IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AIYD TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Conhol No.
`Patent No.
`Filed
`Customer No.
`
`90/012,879
`7,869,912
`May 24,2013
`06449
`
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Conf. No.
`Atty. No.
`
`3992
`Adam L. Basehoar
`3806
`4079-tt7
`
`RECEIVED
`
`ocT 3 0 20t3
`
`Title: VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM EMPLOYING VIDEO PRIMITIVUT
`
`*r*REO0r'M'0r{Uiln
`37 C.F.R. S l.lql pECLARATTON OF KENNETH A. ZEGER
`I, Kenneth A. Zeger, declare as follows:
`L
`My name is Kenneth A. Zeger. I am a Full Professor of Electrical and Computer
`Engineering at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). I understand that my
`declaration is being submitted in connection with the above-referenced reexamination
`proceeding pending in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`I.
`
`Qualifications, Background, and Experience
`2.
`I have studied, taught, and practiced electrical and computer engineering for over
`thirty years.
`3.
`I attended the Massachusetts Instirute of Technology ("MIT") and earned
`Bachelors (SB) and Masters (SM) of Science Degrees in Electrical Engineering and Computer
`Science in 1984. I earned a Masters of Arts (MA) Degree in Mathernatics in 1989 from the
`University of Califomia" Santa Barbara. I also earned my Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer
`Engineering from the University of Califomia, Santa Barbara in 1990.
`4.
`I have held the position of Full Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
`at UCSD since 1998, having been promoted from Associate Professor after two years at UCSD.
`I teach courses full-time at UCSD in the fields of Electrical and Computer Engineering, and
`specifically in subfields including information theory and image coding, at the undergraduate
`and graduate levels. Prior to my employment at UCSD, I taught and conducted research as a i
`faculty member at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign for four years, and at the
`University of Hawaii for two years.
`5.
`I am president of ZundaLLC ("Zunda") a California company located in San
`Diego, California. Zunda provides expert witness and technical consulting services in the fields
`of electical engineering and computer hardware/software.
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2004
`IPR2019-00236
`Page 1 of 186
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A. Zega
`Conhol No. 90/012.878
`Page2
`6. My twenty-plus years of industry experience include consulting work for the
`United States Department of Defense as well as for private companies such as Xerox, Nokia,
`MITRE, ADP, and Hewlett-Packard. The topics upon which I provide consulting expertise
`include image, video, and speech coding; data compression; networks; digital communications;
`pattern recognition; computer software; and mathematical analyses.
`7 .
`I have authored almost 70 peer-reviewed journal articles, the majority of which
`are on the topic of compression or information theory. I have also authored over 100 papers at
`various conferences and symposia over the past twenty-plus years, such as the IEEE
`International Symposium on Information Theory, the Intemational Conference on Image
`Processing, and the Data Compression Conference,
`8.
`I was elected a Fellow of the IEEE in 2000, an honor bestowed upon only a small
`percentage of IEEE members. I was awarded the National Science Foundation Presidential
`Young Investigator Award in 1991, which included $500,000 in research funding. I received
`this award one year after receiving my Ph.D.
`9.
`I have served as an Associate Editor for the IEEE Transactions on Information
`Theory publication and have been an elected member of the IEEE Information Theory Board of
`Governors for three, tlrree-year terms. I organized and have been on the technical advisory
`
`committees of numerous workshops and symposia in the areas of image coding, information
`theory, and data compression. I regularly review submitted journal manuscripts, government
`funding requests, conference proposals, sfudent theses, and textbook proposals. I also have
`
`glven many lecfures at conferences, universities, and companies on topics in image coding, data
`
`compression, and information theory.
`10. I have extensive experience in electronics hardware and computer software, from
`academic studies, work experience, and supervising students. I personally program computers
`
`on an almost daily basis and have fluency in many different computer languages.
`I l. A more complete recitation of my professional experience including a list of my
`publications is set forth in my curriculum vitae, attached to my declaration as Exhibit Zl.
`U. Compensation and Engagement
`12. Zvnda is being compensated for my work in this matter by Rothwell, Figg, Emst
`& Manbeck, at my current rate of $690 per hour. Neither Zunda nor I have any personal or
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2004
`IPR2019-00236
`Page 2 of 186
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger
`Control No. 90/012,878
`Page 3
`
`financial stake or interest in the outcome of the above-referenced reexamination or any related
`litigation matter. Neither Zunda's nor my compensation is dependent upon my testimony or the
`outcome of this proceeding or any related litigation matter. Neither Zvndanor I have any
`relation with or financial interest in the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912 ("the'912
`patent"), ObjectVideo, Inc.
`III. The Reexamination Proceeding
`13. It is myunderstanding that, on May 24,.2013, an anonymous Requestor ("the
`Requester") filed a Request for Er Parte Reexamination (the "Request") with the United States
`Patent and Tradernark Office (the "Office") requesting reexamination of the 'gl}patentand that,
`on June 20,2013, the Office issued an Order granting the Request (the "Order"). I understand
`that the Office determined that the Request established a substantial new question of
`patentability with respect to claims l-22 of the '912 patent. Thus, it is my understanding that the
`Offrce is reexamining claims l-22 of the'912 patent.
`14. It is also my understanding that, on August 30, 2013, the Office issued an Office
`Action (the "Office Action" or'nOA"). In the Office Action, claims l-22 of the '912 patent are
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. $ l02O) as anticipated by certain of the references identified in the
`Office Action and/or under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) as being obvious in view of certain of the
`references identified in the Office Action.
`15. I have read and understand the'912 patent, its prosecution history, and the
`references cited in the '912 patent. I have read and understand the Request, the Order, the Office
`
`Action, and the references cited in the Office Action. I have also read and understand the
`comments filed by the Bosch, the third party requester, on July 1I,2012, in the previous inler
`partes reexamination (Control No. 951001,912) of the '912 patent ("Bosch's comments").
`16. I was asked to consider and address the following rejections of claims l-4 and 6-
`22 of the '912 patent raised in the Office Action:
`(i) Claims l-3 and 6-22vnder 35 U.S.C. $ 102(b) as anticipatedby German Patent
`Publication No. DE l0l 53 484 Al to Gilge ("Gilge");
`(ii) Claims l-4 and 6-22 under 35 U.S.C. $ 102(b) as anticipated by "ObjectVideo
`Forensics: Activity-Based Video Indexing and Retrieval For Physical Security
`Applications," Lipton et al. ("Lipton");
`(iii) Claims 1,3,4,6,8,9, ll-13, 15-20,and22 under35 U.S.C. $ l02O) as anticipated
`by U.S. Patent No. 5,969,755 to Courtney ("Courtney'');
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2004
`IPR2019-00236
`Page 3 of 186
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A.Zega
`Conhol No. 90/012,878
`Page 4
`
`(iv) Claims 1,3,4,6, 8, 9, I l-13, l5-20, and22 under 35 U.S.C. g 1020) as anticipated
`by "Moving Object Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms for Smart
`Cameras," Olson e/ a/. ("Olson");
`(v) Claims l-3 and 6-22under 35 U.S.C. g 103(a) as unpatentable over Gilge in view of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835 to Brill et a/. ("Brill");
`(vi) Claims 1-4 and 6-22 under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lipton in view of
`Brill;
`(vii) Claims 1,3, 4,6,8,9, ll-13, 15-20,and22 under35 U.S.C. g 103(a) as
`unpatentable over Courtney in view of Brill;
`(viii) Claims 1, 3, 4,6,8,9, I l-13, 15-20, and22 under 35 U.S.C. g 103(a) as
`unpatentable over Olson in view of Brill;
`(ix) Claims l-3 and 6-22under 35 U.S.C. g 103(a) as unpatentable over Gilge in view of
`"Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data," Day et al. ("Day");
`(x) Claims l-4 and 6-22 under 35 U.S.C. g 103(a) as unpatentable over Lipton in view of
`Duy;
`(xi)Claims 1,3,4,6,8,9,11-13, 15-20,andZ2under35U.S.C. $ 103(a)asunpatentable
`over Courtney in view of Day; and
`(xii) Claims l, 3,4, 6, 8, 9, I l-13, 15-20,and22 under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) as
`unpatentable over Olson in view of Day.
`My opinions regarding these rejections are set forth below.l
`IV. Applicable Laws/Rule
`A. Claim Interpretation
`17. I understand that, during reexamination, the pending claims must be given their
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the claims must also be consistent with the interpretation that those
`
`skilled in the art would reach.
`B. Priority
`18. I understand that claims of an application that is a continuation or continuation-in-
`part of an earlier U.S. application or international application which are fully supported under 35
`U.S.C. $ I l2 by the earlier parent application have the effective filing date of that earlier parent
`application. A claim is adequately disclosed/fully supported under 35 U.S.C. $ I l2 by an earlier
`parent application if the earlier parent application satisfies the written description requirement.
`
`t The Office Actioa also included several rejections of claim 5. See Oftice Action atpp.7,8, l5-18. However,I
`was not asked to consider and address these rejections because I understand that the Patent Owner plans to propose
`cancellation of claim 5.
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2004
`IPR2019-00236
`Page 4 of 186
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A.Zeger.
`Control No. 90/012,878
`Page 5
`
`To satisff the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed
`invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor
`had possession of the claimed invention.
`C. Anticipation (35 U.S.C. g 102)
`19. To support a rejection based on 35 U.S.C. $ 102, I understand that the Examiner
`bears the burden of showing that a single prior art reference discloses all of the elements of the
`
`claim, arranged in the same manner as required by the claim, either explicitly or inherantly.
`D. Obviousness (35 U.S.C. g 103)
`20. I also understand that a claim is not patentable if the differences between the
`subject matter of the claim and the disclosure of the prior art are such that the subject matter of
`the claim, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time of invention to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains.
`21. In determining obviousness, I understand that it is necessary to consider the scope
`and content of the prior art; the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; the level
`of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and any objective evidence of non-obviousness related to the
`alleged merits of the claimed invention (which I understand is referred to as "objective indicia of
`non-obviousness"), such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, industry
`recognition, failure of others, and copying.
`22. [n determining obviousness based on a combination of prior art references, I also
`understand that evidence of some reason to combine the teachings is required to make the
`
`combination, and thus such evidence must be considered, along with any evidence that one or
`
`more of the references would have taught away from the claimed invention at the time of the
`
`invention.
`23. I have been informed that the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is
`presumed to know all of the teachings known in the art at the time the alleged invention was
`
`made. That person is presumed to have the technical competence and experience of skilled
`artisans working in the area of the subject invention and of the m:ulner in which problems were
`solved. Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art
`include the tlpes of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, the
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2004
`IPR2019-00236
`Page 5 of 186
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger
`Conhol No. 90/012.878
`Page 6
`
`rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the
`educational level of active workers in the field.
`V. Claim Construction
`A. Attributes and Events
`24. Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, it is my opinion that the claim
`language "attributes," as used in claims l-22 of the '912 patent, means: observable
`characteristics. My "observable characteristics" definition is informed by how this phrase is
`
`used in the specification, including the claims, of the '912 patent. See U.S. Patent Application
`No. 09/987,707 ("the'707 application") at !f 80.2 Further, the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`term "attributes" is that they are observable characteristics of something. See Exhibit 23,
`Webster's New World Dictionary of Computer Terms (sth Ed. 1994) (providing "[a]
`characteristic quality of a data type, data structure, element of a data model, or system" as a
`definition of "attribute"). The specification of the '912 patent supports this plain meaning, such
`as when it discloses that:
`A video primitive refers to an observable attribute of an object viewed in a video
`feed. Examples of video primitives include the following: a classification; asize;
`a shape; a color; a texture; a position; a velocity; a speed; an internal motion; a
`motion; a salient motion; a feafure of a salient motion; a scene change; a feature
`of a scene change; and a pre-defined model.
`'707 application at fl 80.
`25. Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, it is my opinion that the claim
`language "event" means: one or more objects engaged in an activity. The specification expressly
`defines an "event" as "one or more objects engaged in an activity." See'707 application at tf 48
`("An 'event' refers to one or more objects engaged in an activity."). My "one or more objects
`engaged in an activity''definition is informed by this express definition in the specification.
`26. The specification of the '912 patent refers to the claimed "attributes" as
`"primitives,", ard gives numerous examples of attributes/primitives, such as: "a classification; a
`size; ashape; acolor; atexture; aposition; avelocity; aspeed;anintemalmotion; amotion; a
`
`salient motion; a feature of a salient motion; a scene change; a feature of a scene change; and a
`pre-defined model." '707 application at tf 80. The '912 patent also gives numerous examples of
`
`2 Citations to the specification of the '912 patent refer to the '707 application, which was filed on November 15,
`200l,andisincorporatedbyreferenceinthe'9l2patent. '9l2patentatcol. l,linesT-12.
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2004
`IPR2019-00236
`Page 6 of 186
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger
`Control No. 901012,878
`PageT
`
`events, such as: an object appears; a person appears; a red object moves faster than 10 m/s, two
`
`objects come together; a person exits a vehicle; a red object moves next to a blue object, an
`
`object crosses a line; an object enters an area; a person crosses a line from the left, an object
`appeils at 10:00 p.m.; a person travels faster then [sic] 2 mls between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.; a
`vehicle appears on the weekend, a person crosses a line between midnight and 6:00 a.m.; a
`vehicle stops in an area for longer than l0 minutes; a person enters an area between midnight and
`6:00 a.m.; and a security service is notified. id at 1198-103. Generally speaking, attributes are
`simpler concepts than events.
`27. More precisely, 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. '707 application at fl I18. The system described in the '912 patent is
`configured to detect attributes by analyzing a video, but the choice of which attributes the system
`is configured to detect is not based upon which events are later to be identified. See id. atl79.
`ln fact, tasking of the system to identifu one or more events from the detected attributes is not
`even necessary. Id. atl79 ("Tasking occurs after calibration in block 22 ard is optional.
`Tasking the video surveillance systern involves specifying one or more event discriminators.
`
`Without tasking, the video surveillance systern operates by detecting and archiving video
`primitives and associated video imagery without taking any action, as in block 45 in FIG. 4.").3
`While the specification of the '912 patent does not explicitly use the term "independence"
`(outside of the claims themselves), a person of ordinary skill in the art of the '912 patent would
`
`understand the '912 patent to teach that the choice of which events are to be identified (i.e.,
`
`tasking) is made at a time after configuration of the system to detect attributes, and furthermore
`
`that the choice of which attributes the system is configured to detect is not dictated/determined
`by which events the system might later be tasked to identify. See id. at\79. This indeed means
`that the attributes collected are independent of the events identified. Moreover, this
`independence of the attributes from the events in the '912 patent means that that the selection of
`which attributes to detect is not based upon a predefined list of events to be determined.
`
`3 Tasking the system determines the event discriminators that may be used in identiffing events. See '707
`application at { I l8 ("event discriminators are determined from tasking the system in block 23" and "ate used to
`filter the video primitives to determine if any event occurrences occurred").
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2004
`IPR2019-00236
`Page 7 of 186
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger
`Control No. 90/012,878
`Page 8
`28. The specification of the '912 patent does not prohibit a determined event from
`being the same as a determined attribute, but such a scenario is not within the scope of the claims
`
`of the '912 patent, which require that the determined event not be one of the determined
`attributes. Claim I ("determines a first event that is not one of the determined attributes"); claim
`6 ("determine an event that is not one of the detected attributes"); claim 9 ("detect an event that
`is not one of the detected attributes"); claims 12 and l8 ("the event not being one of the
`determined attributes").
`29. To help clarify the distinction between the claimed "events" and the claimed
`"attributes," I will illustrate the concepts with an example based upon events such as an object
`moving, entering, or growing. The specification of the '912 patent discloses that "an 'event'
`
`refers to one or more objects engaged in an activity" and provides, as examples of an activity,
`
`"entering; exiting; stopping;moving;raising; lowering; growing; and shrinking." '707
`application at J[J[46 & 48. Multitudes of attributes/characteristics of an object that is engaging in
`any one such activity may be associated with the event that refers to the activity. The
`
`attributes/characteristics may include, for example, one or more of the object's position, width,
`
`length, (linear) speed, velocity, acceleration, third order and higher derivatives of motion vs.
`
`time, direction of motion, momenfum, rotation, angular velocity, moment of inertia, angular
`
`momenfum, occlusions, shading, proximity to nearby objects, etc. None of these
`attributes/characteristics is itself an "activity." Instead, these atkibutes/characteristics are
`numerical descriptions of particular observable aspects of the object that may be engaging in an
`activity. One migbt be able to logically deduce, from one or more of these
`
`attributes/characteristics, a particular activity in which an object is engaging, but that involves
`inference. Each of these example characteristics is an attribute that does not refer to an activity
`
`in which the object is engaged. In contrast, a hypothetical Boolean variable such as Is_Entering,
`Is Exiting, Is_Moving, etc., which is true if the object is engaging in the associated activity and
`false if the object is not engaging in such activity, would be an example of an attribute that refers
`to an activity in which the object is engaged, because, in this case, no deductive reasoning is
`required to determine that a particular event referring to the object engaged in the activity
`
`occurred.
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2004
`IPR2019-00236
`Page 8 of 186
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A.Zeger
`Conhol No. 90/012.878
`Page 9
`
`30. Inferring events based on the attributes (or primitives) provides several
`advantages. First, "[a]n operator is provided with maximum flexibility in configuring the systern
`
`by using event discriminators," '707 application at $ 66, as opposed to the limitations associated
`with using prerecorded events. Second, inference analysis based on previously extracted
`
`attributes "greatly improves the analysis speed of the computer system" as the system can
`process only the attributes instead of reprocessing the video. See id. at J[67. Third, inventing a
`system for analyzing "small-sized video primitives abstracted from the video" has many
`corresponding size-based benefits. Id. atll 148. For example, the storage space and bandwidth
`necessary to manage the small-sized attributes is far less than for managing the video itself, even
`if the video is highly compressed. See id.
`B.
`Independence-Based Claim Elements
`3l. Claims l-4 and 6-22 of the '912 patent all contain limitations that require that the
`attributes must be independent from the event to be identified. The following claim elements
`
`(the "independence-based elernents") incorporate this requirement:
`
`Claim Element
`which determines a first event that is not one of the determined
`attributes by analping a combination of the received determined
`attributes
`
`wherein the first processor determines attributes independent of a
`selection ofthe first event by the second processor
`
`the processor configured to determine 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
`
`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
`wherein the stream of attributes is sufficient to allow detection of the
`event that is not one of the determined attributes
`
`wherein the attributes of the stream of attributes are created
`independently of the subsequent analysis
`
`wherein the stream of attributes is sufficient to allow detection of an
`event that is not one of the determined attributes by analyzing a
`
`Claims
`'912 patent, claims l-4
`
`'9l2patent, claims l-4
`
`'9l2patent, claims 6-8
`
`'912 patent, claims 6-8
`
`'912 patent, claims 9-
`l1
`
`'912 patent, claims 9-
`l1
`'9l2patent, claims 12-
`t7
`'912 patent, claim l5
`
`'912 patent, claim 16
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2004
`IPR2019-00236
`Page 9 of 186
`
`

`

`Claim Element
`combination of the attributes
`
`Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger
`Conhol No. 90/012,878
`Page l0
`
`Claims
`
`wherein the stream of atfibutes is transmitted over a communications
`channel without detection of an event at the first location
`
`'912 patent, claim 17
`
`wherein the processor determines attributes independently of a
`subsequent analysis of a combination of attributes to determine an
`event that is not one of the determined attributes
`32. There are at least tluee components to the independence-based claim elements.
`The first is a requirement of determining/detecting an event that refers to one or more objects
`
`'912 patent, claims l8-
`22
`
`engaged in an activity by analyzing the determined/detected attributes. '707 application at
`the video primitives using event
`Abstract ("The system .. . extracts event occur€nces from
`discriminatoffi."); fl 48 ("An 'event' refers to one or more objects engaged in an activity."); !f 118
`("ln block 44, event occurrences are extracted from the video primitives using event
`discriminators. ... The event discriminators are used to filter the video primitives to determine if
`any event occurrences occurred."). Referencing an already determinedldetected event with
`
`respect to location and/or time is not a determination/detection of a new event because the
`
`analysis of the determined/detected attributes that determines/detects the one or more objects
`engaged in the activity has already occurred. Id. atl48 ("The event may be referenced with
`respect to a location and/or a time." (emphasis added)). See also id. atl80 ("An event
`discriminator refers to one or more objects optionally interacting with one or more spatial
`attributes and/or one or more temporal attributes.") & tf 97 ("In block 35, one or more
`discriminators are identified by describing interactions between video primitives (or their
`
`abstractions), spatial areas of interest, and temporal attributes of interest."). That is, a
`determined event does not change merely because the event is referenced with respect to a
`
`location and/or a time. See id.
`33. This interpretation is also consistent with the loitering event discriminator
`example described in the specification of the patent. Specifically, the '912 patent discloses that
`"an operator can define an event discriminator (called a 'loitering' event in this example) as a
`'person' object in the 'automatic teller machine' space for 'longer than l5 minutes' and 'between
`l0:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m."' '707 application at 1J66. The exemplary loitering event
`discriminator analyzes detected attributes to determine any object engaged in a loitering activity
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2004
`IPR2019-00236
`Page 10 of 186
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger
`Control No, 90/012,878
`Page 11
`
`(i.e., any object rernaining stationary for a period of time) and then references the already
`
`determined loitering event to the automatic teller machine space (i.e., a location) and between
`
`l0:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (i.e., a time).
`34. A second component of the independence-based claim elements is that the
`detected attributes are independent of the event to be detected.a As explained above, this means
`
`that the choice of which attributes the system is configured to detect is not dictated/determined
`by which events the system might later be tasked to identiff. That is, the selection of which
`attributes to detect is not based upon a predefined list of events to be determined, ild, to the
`contrary, tasking of the system to identiff one or more events occurs after configuration of the
`system to detect attributes. See '707 application atl79 ("Tasking occurs after calibration in
`block 22 and is optional. Tasking the video surveillance system involves speciffing 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....").
`
`Moreover, attributes detected based upon a predefined list of events would not suddenly become
`
`independent of the events in the predefined list simply because one or more events of the
`predefined list that are detected are later referenced to location andlor time. As noted above, a
`determined event does not change merely because the event is referenced with respect to a
`location and/or a time. See id. at tf 48 ("The event may be referenced with respect to a location
`and/or a time.").
`35. A third component of the independence-based claim elements is that the identified
`event is not one of the detected attributes. As noted above, the specification of the '912 patent
`
`discloses some determined events that are the same as a determined attribute. See'707
`application at Jf 98 ("an object appears"). However, the 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 l0 dt"); &'1199 ("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 determination
`
`of an event that is not a determined attribute (or allowance of detection of an event that is not a
`
`o This is not a requirement that the evenr be independent of the determined attributes. The event is dependent on
`attributes because the attributes are analyzed to detemrine the event. See'707 application at tl I 18 ("In block 44,
`event occurrences are extacted from tbe video primitives using event discriminators. ... The event discriminators
`are used to filter the video primitives to determine if any event occrurences occurred."). ln other words,
`mdthematically speaking, "X is independent of Y" does not imply that'Y is independent of X".
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2004
`IPR2019-00236
`Page 11 of 186
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger
`Control No. 90/012,878
`Page 12
`
`determined attribute) and are silent regarding determination of an event that is a determined
`
`atfribute.
`C. First and Second, Separate Affribute Determination and Event
`Determination Processors
`l.
`Claims 1-4 Require First and Secondo Separate Attribute
`Determination and Event Determination Processors
`36. Claims l-4 of the '912 patent require (l) "a first processor which analyzes a video
`to determine attributes of objects detected in the video" and (2) "a second processor, separate
`
`from the first processor, ... which determines a first event that is not one of the determined
`attributes by analyzing a combination of the received determined attributes." I refer to this
`
`requirement as the "the separate attribute determination and event determination processors
`
`requirement" below.
`37. Claims 1-4 are silent regarding exclusive assignment of atfibute determination
`and event determination processing responsibilities to the first and second separate processors,
`
`respectively. In otho words, claims 1-4 require "a first processor which analyzes a video to
`determine attributes of objects detected in the video" but are silent regarding whether the first
`
`processor determines an event by anallzing determined attributes. Similarly, claims 1-4 require
`"a second processor, separate from the first processor, ... which determines a first event that is
`not one of the determined attributes [without reprocessing the video] by analyzing a combination
`of the received determined attributes" but are silent regarding whether the second processor
`performs video analysis to determine attributes of objects. To be clear, claims l-4 require that
`the second processor determines the first event withoutreprocessing the video analyzed by the
`first processor but neither preclude the second processor from processing of the video analyzed
`
`by the first processor for other purposes (e.g., to determine different attributes than those
`received by the first processor or to verify the attribute determination analysis performed by the
`first processor) nor preclude the second processor from analyzing a different video than the video
`
`analyzed by the first processor to determine attributes of objects detected in the different video.
`38. My interpretation of claim I as zol requiring exclusive assignment of atfribute
`determination and event determination processing responsibilities to the first and second separate
`processors, respectively, is consistent with specification of the '912 patent . For example, in one
`embodiment, the '912 patent discloses a video surveillance/computer system I I having a
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2004
`IPR2019-00236
`Page 12 of 186
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger
`Control No. 90/012,878
`Page 13
`
`computer 12 that is operated to determine attributes (1.e., video primitives), determine events,
`and take appropriate responses when events are determined. '707 application at Figs. l-4 &
`flfl 71, 77,104. Tlre'912 patent discloses, in response to the computer system 11 determining an
`event, forwarding the determined attributes/video primitives "to another computer system via a
`network" and "tasking ,.. another computer systan" to determine events. Id. atl96. Thus, one
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand the '912 patent to disclose one computer system I I
`
`that performs both attribute determination and event determination and "another computer
`system" that receives attributes forwarded from the computer system I I and that is tasked by the
`computer system I I to perform event determination on the attributes. See id.
`2. Claims 6-22 do not Require First and Second, Separate Attribute
`Determination and Event Determination Processors
`39. Given their broadest reasonable interpretation,