Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
` Paper No. 12
` Filed: June 4, 2019
`
`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 IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`____________
`
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
` Paper No. 12
` Filed: June 4, 2019
`
`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 IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`____________
`
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Axis Communications AB, Canon Inc., and Canon U.S.A., Inc.
`(“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes
`review of all claims (i.e., claims 1–4 and 6–36)1 of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,868,912 B2 & C1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’912 patent”). See 35 U.S.C. § 311.
`Patent Owner, Avigilon Fortress Corporation (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response. (Paper 8, “PO Resp.”). Institution of an inter
`partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the
`petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the
`Petition and Preliminary Response, we decline to institute review of claims
`1–4 and 6–36 of the ’912 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Concurrent with the instant Petition, Petitioner filed another petition
`for inter partes review of the ’912 patent as well as two separate petitions
`for inter partes review of related U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923. See Pet. 69;
`Canon Inc. et al. v. Avigilon Fortress Corp., Case IPR2019-00235 (PTAB
`Nov. 12, 2018) (Paper 1); Canon Inc. et al. v. Avigilon Fortress Corp., Case
`IPR2019-00311 (PTAB Nov. 12, 2018) (Paper 1); Canon Inc. et al. v.
`Avigilon Fortress Corp., Case PR2019-00314 (PTAB Nov. 12, 2018)
`(Paper 1). Additionally, we instituted two inter partes review proceedings
`of related U.S. Patent No. 8,564,661. See Pet. 69; Canon Inc. et al. v.
`Avigilon Fortress Corp., Case IPR2018-00138 (PTAB June 1, 2018) (Paper
`
`
`1 Claim 5 was canceled during reexamination. Ex. 1001, Reexamination
`Certificate, 1:19.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`
`8); Canon Inc. et al. v. Avigilon Fortress Corp., Case IPR2018-00140
`(PTAB June 1, 2018) (Paper 8).
`
`B. The ’912 Patent
`In general, the ’912 patent, titled “Video Surveillance System
`Employing Video Primitives,” is directed to an automatic video surveillance
`system. Ex. 1001, [54], 1:18–19. One object of the invention is to reduce
`the amount of video surveillance data needed to analyze the video. See id.
`at 2:42–44. Another object is to filter the data to identify desired portions of
`the data. See id. at 2:45–46. The ’912 patent states the system can process
`video data in real-time and store “extracted video primitives” to allow high
`speed forensic event detection later. Id. at 5:16–19. Video primitives can
`include “observable attributes” of an object in a video feed, such as the size,
`shape, position, speed, color, and texture of the object, or scene descriptors,
`that describe the overall scene, such the location of sky or foliage, weather
`conditions, and lighting changes. See id. at 13:14–64.
`Figure 2, shown below, is a flow diagram for an embodiment of the
`video surveillance system that involves setting up, calibrating, tasking, and
`operating the system. See id. at 4:26–27, Fig. 2.
`
`As shown in the flow diagram of Figure 2 above, the video
`surveillance system includes tasking the surveillance system (block 23),
`which “involves specifying one or more event discriminators.” Id. at 12:39–
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`
`44. “Event discriminators are identified with one or more objects (whose
`descriptions are based on video primitives), along with one or more special
`or temporal attributes. Id. at 5:29–33. For example, an operator can define
`an event discriminator (such as a “‘loitering’ event”) as a “person” object in
`the “automatic teller machine” space for “longer than 15 minutes” and
`“between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.” Id. at 5:33–37.
`Figure 3, reproduced below, is a flow diagram for tasking the video
`surveillance system. Id. at 4:30–31.
`
`
`
`As shown in the flow diagram of Figure 3, reproduced above, one step
`in tasking the video surveillance system is to identify responses (block 34).
`Examples of responses include activating an alarm, locking a door,
`forwarding data such as video primitives to another computer system,
`saving data to a computer-readable medium, as well as “tasking the
`computer system . . . and/or another computer system.” Id. at 15:36–48
`(emphasis added).
`A flow diagram for operating one embodiment of the video
`surveillance system of the ’912 patent is shown in Figure 4, reproduced
`below. Id. at 4:30–31.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 4 above, the system extracts video primitives
`from a video (block 42), archives the video primitives (block 43), extracts
`event occurrences (block 44), and undertakes a response (block 45). See
`also id. at 20:36–38 (stating “video primitives are determined in block 42,
`and the event discriminators are determined from tasking the system in block
`23 [of Figure 2]”). The ’912 patent explains that in “block 44, event
`occurrences are extracted from the video primitives using event
`discriminators.” Id. at 20:35–36. The event discriminators are used to filter
`the video primitives to determine if any event occurrences occurred. Id. at
`20:39–41. For example, an event discriminator can look for a “wrong way”
`event as defined by a person traveling the “wrong way” into an area between
`9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Id. at 20:41–43. “The event discriminators may
`also use other types of primitives . . . to detect occurrences.” Id. at 20:49–
`51. The archiving step (block 43) of Figure 4 “is optional; if the system is to
`be used only in real-time, the archiving step can be skipped.” Id. at 20:32–
`34. In “block 45, action is taken for each event occurrence extracted in
`block 44, as appropriate.” Id. at 20:52–54.
`Another embodiment is shown in Figure 9, reproduced below, in
`which the system analyses “archived video primitives with event
`discriminators to generate additional responses, for example, without
`needing to review the entire source video.” Id. at 24:35–39.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`
`
`
`Figure 9 above depicts a flow diagram for an additional embodiment
`of the video surveillance system that “analyzes archived video primitives . . .
`without needing to review the entire source video.” See id. at 24:35–39.
`Any time after a video source has been processed according to the invention,
`video primitives for the source video are archived in block 43 of Fig. 4. Id.
`at 24:40–42. “The video content can be reanalyzed with the additional
`embodiment in a relatively short time because only the video primitives are
`reviewed and because the video source is not reprocessed.” Id. at 24:42–45.
`“As an example, the following event discriminator can be generated: ‘The
`number of people stopping for more than 10 minutes in area A in the last
`two months.’” Id. at 24:50–53. With this “additional embodiment, the last
`two months of source video does not need to be reviewed. Instead, only the
`video primitives from the last two months need to be reviewed, which is a
`significantly more efficient process.” Id. at 24:53–56. “Block 91 is the
`same as block 23 in FIG. 2.” Id. at 24:57. “In block 92, archived video
`primitives are accessed. The video primitives are archived in block 43 of
`FIG. 4.” Id. at 24:58–59. “Blocks 93 and 94 are the same as blocks 44
`and 45 in FIG. 4.” Id. at 24:60–61.
`
`C. Claims
`Petitioner challenges all claims (i.e., claims 1–4, 6–36) of the ’912
`patent. Claims 1, 6, 9, 12, 18, 23–28, and 31–33 are independent. Claims 1
`and 6 are representative and are reproduced below.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`
`
`1. 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 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 determines a first
`event that is not one of the determined attributes by analyzing a
`combination of the received determined attributes and which
`provides, in response to a determination of the first event, at
`least one of an alert to a user, information for a report, and an
`instruction for taking an action,
`wherein the first processor determines attributes
`independent of a selection of the first event by the second
`processor, and
`wherein the second processor determines the first event
`without reprocessing the video analyzed by the first processor.
`6. 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
`provide, upon a determination of the event, at least one of an
`alert to a user, information for a report and an instruction for
`taking an action,
`wherein the attributes received over the communications
`channel are independent of the event to be determined by the
`processor, and wherein the processor is configured to determine
`the event without reprocessing the video.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner argues that the challenged claims are unpatentable based
`upon the following grounds:
`
`Reference(s)
`Talmon2
`Talmon and Aspectus4
`Talmon and Brill5
`
`Basis
`§ 102(e)3
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Challenged Claims
`1–4, 6–36
`1–4, 6–36
`1–4, 6–36
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`Institution of an inter partes review is discretionary. See Harmonic
`Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining
`that under § 314(a), “the PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute
`an IPR proceeding”). Accordingly, our rules provide that “the Board may
`authorize the review to proceed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (emphasis added).
`Our discretionary determination of whether to institute review is guided, in
`part, by 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), which states, in relevant part:
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 8,004,563 B2, filed July 3, 2003, issued Aug. 23, 2011
`(Ex. 1003, “Talmon”).
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the ’912 has
`an effective filing date before September 16, 2012, the effective date of the
`applicable AIA amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102
`and 103.
`4 Aspectus Video Intelligence System VI-SystemTM (Brochure) (2003–2004)
`(Ex. 1005, “Aspectus”).
`5 Frank Brill et al., Event Recognition and Reliability Improvements for the
`Autonomous Video Surveillance System, Proceedings of a Workshop held in
`Monterey California, pp. 267–283 (Nov. 20–23, 1998) (Ex. 1004, “Brill”).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`
`
`MULTIPLE PROCEEDINGS— . . . In determining
`whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter,
`chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account
`whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or
`substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were
`presented to the Office.
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`Our discretion under § 325(d) involves a balance between several
`competing interests. See Neil Ziegmann, N.P.Z., Inc. v. Stephens, Case
`IPR2015–01860, slip op. at 12–13 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2016) (Paper 11)
`(“While petitioners may have sound reasons for raising art or arguments
`similar to those previously considered by the Office, the Board weighs
`petitioners’ desires to be heard against the interests of patent owners, who
`seek to avoid harassment and enjoy quiet title to their rights.”) (citing
`H. Rep. No. 112–98, pt. 1, at 48 (2011)). “On the one hand, there are the
`interests in conserving the resources of the Office and granting patent
`owners repose on issues and prior art that have been considered previously.”
`Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, Case IPR2016–01876, slip op. 7 (PTAB
`Apr. 3, 2017) (Paper 8). “On the other hand, there are the interests of giving
`petitioners the opportunity to be heard and correcting any errors by the
`Office in allowing a patent—in the case of an inter partes review—over
`prior art patents and printed publications.” Id.
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–4 and 6–36 of the ’912 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Talmon or under
`§ 103 as obvious over Talmon in combination with other asserted art. See
`Pet. 2. Petitioner’s contentions are premised on its argument that the
`challenged claims are not entitled to the benefit of the November 15, 2001
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`
`filing date of U.S. Application No. 09/987,707 (“the ’707 application”)6 for
`failure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See id. at 21–27.
`Specifically, Petitioner contends that each of the challenged claims “recite”
`or “encompass” “two-processor systems” in which the second processor
`determines events based on attributes that were detected by the first
`processor. Petitioner contends that the second processor of the ’707
`application does not determine any events but merely responds to events
`determined by the first processor. Id. at 21–22 (emphasis added) (citing
`Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 117–131; Ex. 1038). Although Petitioner acknowledges that
`“this issue was considered during the ex parte reexamination of the ’912
`patent,” Petitioner argues “the Examiner made a clear error in determining
`the claimed two-processor system was disclosed in Application No.
`09/987,707, filed November 15, 2001.” Id. at 22.
`Patent Owner responds that we should deny institution of all grounds
`under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the issue of whether the claims of the ’912
`patent are entitled to claim priority to the November 15, 2001 filing date of
`the ’707 application was considered and properly decided during the
`ex parte reexamination proceeding of the ’912 patent. See Prelim. Resp. 15–
`20.
`
`For the reasons that follow, we exercise our discretion under
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and decline to institute inter partes review of the claims
`of the ’912 patent.
`The issue of whether claims 1–4 and 6–22 of the ’912 patent are
`supported by the ’707 application was considered and decided during the
`
`
`6 The ’912 patent claims priority to the ’707 application through a series of
`continuation-in-part applications. See Ex. 1001, [63].
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`
`ex parte reexamination proceeding. See Ex. 1016, 29–37; Ex. 1017, 6–7.
`For example, during the reexamination proceeding, relying on a declaration
`and “priority chart” by Dr. Zeger (Ex. 2004), Patent Owner argued the “first
`processor” of claim 1 of the ’912 patent is disclosed in Figures 1, 4, 5, and 9
`and paragraphs 49, 96, 106–117, and 148 of the ’707 application (Ex. 1038).
`See Ex. 1016, 31–33; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 46–50, pp. 76–79, 84–87. Patent Owner
`also argued the “second processor” of claim 1, which determines events by
`analyzing received determined attributes from the first processor over a
`communications link, is disclosed in Figures 3, 4, 6, and 9 and paragraphs
`48, 49, 96–104, 117–124, and 148–151 of the ’707 application. See
`Ex. 1016, 31–33; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 46–50, pp. 79–84, 86–87.
`In particular, Patent Owner argued that the disclosure in paragraph 96
`of the ’707 application of “forwarding . . . video primitives to another
`computer system via a network” provides support for both a first computer
`system that determines attributes (the processor of claim 1), as well as a
`second computer system that “receive[s] first the determined attributes/video
`primitives transferred from the first computer system over the
`network/communications link.” Ex. 1016, 31 (citing Ex. 20047 ¶ 48).
`Patent Owner also argued that because paragraph 118 of the ’707
`application “discloses that event discriminators, which are used to determine
`events from the attributes/video primitives are determined from tasking, the
`disclosure of ‘tasking . . . another computer system’ [in paragraph 96] is
`
`
`6 For clarity and convenience, this Decision will identify citations to the ’707
`application and to Zeger Declaration made during the ex parte
`reexamination proceeding as being made to Exhibit 1038 and Exhibit 2004
`respectively.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`
`explicit support for a second . . . computer system that is tasked to determine
`events by analyzing attributes/video primitives.” Ex. 1016, 32 (citing
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 48); Ex. 1038 ¶ 118, Figs. 2, 4. Patent Owner explained that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have understood that
`by disclosing “tasking . . . another computer system” by the first computer
`system 11 “in response to detection of an event,” the inventors “were in
`possession of an invention where event determination is performed by the
`other computer systems regardless of the specific manner in which the other
`computer systems were tasked.” Id. Patent Owner also explained that a
`POSITA would have understood that by disclosing both (1) “tasking . . .
`another computer system” to determine events using video primitives and
`(2) “forwarding . . . video primitives . . . to another computer system via a
`network,” the “inventors were in possession of an invention where the other
`computer system tasked to determine events using video primitives would
`use any video primitives to determine the events, including forwarded video
`primitives.” Ex. 1016, 32–33 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 49).
`Dr. Zeger cited to, inter alia, paragraphs 118 and 148–151 of the ’707
`application as disclosing a first processor that determines attributes and a
`second processor that determines events. See Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 46–58, pp. 76–87.
`For example, Dr. Zeger states paragraph 118 of the ’707 application
`discloses that the “system analy[z]es archived video primitives with event
`discriminators to generate reports, for example without needing to review
`the entire source video. . . . The video content can be reanalyzed . . . in a
`relatively short period of time because only video primitives are reviewed
`and because the video source is not reprocessed.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 52 (quoting
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`
`Ex. 1038 ¶ 148); see also id. ¶¶ 31, 55 (stating Fig. 9 and ¶¶ 38, 44, 48, 66,
`67, 96, 148, 150, 151 of the ’707 application support limitations of claim 1).
`The Examiner agreed with Patent Owner’s arguments and found the
`’707 application adequately supported the claims of the ’912 patent. See
`Ex. 1017, 6–7 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 45–58; Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 96, 106, 148–151).
`The Examiner stated paragraph 106 of the ’707 application discloses a first
`processor that determines video attributes and paragraph 96 discloses
`forwarding video primitives data to another computer system (e.g., a second
`processor) “capable of being tasked.” Ex. 1017, 7. The Examiner also
`stated paragraphs 148–151, which discuss the embodiment of Figure 9,
`disclose another computer system (e.g., a second processor) that “was
`further capable of independently determining events.” Id. The Examiner
`quoted paragraph 148, which states “the system [of Figure 9] analyzed
`archived primitives to generate additional reports.” Id.
`Petitioner argues the Examiner erred because “the patentee relied on
`paragraph 96 [describing block 34 of Figure 3] of the ’707 application as
`allegedly supporting the claims,” but “[n]othing in block 34 of paragraph 96
`discloses a first processor detecting attributes and a second processor
`determining events based on those attributes.” Pet. 23–24 (emphasis added)
`(citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 125). Petitioner contends that “[a]t most, [the examples
`discussed in paragraph 96] relate to a first computer system to detect events
`and attributes, and a second computer system for handling a response, but
`none support the claims.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 125).
`This argument is not persuasive because Patent Owner also argued
`paragraph 118 “discloses that event discriminators, which are used to
`determine events from the attributes/video primitives are determined from
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`
`tasking.” Ex. 1016, 32 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 48); Ex. 1038 ¶ 118, Figs. 2, 4.
`Patent Owner asserted because of this disclosure in paragraph 118, the
`disclosure of “‘tasking . . . another computer system’ [in paragraph 96] is
`explicit support for a second . . . computer system that is tasked to determine
`events by analyzing attributes/video primitives.” Ex. 1016, 32. Petitioner
`does not adequately address these additional arguments.
`Petitioner does state that any argument by Patent Owner that “the
`disclosure of ‘tasking . . . another computer system’ in response to detecting
`an event” in paragraph 96 supports the claims is wrong because “this
`sentence” does not “indicat[e] or require[e] that the second event is based on
`attributes determined by the first processor.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1016, 32;
`Ex. 1038 ¶ 96; Ex. 1006 ¶ 126). This argument is not persuasive because,
`again, Petitioner does not address Patent Owner’s arguments that paragraph
`118, in addition to paragraph 96, supports a second computer system that is
`tasked to determine events by analyzing video primitives. See Ex. 1016, 32.
`Petitioner also contends that the disclosure of saving data to a
`computer-readable medium does not support the claims because “a POSITA
`would understand that saving such data would be a reasonable response to
`take when an event is detected so the user can review the saved data or
`create reports” and “there is no reason to conclude this data would be used
`again to detect an event.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 65, 74, 124, 148;
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 127). This conclusory argument is not persuasive because
`paragraph 148 expressly states that the system of Figure 9 analyzes
`“archived video primitives with event discriminators to generate additional
`reports.” Ex. 1038 ¶ 148. Thus, paragraph 148 can be understood as
`disclosing a system that analyses archived video primitives with event
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`
`discriminators (e.g., a second processor that detects an event) and that this
`analysis is used to generate additional reports. Nor does Petitioner address
`Dr. Zeger’s priority claim chart, attached as Exhibit Z2 to his declaration,
`which cites to numerous other portions of the ’707 application for support
`for the two processors recited in claim 1. See, e.g., Ex. 2004, pp. 76–89
`(citing Ex. 1038, Figs. 1, 3–6, 9, ¶¶ 48, 49, 67, 96–104, 106–124, 148–151).
`Petitioner also argues the ’707 application does not support the
`challenged claims because Patent Owner did not so argue during prosecution
`of the application that gave rise to the ’912 patent. See Pet. 23. We
`disagree. The arguments Patent Owner chose to present during prosecution
`were sufficient to secure allowance of the ’912 patent, and, therefore, Patent
`Owner did not need to argue the ’707 application supported the claims of the
`’912 patent in order to secure allowance of the claims. Petitioner does not
`persuasively explain why we should determine that failure to present
`arguments unnecessary to secure allowance of a claim is evidence that the
`’707 application does not support the challenged claims.
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner fails to present
`sufficient evidence or argument to convince us that the Examiner’s
`determination during the ex parte reexamination proceeding that the
`challenged claims of the ’912 patent are supported by the ’707 application
`was unreasonable or in error. Accordingly, we determine that re-
`adjudicating an issue already presented and considered by the Office would
`not be an efficient use of Board resources. See Unified Patents Inc. v.
`Berman, Case IPR2016-01571, slip op. at 12 (PTAB Dec. 14, 2016) (Paper
`10) (informative) (“Petitioner fails to present any argument distinguishing
`the Examiner’s prior consideration of [the references] or to provide a
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`
`compelling reason why we should re-adjudicate substantially the same prior
`art and arguments as those presented during prosecution and considered by
`the Examiner. This would not be an efficient use of Board resources in this
`matter.”). We, therefore, exercise our discretion and decline to institute inter
`partes review of the challenged claims.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and
`no trial is instituted.
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`AXIS COMMUNICATIONS AB
`C. Gregory Gramenopoulos
`Jessica L.A. Marks
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
`gramenoc@finnegan.com
`jessica.marks@finnegan.com
`
`CANON INC. AND CANON U.S.A., INC.
`Joseph A. Calvaruso
`Richard F. Martinelli
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`jcalvaruso@orrick.com
`rfmptabdocket@orrick.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Eugene Goryunov
`Michael Dokhanchy
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`egoryunov@kirkland.com
`reza.dokhanchy@kirkland.com
`
`17
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
