`Thus, the ’912 patent limitation associated with Argument (3) requires the
`
`claimed