`PETITIONERS
`CANON INC., CANON U.S.A., INC.
`AND AXIS COMMUNICATIONS AB
`Oral Hearing
`IPR2019-00311 and IPR2019-00314
`April 8, 2020
`U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`’923 Patent Claims Are Unpatentable
`
`Overview of ’923 Patent and Claimed Invention
`
`IPR2019-00311: Anticipated by Kellogg or Obvious over Kellogg and Brill
`
`IPR2019-00314: Obvious over Dimitrova and Brill
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Patent Owner admits it did not invent new object detection
`or computer vision techniques
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1001, 5:6-8
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1001, 10:27-29
`
`…
`
`…
`
`…
`
`…
`
`…
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1001, 10:44-48
`
`…
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1001, 10:49-57
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1001, 1:27-2:18
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Disclosed Invention – Detecting video primitives and
`applying an event discriminator to the video primitives
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1001, 1
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1001, 4:63-5:5
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 4
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Disclosed Invention – Video primitives/attributes include
`motions and activities.
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1001, 7:5-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1001, 7:37-49
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Representative Claim 1
`1. A method comprising:
`
`[1.1] detecting an object in a video from a single camera;
`
`[1.2] detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by
`analyzing the video from said single camera,
`the plurality of attributes including at least one of a physical
`attribute and a temporal attribute, each attribute
`representing a characteristic of the detected object;
`
`[1.3] selecting a new user rule after detecting the plurality of
`attributes; and
`
`[1.4] after detecting the plurality of attributes and after
`selecting the new user rule, identifying an event of the object
`that is not one of the detected attributes of the object by
`applying the new user rule to the plurality of detected
`attributes,
`
`[1.5] wherein the applying the new user rule to the
`plurality of detected attributes comprises applying the
`new user rule to only the plurality of detected
`attributes;
`
`[1.6] wherein the plurality of attributes that are
`detected are independent of which event is identified,
`
`[1.7] wherein the step of identifying the event of the
`object identifies the event without reprocessing the
`video, and
`
`[1.8] wherein the event of the object refers to the
`object engaged in an activity.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Issues Raised By Avigilon
`
`• Attributes vs. Events (Dimitrova)
`• New User Rule Requires A Response (Dimitrova)
`• Applying The User Rule To Attributes
`• Applying The New User Rule To Only The Attributes (Dimitrova)
`• Single Camera
`• Subset (Dimitrova)
`• Video Device
`• Obvious To Combine (Dimitrova)
`• Publication Of Prior Art (Dimitrova)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`The PTAB Need Not Revisit Previously Decided Issues
`
`Collateral Estoppel Applies To Issues When:
`
`(1) the issue is the same as the issue in the prior action;
`
`(2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action;
`
`(3) there was a final judgement in the first action that necessarily
`required determination of the identical issue; and
`
`(4) the prior action featured full representation of the estopped party.
`
`Mobile Tech, IPR2018-00481, Final Written Decision, Paper 29 at 10.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Collateral Estoppel - Timing
`
`‘923 Petitions Filed
`11/12/2018
`
`PTAB Inst. ‘923 Petitions
`7/8/2019
`
`Avigilon’s ‘923 PORs
`10/9/2019
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`12/20/2019
`
`PTAB Issues 661 FWDs
`5/30/2019
`
`Avigilon Appeals 661 FWDs
`7/30/2019
`
`Avigilon Withdraws ‘661
`Appeals 10/2/2019
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Collateral Estoppel – the PTAB has already decided
`
`• A “user rule” does not require a response
`• “Independent” (Arg. 2) - “the detection of attributes is independent
`from, i.e., not affected by, the user rule that tasks the system.”
`• Kellogg teaches the independence elements and is not like
`Courtney
`• A POSA would be motivated to combine Kellogg and Brill
`• Dimitrova teaches the independence elements and is not like
`Courtney
`• A POSA would be motivated to combine Dimitrova and Brill
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`ATTRIBUTES VS. EVENTS
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`ATTRIBUTES VS. EVENTS
`
`• Avigilon argues that the prior art is distinguishable because it
`detects events instead of attributes, which is the faulty basis for
`several of its arguments, see:
`
`• Kellogg does not disclose “the plurality of attributes that are detected are
`independent of which event is identified” POR at 31
`• Kellogg does not disclose “identifying…applying the new user rule to only
`the plurality of detected attributes” POR at 23
`• Kellogg does not disclose “selecting a new user rule after detecting the
`plurality of attributes” POR at 22
`• Kellogg does not disclose “wherein the memory is configured to store at
`least some of the plurality of attributes for at least two months” POR at 38
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Kellogg stores object attributes and allows a user to define
`and search for ad hoc events
`
`IPR2019-00311 Ex. 1003 (Kellogg)
`at 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`KELLOGG’s approach event demonstrates ad hoc events
`
`IPR2019-00311 Ex. 1003 (Kellogg)
`at 63
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`The PTAB has already decided that Kellogg discloses
`object and attribute detection that is independent from
`event determination
`
`IPR2018-00138-25, p. 18, Final
`Written Decision
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`The PTAB has already decided that Kellogg discloses
`object and attribute detection that is independent from
`event determination
`
`IPR2018-00138-25, p. 18-19, Final
`Written Decision
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`The PTAB has already decided that Kellogg discloses
`object and attribute detection that is independent from
`event determination
`
`IPR2018-00138-25, p. 19, Final
`Written Decision
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`“Attributes that are detected are independent of which
`event is identified” - Independence Arg. 2
`
`Petitioners’ Construction/ Position
`Event detection process does not alter the attribute
`detection process.
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction/Position
`“independent” means “the attributes are detected
`without regard to or knowledge of events or
`identification of events.”
`
`Board’s Institution Construction
`At this stage of the proceeding, we need not construe this claim limitation as Petitioner provides evidence and
`argument that Kellogg discloses this limitation under either claim interpretation. See Pet. 40–42.
`
`Board’s ’661 FWD Construction
`On the full record before us, we agree with Petitioner that the “independence-based claim elements” should be
`construed to require that “the detection of attributes is independent from, i.e., not affected by, the user rule that
`tasks the system.” IPR2018-00138, FWD at 8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Indexing does not turn attributes into events
`
`IPR2018-00138-25, p. 19-20, Final
`Written Decision
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`NEW USER RULE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`“New User Rule”
`
`Petitioners’ Construction/ Position
`A specified combination of a set of attributes for
`identifying an event
`
`Board’s Institution Construction
`No explicit construction of “new user rule” is necessary
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction/Position
`Plain and ordinary meaning,
`
`which is a “new a set of conditions such that when a
`defined event is detected it may trigger a response,”
`
`Board’s ’661 FWD Construction
`Although Patent Owner argues that a rule requires more than a query that returns whether an event has occurred
`(PO Resp. 31–32; Sur-Reply 9–10), we agree with Petitioner that a “response” is not required. IPR2018-00138, FWD
`at 13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Kellogg discloses providing a response
`
`IPR2019-00311 Ex. 1003 (Kellogg)
`at 79-80
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`APPLYING THE NEW USER RULE
`TO ATTRIBUTES
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`The PTAB has held that Kellogg “Applies” user rules to
`attributes
`
`’661 Patent Requires – “identifying an event of the object by
`applying the user rule to at least some of the plurality of attributes of
`the object”
`
`The FWD of the ‘661 Patent (IPR2018-00138) found Kellogg meets
`this limitation. At. p. 16.
`
`‘923 Patent Requires – “identifying an event of the object ... by
`applying the new user rule to the plurality of detected attributes,”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`“Applying” – Independence Argument 1
`
`Petitioners’ Construction/ Position
`“applying” would encompass any mechanism for
`analyzing the detected attributes to determine if they
`satisfy the user rule criteria, e.g., querying a
`database
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction/Position
`Plain and ordinary meaning;
`
`when “applying the new user rule to the plurality of
`detected attributes” some level of analysis occurs that is
`greater than mere data retrieval
`
`Board’s Institution Construction
`No construction of the term is required
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`‘923 Patent Disclosure
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1001, 5:6-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`KELLOGG’s Approach Event
`
`IPR2019-00311 Ex. 1003 (Kellogg)
`at 63
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`APPLYING THE NEW USER RULE
`TO ONLY THE ATTRIBUTES
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`“Applying the new user rule to only the plurality of detected
`attributes”
`
`Petitioners’ Construction/ Position
`Ordinary Meaning, or
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction/Position
`Any system that has the ability to search both attributes
`and abstractions, like in Kellogg—even if done at
`separate times—does not fall under the claim language
`of the ’923 patent.
`
`Excludes 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
`Board’s Institution Construction
`“Petitioner provides evidence and argument that the asserted prior art can ‘search only the attributes themselves
`and does not require traversing a tree structure of abstractions to search the detected attributes.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`‘923 Patent specification has no support for Avigilon’s
`“only” construction
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1001, 8:16-19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1001, 8:50-54
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`‘923 Patent specification has no support for Avigilon’s
`“only” construction
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1001, 14:61-15:4
`
`31
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics
`Int’l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
`• “‘comprising’ creates a presumption that the body of the claim is
`open…[and] that the claim does not exclude additional, unrecited
`elements.’” Id. at 1348.
`
`• “Because claim 4 uses ‘comprising,’ it encompasses more than one
`clock unless the written description or the prosecution history
`clearly limits claim 4 to its recited elements.” Id. at 1351.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Avigilon’s Expert admits that adding abstractions does not
`avoid the claim
`
`Bovik Deposition
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1056, 207:15-208:15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Kellogg Searches Only The Attributes
`
`IPR2019-00311 Ex. 1003 (Kellogg)
`at 83-84
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`SINGLE CAMERA
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Single Camera Limitations
`
`[1.1] detecting an object in a video from a single camera;
`
`[1.2] detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by analyzing the
`video from said single camera, the plurality of attributes including at
`least one of a physical attribute and a temporal attribute, each
`attribute representing a characteristic of the detected object;
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`‘923 Patent discloses using multiple cameras, not single
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1001, 9:23-24
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1001, 12:51-57
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1001, 6:3-8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Avigilon’s Expert’s Testimony Re Single Camera
`
`Bovik Deposition
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1056, 21:19 - 22:4
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Avigilon’s Expert’s Testimony Re Single Camera
`
`Bovik Deposition
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1056, 183:4-13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Avigilon’s Expert testified that Kellogg disclosed no
`problem with object detection
`
`Bovik Declaration
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 2019, 29-30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Kellogg teaches single camera object detection with more
`Detail than the ‘923 Patent
`
`IPR2019-00311 Ex. 1003 (Kellogg)
`at 77-78
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Kellogg teaches single camera object detection with more
`Detail than the ‘923 Patent
`
`IPR2019-00311 Ex. 1003 (Kellogg)
`at 79-80
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Kellogg teaches single camera object detection with more
`Detail than the ‘923 Patent
`
`‘923 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`KELLOGG
`
`43
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Brill teaches the “Single Camera” limitations
`
`Brill Ex. 1004, 4-5
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Brill Ex. 1004, 10
`
`44
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`A POSA would combine Kellogg and Brill for several reasons
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1005 (Grindon
`Decl.), ¶¶ 170, 173, 174
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`The PTAB has already decided that a POSA would combine
`Kellogg and Brill
`
`IPR2018-00138-25, p. 27, Final
`Written Decision
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`There are no relevant “secondary considerations”
`
`Avigilon’s Argument (IPR2019-00311, 47)
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1056 (Bovik Dep.) 122:4-123:1
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`There are no “secondary considerations”
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1056 (Bovik
`Dep.) 92:21-93:23
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`VIDEO DEVICE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Kellogg teaches “a Video Device,” like the ‘923 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Kellogg teaches “a Video Device”
`
`Bovik Deposition
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1056, 148:4-9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`DIMITROVA
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Dimitrova teaches storing attributes and detecting events
`
`IPR2019-00314 Ex. 1006
`(Dimitrova) at 3
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Dimitrova
`
`IPR2019-00314 Ex. 1006
`(Dimitrova) at 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`The PTAB has already analyzed Dimitrova
`
`IPR2018-00140, p. 7, Final Written
`Decision
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`The PTAB has already analyzed Dimitrova
`
`IPR2018-00140, p. 7, Final Written
`Decision
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`ATTRIBUTES VS. EVENTS
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`ATTRIBUTES VS. EVENTS
`
`• Avigilon makes several arguments all based on the faulty premise
`that the prior art detects events instead of attributes, see:
`
`• Dimitrova does not disclose “the plurality of attributes that are detected are
`independent of which event is identified” POR at 24.
`• Dimitrova does not disclose “identifying…applying the new user rule to only
`the plurality of detected attributes” POR at 16.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`The PTAB has already decided that Dimitrova is not
`distinguished because it is like Courtney.
`
`IPR2018-00140, p. 12, Final Written Decision
`
`IPR2018-00140, p. 12-13, Final Written Decision
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`59
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`OMV triplets record trajectory attributes
`just like ‘923 Patent
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1001, 7:37-49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`60
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Avigilon’s Expert agrees the patent does not limit
`how attributes are stored
`
`Bovik Deposition
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1056, 114:15-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`61
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Avigilon’s Expert agrees that the Patent does not limit how
`attributes are stored
`
`Bovik Deposition
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1056, 85:15-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`62
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Dr. Grindon did not admit that Dimitrova merely detects e
`vents
`
`Grindon’s Deposition
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 2018, 133:1-3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`63
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`APPLYING THE NEW USER RULE
`TO ONLY THE ATTRIBUTES
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`64
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Dimitrova permits searching only the attributes
`
`IPR2019-00140, Ex. 1006, at 21
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`65
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`NEW USER RULE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`66
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`The PTAB has already decided Dimitrova meets the user
`rule limitation
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`67
`
`IPR2018-00140, p. 13, Final Written
`Decision
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`A POSA would combine Dimitrova and Brill for several reasons
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1005 (Grindon
`Decl.), ¶¶ 178, 182, 183
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`68
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`The PTAB has already decided that a POSA would combine
`Dimitrova and Brill
`
`IPR2018-00140, p. 17, Final Written
`Decision
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`69
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Brill’s “Actions” Show A Response
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`70
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`PUBLICATION
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`71
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Kellogg is a printed publication
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1054 (Zimmerman
`Decl.) p. 9, Ex. B (Kellogg MIT MARC record)
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1003 (Kellogg)
`p. 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`72
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`MIT provided personal knowledge Kellogg was published
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1054
`(Zimmerman Decl.) pp. 1-4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`73
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Brill is a printed publication
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1049 (Kasik Decl.) p.
`39 (Virginia MARC record)
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1053 (Watters Decl.) p. 3 (Wisconsin stamped copy)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`74
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Wisconsin and Virginia provided personal knowledge Brill
`was published
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1053 (Watters Decl.) pp. 1-2
`
`IPR2019-00311, Ex. 1049 (Kasik Decl.) pp. 2-3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`75
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Dimitrova is a printed publication
`
`IPR2019-00314, Ex. 1055 (Zimmerman Decl.) p.
`10 (MIT stamped copy)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00314, Ex. 1006
`(Dimitrova) pp. 1-2
`
`76
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`MIT provided personal knowledge Dimitrova was published
`
`IPR2019-00314, Ex. 1055
`(Zimmerman Decl.) pp. 1-2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`77
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`Attorney argument cannot defeat evidence of publication
`• “It is well established that such bare attorney arguments cannot take the place
`of objective evidence and, thus, we accord them little evidentiary weight. In re
`Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315 (CCPA 1979); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399,
`1405(CCPA 1974)(‘Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of
`evidence’).”
`• “Even if we set aside Dr. Robinson’s Declaration, however, we are persuaded
`that the indicia of publication on the face of Varenna 2012 are sufficient to
`establish that Varenna 2012 was ‘sufficiently accessible to the public
`interested in the art’ and ‘disseminated or otherwise made available” to the
`interested public before the critical date, and consequently, a printed
`publication.’ Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016).”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`78
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`
`
`END
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`79
`
`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314
`Canon Ex. 1057
`
`