`Communications AB
`v.
`Avigilon Fortress Corporation
`
`IPR2019-00311 & IPR2019-00314: U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`Avigilon’s Oral Argument
`April 8, 2020
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`Background
`
`Collateral Estoppel Does Not Apply
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Ground 1: Kellogg Does Not Anticipate Claims 1-41
`
`Ground 2: Kellogg In View Of Brill Does Not Render
`Claims 1-41 Obvious
`
`Ground 3: Dimitrova In View of Brill Does Not Render
`Claims 1-41 Obvious
`
`Printed Publication Status
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`Background
`
`Collateral Estoppel Does Not Apply
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Ground 1: Kellogg Does Not Anticipate Claims 1-41
`
`Ground 2: Kellogg In View Of Brill Does Not Render
`Claims 1-41 Obvious
`
`Ground 3: Dimitrova In View of Brill Does Not Render
`Claims 1-41 Obvious
`
`Printed Publication Status
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`The ’923 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent)
`
`Challenged Claims:
`1-41
`
`4
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`The ’923 Patent
`
`’923 Patent
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`The ’923 Patent Is Directed To A Video Surveillance System That
`Identifies Events From Attributes Detected From A Single Camera
`
`’923 Patent
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at Fig. 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`’923 Patent, Claim 1
`
`’923 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent)
`at Claim 1
`
`7
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Asserted Prior Art References
`
`Kellogg
`
`Dimitrova
`
`Brill
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg)
`
`Ex. 1006 (Dimitrova)
`
`Ex. 1004 (Brill)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 2
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 22
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 69 (Fig. 4-1)
`
`9
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Dimitrova
`
`Ex. 1006
`(Dimitrova) at 19
`
`Ex. 1006
`(Dimitrova) at 22
`
`Ex. 1006 (Dimitrova) at 3
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1006
`(Dimitrova) at 23
`
`10
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Brill
`
`Ex. 1004 (Brill) at 4
`
`Ex. 1004 (Brill) at 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1004 (Brill) at 5 (Fig. 1)
`
`11
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Brill’s AVS System Refers To Courtney
`
`Brill
`
`Ex. 1004 (Brill) at 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1004 (Brill) at 12
`
`12
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`Background
`
`Collateral Estoppel Does Not Apply
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Ground 1: Kellogg Does Not Anticipate Claims 1-41
`
`Ground 2: Kellogg In View Of Brill Does Not Render
`Claims 1-41 Obvious
`
`Ground 3: Dimitrova In View of Brill Does Not Render
`Claims 1-41 Obvious
`
`Printed Publication Status
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Collateral Estoppel Does Not Apply
`
`• “Detecting An Object In A Video From A Single
`Camera” Limitation
`
`• “Applying The New User Rule To The Plurality
`Of Detected Attributes” Limitation
`
`• “Applying The New User Rule To Only The
`Plurality Of Detected Attributes” Limitation
`
`• “Video Device” Limitation
`
`• “No Analysis Is Performed On At Least Some Of
`The Detected Attributes To Detect An Event”
`Limitation
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at Claim 1
`
`14
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Collateral Estoppel Does Not Apply
`
`Rivera v. Remington Designs, LLC
`
`“[A] court cannot impose collateral estoppel to bar a claim construction dispute solely
`because the patents are related.”
`
`Case No. LA CV 16-04676 JAK (SSx), 2017 WL 3449615 at *4-5 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2017)
`Deere & Co. v. Gramm
`Collateral estoppel does not apply when differences in the function of the claim
`language “materially alter[s] the question of unpatentability.”
`IPR2015-00899, 2019 WL 7000102 at *13-14 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`In re Freeman
`Collateral estoppel is a “doctrine of fairness.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30 F.3d 1459, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
`
`15
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`The Issues In The ’923 Patent Have Not Been Actually Litigated
`’923 Patent
`’661 Patent
`
`Ex. 1035 (’661 Patent) at Claim 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at Claim 1
`
`16
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Collateral Estoppel Cases Do Not Apply
`
`Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.
`
`“It is undisputed that the claims at issue in the two appeals use the term ‘aseptic’ . . . in a
`similar fashion . . . More critically, the two patents also provide identical lexicography
`for the term “aseptic” in their specifications. Compare ’468 patent, col. 2 ll. 32–35 (“In
`the following description of the present invention, the term ‘aseptic’ denotes the United
`States FDA level of aseptic.”), with ’013 patent, col. 1 l. 67–col. 2 l. 2 (same); compare
`’468 patent, col. 5 ll. 45–46 (“Hereafter, ‘aseptic’ will refer to the FDA level of
`aseptic.”), with ’013 patent, col. 4 ll. 28–29 (same).”
`
`884 F.3d 1350, 1351-52 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Collateral Estoppel Cases Do Not Apply
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Samsung Elecs. Am.
`
`“The ’437 patent claims at issue recite a processor adapted for an “automatic file transfer process . . .
`without requiring any user-loaded file transfer enabling software to be loaded on or installed in the
`computer.’ . . . The ’144 patent recites a materially identical ‘without requiring’ limitation. ’144 patent,
`col. 12, lines 25–35 (‘an automatic file transfer process . . . without requiring any user-loaded file transfer
`enabling software to be loaded on or installed in the computer at any time’).”
`. . .
`The Board in the ’144 Patent Aytac Decision also made the same finding about Aytac’s teaching that the
`Board made in the present matter. It found that, in Aytac, ‘the ASPI drivers are the only file transfer
`enabling software needed for transferring a file to the host computer.’ Id. at *17 (emphasis added). The
`other elements of the CaTbox software, such as CATSYNC, ‘merely provide additional functionalities,’
`which Papst’s expert “confirms in his cross-examination testimony that the claims at issue do not require.’
`Id. at *16.
`
`924 F.3d 1243, 1252-53 (Fed.Cir. 2019)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Collateral Estoppel Cases Do Not Apply
`
`Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Invue Security Product Inc.
`
`“This case is the latest in a large family of related proceedings. As of this date, final
`written decisions have been issued in eleven related proceedings and decisions in eight
`of those proceedings have been affirmed by the Federal Circuit.”
`
`IPR2018-00481, FWD, Paper 29 at 7 (PTAB Jul. 16, 2019)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`Background
`
`Collateral Estoppel Does Not Apply
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Ground 1: Kellogg Does Not Anticipate Claims 1-41
`
`Ground 2: Kellogg In View Of Brill Does Not Render
`Claims 1-41 Obvious
`
`Ground 3: Dimitrova In View of Brill Does Not Render
`Claims 1-41 Obvious
`
`Printed Publication Status
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Term
`
`Petitioners’ Proposed Construction
`
`“attributes”
`
`“characteristics associated with an object”
`
`“new user rule”
`
`“specified combination of a set of attributes for identifying an event”
`
`“applying”
`
`“any mechanism for analyzing the detected attributes to determine if they satisfy
`the user rule criteria, e.g., querying a database”
`
`“event”
`
`“a minimum of two attributes”
`
`“independent”
`
`“the event detection process does not alter the attribute detection process”
`
`“only”
`
`“only limit claims as excluding coverage of systems that always reference an object
`hierarchy structure such as a tree structure that requires traversal of abstractions
`to apply the user rule”
`
`“video device”
`
`None proposed
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“attributes”
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at 4:64-5:1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at 7:5-7
`
`22
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Term
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction
`
`“attributes”
`
`Plain & Ordinary Meaning
`“characteristics associated with an object”
`
`“new user rule”
`
`“specified combination of a set of attributes for identifying an event”
`
`“applying”
`
`“any mechanism for analyzing the detected attributes to determine if they satisfy
`the user rule criteria, e.g., querying a database”
`
`“event”
`
`“a minimum of two attributes”
`
`“independent”
`
`“the event detection process does not alter the attribute detection process”
`
`“only”
`
`“only limit claims as excluding coverage of systems that always reference an object
`hierarchy structure such as a tree structure that requires traversal of abstractions
`to apply the user rule”
`
`“video device”
`
`None proposed
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“new user rule”
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at 4:54-56
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at Fig. 6
`
`24
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“new user rule”
`Dr. Bovik, Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`Dr. Grindon, Petitioners’ Expert
`
`Ex. 2019 (Bovik Decl.) at 21
`
`Ex. 2010 (Grindon Dep. Tr.) at 21:11-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Term
`
`Petitioners’ Proposed Construction
`
`“attributes”
`
`Plain & Ordinary Meaning
`“characteristics associated with an object”
`
`“new user rule”
`
`“applying”
`
`“new set of conditions such that when a defined
`“specified combination of a set of attributes for identifying an event”
`event is detected it may trigger a response”
`“any mechanism for analyzing the detected attributes to determine if they satisfy
`the user rule criteria, e.g., querying a database”
`
`“event”
`
`“a minimum of two attributes”
`
`“independent”
`
`“the event detection process does not alter the attribute detection process”
`
`“only”
`
`“only limit claims as excluding coverage of systems that always reference an object
`hierarchy structure such as a tree structure that requires traversal of abstractions
`to apply the user rule”
`
`“video device”
`
`None proposed
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`“applying”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent)
`at 5:6-23
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Term
`
`Petitioners’ Proposed Construction
`
`“attributes”
`
`Plain & Ordinary Meaning
`“characteristics associated with an object”
`
`“new user rule”
`
`“applying”
`
`“new set of conditions such that when a defined
`“specified combination of a set of attributes for identifying an event”
`event is detected it may trigger a response”
`“any mechanism for analyzing the detected attributes to determine if they satisfy
`Plain & Ordinary Meaning
`the user rule criteria, e.g., querying a database”
`
`“event”
`
`“a minimum of two attributes”
`
`“independent”
`
`“the event detection process does not alter the attribute detection process”
`
`“only”
`
`“only limit claims as excluding coverage of systems that always reference an object
`hierarchy structure such as a tree structure that requires traversal of abstractions
`to apply the user rule”
`
`“video device”
`
`None proposed
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“event”
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at 3:44-46
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Term
`
`Petitioners’ Proposed Construction
`
`“attributes”
`
`Plain & Ordinary Meaning
`“characteristics associated with an object”
`
`“new user rule”
`
`“applying”
`
`“new set of conditions such that when a defined
`“specified combination of a set of attributes for identifying an event”
`event is detected it may trigger a response”
`“any mechanism for analyzing the detected attributes to determine if they satisfy
`Plain & Ordinary Meaning
`the user rule criteria, e.g., querying a database”
`
`“event”
`
`“one or more objects engaged in an activity”
`“a minimum of two attributes”
`
`“independent”
`
`“the event detection process does not alter the attribute detection process”
`
`“only”
`
`“only limit claims as excluding coverage of systems that always reference an object
`hierarchy structure such as a tree structure that requires traversal of abstractions
`to apply the user rule”
`
`“video device”
`
`None proposed
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“independent”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent)
`at Claim 1
`
`31
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“independent”
`Declaration Of Dr. Zeger During Reexamination
`
`Ex. 1033 (’923 Ex Parte Reexam Zeger Decl.) at 18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“independent”
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at 6:63-67
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Term
`
`Petitioners’ Proposed Construction
`
`“attributes”
`
`Plain & Ordinary Meaning
`“characteristics associated with an object”
`
`“new user rule”
`
`“applying”
`
`“new set of conditions such that when a defined
`“specified combination of a set of attributes for identifying an event”
`event is detected it may trigger a response”
`“any mechanism for analyzing the detected attributes to determine if they satisfy
`Plain & Ordinary Meaning
`the user rule criteria, e.g., querying a database”
`
`“event”
`
`“one or more objects engaged in an activity”
`“a minimum of two attributes”
`
`“independent”
`
`“only”
`
`“the attributes are detected without regard to or
`“the event detection process does not alter the attribute detection process”
`knowledge of events or identification of events”
`“should at most only limit claims as excluding coverage of systems that always
`reference an object hierarchy structure such as a tree structure that requires
`traversal of abstractions to apply the user rule”
`
`“video device”
`
`None proposed
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`“only”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at Claim 1
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at Claim 30
`
`35
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Term
`
`Petitioners’ Proposed Construction
`
`“attributes”
`
`Plain & Ordinary Meaning
`“characteristics associated with an object”
`
`“new user rule”
`
`“applying”
`
`“new set of conditions such that when a defined
`“specified combination of a set of attributes for identifying an event”
`event is detected it may trigger a response”
`“any mechanism for analyzing the detected attributes to determine if they satisfy
`Plain & Ordinary Meaning
`the user rule criteria, e.g., querying a database”
`
`“event”
`
`“one or more objects engaged in an activity”
`“a minimum of two attributes”
`
`“independent”
`
`“only”
`
`“the attributes are detected without regard to or
`“the event detection process does not alter the attribute detection process”
`knowledge of events or identification of events”
`“only limit claims as excluding coverage of systems that always reference an object
`Plain & Ordinary Meaning
`hierarchy structure such as a tree structure that requires traversal of abstractions
`to apply the user rule”
`
`“video device”
`
`None proposed
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“video device”
`
`Proveris Sci. Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc.
`“A preamble is generally construed to be limiting if it ‘recites essential
`structure or steps, or if it necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the
`claim’ [and the body of the claim] rely upon and derive antecedent basis
`from the preamble.”
`
`739 F.3d 1367, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`“video device”
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at Claim 17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at Claim 9
`
`38
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Term
`
`Petitioners’ Proposed Construction
`
`“attributes”
`
`Plain & Ordinary Meaning
`“characteristics associated with an object”
`
`“new user rule”
`
`“applying”
`
`“new set of conditions such that when a defined
`“specified combination of a set of attributes for identifying an event”
`event is detected it may trigger a response”
`“any mechanism for analyzing the detected attributes to determine if they satisfy
`Plain & Ordinary Meaning
`the user rule criteria, e.g., querying a database”
`
`“event”
`
`“one or more objects engaged in an activity”
`“a minimum of two attributes”
`
`“independent”
`
`“only”
`
`“the attributes are detected without regard to or
`“the event detection process does not alter the attribute detection process”
`knowledge of events or identification of events”
`“only limit claims as excluding coverage of systems that always reference an object
`Plain & Ordinary Meaning
`hierarchy structure such as a tree structure that requires traversal of abstractions
`to apply the user rule”
`
`“video device”
`
`None proposed
`
`Plain & Ordinary Meaning
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`Background
`
`Collateral Estoppel Does Not Apply
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Ground 1: Kellogg Does Not Anticipate Claims 1-41
`
`Ground 2: Kellogg In View Of Brill Does Not Render
`Claims 1-41 Obvious
`
`Ground 3: Dimitrova In View of Brill Does Not Render
`Claims 1-41 Obvious
`
`Printed Publication Status
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Ground 1: Kellogg Fails To Anticipate Claims Of The ’923 Patent
`
`Ground
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.)
`
`Claims Being Reviewed
`
`Kellogg
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`1-41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose “Detecting An Object In A Video From A Single Camera”
`’923 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent)
`at Claim 1
`
`42
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose
`“Detecting An Object In A Video From A Single Camera”
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose A Method Of Detection
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 77
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose
`“Detecting An Object In A Video From A Single Camera”
`File History
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1002 at 78
`(Second Supplemental
`Amendment and Interview
`Summary, Feb. 4, 2011)
`
`44
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose
`“Detecting An Object In A Video From A Single Camera”
`Kellogg
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 68
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 19
`
`45
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose
`“Detecting An Object In A Video From A Single Camera”
`Kellogg
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg)
`at 69 (Fig. 4-1)
`
`46
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose
`“Applying The New User Rule To The Plurality Of Detected Attributes”
`’923 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent)
`at Claim 1
`
`47
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose
`“Applying The New User Rule To The Plurality Of Detected Attributes”
`
`Kellogg
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 52
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose
`“Applying The New User Rule To The Plurality Of Detected Attributes”
`Kellogg
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 50
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 50
`
`49
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose
`“Applying The New User Rule To The Plurality Of Detected Attributes”
`’923 Patent
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at 3:44-46
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at 3:30-33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at 8:59-61
`
`50
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose
`“Applying The New User Rule To Only The Plurality Of Detected Attributes”
`’923 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent)
`at Claim 1
`
`51
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose
`“Applying The New User Rule To Only The Plurality Of Detected Attributes”
`’923 Patent File History
`
`Ex. 1016 (’923 Ex Parte Reexam Amendment) at 78-79
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`Ex. 1017 (’923 Ex Parte Reexam Final Office Action) at 14
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose
`“Applying The New User Rule To Only The Plurality Of Detected Attributes”
`Kellogg
`
`Day-I
`
`Ex. 1022 (Day-I) at Fig. 5
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at Fig. 4-4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at Fig. 4-5
`
`53
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose
`“Applying The New User Rule To Only The Plurality Of Detected Attributes”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 81, 83-84
`
`54
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose
`“Applying The New User Rule To Only The Plurality Of Detected Attributes”
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.
`
`Reference does not anticipate unless “all of the limitations [are] arranged or
`combined the same way as recited in the claim.”
`
`545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose
`“Applying The New User Rule To The Plurality Of Detected Attributes”
`Dr. Grindon
`Q. And Kellogg says that additional information, such as size, measurements, and
`other factors, besides the set of points and local coordinate system, is then derivable
`from that information; right?
`A. Essentially, the last sentence of the paragraph says: Additional information, such as
`centroid, orientation, and bounding box, is derived from this information.
`
`Ex. 2018 (Grindon Dep. Tr.) at 17:22-18:7
`
`Q. And that additional information is not actually stored in connection with the object
`in Kellogg; right?
`A. I believe that's correct, that that's derivable. But whether I -- whether that's then
`stored anywhere or not, I can't say right now. I'd have to look through Kellogg.
`Ex. 2018 (Grindon Dep. Tr.) at 18:8-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose “The Plurality Of Attributes
`That Are Detected Are Independent Of Which Event Is Identified”
`’923 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent)
`at Claim 1
`
`57
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose “The Plurality Of Attributes
`That Are Detected Are Independent Of Which Event Is Identified”
`
`• Attribute and event determination are not
`distinct steps in Kellogg
`• Attributes are determined in anticipation of
`specific user queries in Kellogg
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose “The Plurality Of Attributes
`That Are Detected Are Independent Of Which Event Is Identified”
`Kellogg
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 54
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 64
`
`59
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose “The Plurality Of Attributes
`That Are Detected Are Independent Of Which Event Is Identified”
`
`Kellogg
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`60
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose “The Plurality Of Attributes
`That Are Detected Are Independent Of Which Event Is Identified”
`Kellogg
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 65
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 72
`
`61
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose “The Plurality Of Attributes
`That Are Detected Are Independent Of Which Event Is Identified”
`Day-I
`
`* * *
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1022 at 2
`
`62
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose “No Analysis Is Performed On At Least
`Some Of The Detected Attributes To Detect An Event”
`
`’923 Patent
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at Claims 4, 7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`63
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose “No Analysis Is Performed On At Least
`Some Of The Detected Attributes To Detect An Event”
`Kellogg
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 20-21
`
`64
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose “A Video Device” That Performs The Claim Limitations
`’923 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at Claim 9
`
`Ex. 1001 (’923 Patent) at Claim 30
`
`65
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose “A Video Device” That Performs The Claim Limitations
`
`Kellogg
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 2 (Abstract)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 10
`
`66
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Kellogg Does Not Disclose “A Video Device” That Performs The Claim Limitations
`
`Kellogg
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg)
`at 69 (Fig. 4-1)
`
`67
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`Background
`
`Collateral Estoppel Does Not Apply
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Ground 1: Kellogg Does Not Anticipate Claims 1-41
`
`Ground 2: Kellogg In View Of Brill Does Not Render
`Claims 1-41 Obvious
`
`Ground 3: Dimitrova In View of Brill Does Not Render
`Claims 1-41 Obvious
`
`Printed Publication Status
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`68
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Kellogg View Of Brill Fails To Render Claims Of The ’923 Patent Obvious
`
`Ground
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.)
`
`Claims Being Reviewed
`
`Kellogg in
`combination
`with Brill
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1-41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`69
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Brill Does Not Disclose “Detecting An Object In A Video From A Single Camera” Or “Detecting A
`Plurality Of Attributes Of The Object By Analyzing The Video From Said Single Camera”
`Brill Discloses Multiple Cameras
`
`Ex. 1004 (Brill) at Fig. 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1004 (Brill) at Fig. 2
`
`Ex. 1004 (Brill) at 5-6
`
`70
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Brill Does Not Disclose “Detecting An Object In A Video From A Single Camera” Or “Detecting A
`Plurality Of Attributes Of The Object By Analyzing The Video From Said Single Camera”
`
`Brill Detects Events, Not Attributes
`
`Ex. 1004 (Brill) at 12-13
`
`Ex. 1004 (Brill) at Fig. 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`71
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Brill Does Not Disclose “Detecting An Object In A Video From A Single Camera” Or “Detecting A
`Plurality Of Attributes Of The Object By Analyzing The Video From Said Single Camera”
`
`Brill
`
`Courtney
`
`Ex. 1004 (Brill) at 11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1021 (Courtney) at 10:50-64
`
`72
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Asserted Prior Art References
`
`No Motivation To Combine
`
`Kellogg
`
`Brill
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`73
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg)
`
`Ex. 1004 (Brill)
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`No Motivation To Combine Kellogg And Brill
`
`Petition
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`74
`
`Pet. at 30
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`No Motivation To Combine Kellogg And Brill
`Grindon Declaration
`
`Corrected Florio Declaration
`
`Ex. 1005 (Grindon Decl.)
`at ¶ 174
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1007 (Corrected
`Florio Decl.) at ¶ 40
`
`75
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`No Motivation To Combine Kellogg And Brill
`
`Brill
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`76
`
`Ex. 1004 (Brill) at 11
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`No Motivation To Combine Kellogg And Brill
`
`Kellogg
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003 (Kellogg) at 77
`
`77
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`No Motivation To Combine Kellogg And Brill
`
`Petition
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`78
`
`Pet. at 29
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`No Motivation To Combine Kellogg And Brill
`
`Dr. Bovik’s Declaration
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`79
`
`Ex. 2019 (Bovik Decl.) at 29-30
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`No Motivation To Combine Kellogg And Brill
`
`Kellogg
`Allegedly stores and queries
`attributes
`
`Brill
`Undisputedly stores and
`queries predetermined events
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`80
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`Background
`
`Collateral Estoppel Does Not Apply
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Ground 1: Kellogg Does Not Anticipate Claims 1-41
`
`Ground 2: Kellogg In View Of Brill Does Not Render
`Claims 1-41 Obvious
`
`Ground 3: Dimitrova In View of Brill Does Not Render
`Claims 1-41 Obvious
`
`Printed Publication Status
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`81
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Ground 3: Dimitrova In View Of Brill Fails
`To Render Claims Of The ’923 Patent Obvious
`
`Ground
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.)
`
`Claims Being Reviewed
`
`Dimitrova in
`combination
`with Brill
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1-41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`82
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Dimitrova Does Not Disclose “Applying The New User Rule To The
`Plurality Of Detected Attributes”
`Dimitrova
`
`Dr. Grindon
`
`Ex. 1006 (Dimitrova) at 20
`
`Q. Do you see the sentence immediately under that heading, the
`OMV triplet is the basis for the query functions; right?
`A. Right.
`Q. What do you understand that sentence to mean?
`A. That this provides the data upon which the query functions
`operate.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2018 (Grindon Dep. Tr.) at 135:13-21
`
`83
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Dimitrova Does Not Disclose “Applying The New User Rule To The
`Plurality Of Detected Attributes”
`Dimitrova
`
`Ex. 1006 (Dimitrova) at 19-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1006 (Dimitrova) at 19
`
`84
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Brill Does Not Disclose “Applying The New User Rule To The
`Plurality Of Detected Attributes”
`
`• Petitioners do not rely on Brill for this element
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`85
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Dimitrova Does Not Disclose “Applying The New User Rule To
`Only The Plurality Of Detected Attributes”
`Dimitrova Queries Abstraction Data
`
`Ex. 1006 (Dimitrova) at 21-22
`
`Ex. 1006 (Dimitrova) at 33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`86
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Dimitrova Does Not Disclose “Applying The New User Rule To
`Only The Plurality Of Detected Attributes”
`Dimitrova
`
`Ex. 1006 (Dimitrova) at 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1006 (Dimitrova) at Fig. 7
`
`87
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Avigilon Ex. 2024
`
`
`
`Dimitrova Does Not Disclose “Applying The New User Rule To
`Only The Plurality Of Detected Attributes”
`Dr. Grindon
`
`Q. And if you go back to Figure 7, on page 18, this Figure 7 is what that part is talking about when it
`says: Any level of the spatial hierarchy, which is the left set of figures; right?
`A. Yes.
`
`Ex. 2018 (Grindon Dep. Tr.) at 146:10-15
`
`A.
`
`Q. Well, the fact that you can provide a description at any level of the spatial hierarchy means that there