UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc., and Axis Communications AB,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Avigilon Fortress Corporation,
`
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00311
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923
`______________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 4
`A.
`The ʼ923 Patent ..................................................................................... 4
`B.
`Overview of the Claims of the ’923 Patent ........................................... 5
`C.
`The Petition Proposes One Anticipatory Challenge and One
`Obviousness Challenge ......................................................................... 6
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................. 7
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 8
`A.
`“attributes of the object” (Claims 1-7, 9-19, 22-28, 30-41);
`“attributes of each of the detected first and second objects”
`(Claims 8, 29); “attributes of the detected objects” (Claims 20,
`21) .......................................................................................................... 8
`“new user rule” (Claims 1-41) .............................................................. 9
`“applying”
`(Petitioners’
`“Independence Argument
`(1)”
`Discussion) (Claims 1-41) ................................................................... 10
`“event” (Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (3)” Discussion)
`(Claims 1-41) ....................................................................................... 11
`“independent” (Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (2)”
`Discussion) (Claims 1-41) ................................................................... 12
`“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” (Claims 1-19, 22-29);
`“wherein the analysis of the combination of the attributes to
`detect the event comprises analyzing only the combination of the
`attributes” (Claims 20-21); “wherein the applying the selected
`new user rule to the plurality of attributes stored in memory
`comprises applying the selected new user rule to only the
`plurality of attributes stored in memory” (Claims 30-41)................... 15
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`V.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`G.
`“a video device” (Claims 9, 20, and 30) ............................................. 18
`H. Means-Plus-Function Claims .............................................................. 19
`THE BOARD SHOULD REJECT THE PETITION IN ITS
`ENTIRETY .................................................................................................. 19
`A.
`Petitioners Fail to Prove Kellogg Is a “Printed Publication” .............. 19
`1.
`Petitioners Fail to Provide Competent Evidence of
`Kellogg’s Publication ................................................................ 19
`Petitioners Fail to Prove Brill Is a “Printed Publication”.................... 25
`1.
`Petitioners Provide No Evidence That Brill Was Published
` ................................................................................................... 25
`Petitioners Fail to Provide Adequate Evidence Brill Was
`Meaningfully Indexed ............................................................... 28
`The Art Presented Is Cumulative to That Considered in Prior
`Reexamination. .................................................................................... 29
`There Is No Motivation to Combine Kellogg and Brill ...................... 37
`Ground 1: Petitioners Fail to Prove Kellogg Anticipates Claims
`1–41 ..................................................................................................... 38
`1.
`Overview of Kellogg ................................................................. 38
`2.
`Petitioners Fail to Show Kellogg Teaches “detecting an
`object in a video from a single camera” (Claims 1-41) ............ 39
`Petitioners Fail to Show Kellogg Teaches “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, 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” (Claims 1-41) ........................................................... 45
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`F.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`Petitioners Fail to Show Kellogg Teaches “the plurality of
`attributes that are detected are independent of which event
`is identified” (Claims 1-41) ...................................................... 49
`Petitioners Fail to Show Kellogg Teaches “selecting the
`new user rule comprises selecting a subset of the plurality
`of attributes for analysis” (Claims 2, 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14,
`16, 23, 25, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38) ............................................. 51
`Petitioners Fail to Show Kellogg Teaches “a video device”
`(Claims 9, 20, and 30) ............................................................... 53
`Ground 2: Petitioners Fail to Prove Kellogg in Combination with
`Brill Renders Claims 1–4 Obvious ..................................................... 55
`1.
`Overview of Brill ...................................................................... 55
`2.
`Petitioners Fail to Show Kellogg in Combination with
`Brill Renders Obvious “detecting an object in a video from
`a single camera” (Claims 1-41) ................................................. 57
`Petitioners Fail to Show Kellogg in Combination with
`Brill Renders Obvious “the plurality of attributes that are
`detected are independent of which event is identified”
`(Claims 1-41) ............................................................................ 60
`Petitioners Fail to Show Kellogg in Combination with
`Brill Renders Obvious “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; 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”
`(Claims 1-41) ............................................................................ 60
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 62
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.,
`908 F.3d 765 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................... 20, 22, 23, 24
`Axis Comm’ns v. Avigilon Fortress Corp.,
`IPR2018-00138 ..................................................................................................... 8
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 25
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 22
`Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microeletronics Int’l, Inc.,
`246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 18
`Ford Motor Co. v. Versata Dev. Group, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01019, Paper 9 (Oct. 4, 2016) ................................................. 25, 26, 27
`Ford Motor,
`IPR 2016-01019 .................................................................................................. 26
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ................................................................ 20, 22, 28
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 36
`Impax Labs., Inc. v. Aventis Pharms, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 41
`In re Klopfenstein,
`380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 26, 27
`Neil Zeigmann, N.P.Z., Inc. v. Stephens,
`IPR2015-01860, Paper 13 (Sept. 6, 2017) .......................................................... 37
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`
`Proveris Sci. Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc.,
`739 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 18
`Rheox, Inc. v. Entact, Inc.,
`276 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 16
`Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.,
`54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................ 16
`Spectrum Int’l Inc. v. Sterilite Corp.,
`164 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 16
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Berman,
`IPR2016-01571, Paper 10 (Dec. 14, 2016)......................................................... 36
`VirnetX v. Apple,
`909 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 25, 29
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 25
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................. 36, 37
`Rules
`Fed. R. Evid. 602 ...................................................................................................... 20
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. §42.62(a) .................................................................................................. 20
`157 CONG. REC. 2710 (statement of Sen. Grassley) ................................................ 37
`157 CONG. REC. 12992 (Sept. 6, 2011) (statement of Sen. Leahy) ......................... 37
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, 48 (2011) ............................................................................. 37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`vi
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2001 Declaration of Michael W. De Vries in Support of Unopposed Motion
`to Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Patent Owner Avigilon Fortress
`Corporation.
`
`2002 Declaration of Adam R. Alper in Support of Unopposed Motion to
`Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Patent Owner Avigilon Fortress
`Corporation.
`
`2003 Declaration of Akshay S. Deoras in Support of Unopposed Motion to
`Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Patent Owner Avigilon Fortress
`Corporation.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.132 Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger (excerpt of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,868,912 Reexamination).
`
`Thomas Olson & Frank Brill, Moving Object Detection & Event
`Recognition Algorithms for Smart Cameras, 1 PROC. 1997 IMAGE
`UNDERSTANDING WORKSHOP 159-175 (1997).
`
`Jonathan D. Courtney, Automatic Video Indexing Via Object Motion
`Analysis, 30(4) PATTERN RECOGNITION 607-625 (1997).
`
`2007 U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835 to Brill et al.
`
`2008 Young Francis Day, et al, Spatio-Temporal Modeling of Video Data
`for On-Line Object-Oriented Query Processing, Proceedings of the
`International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems 98-
`105 (1995).
`
`Second Supplemental Amendment, U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923 (Feb. 4,
`2011).
`
`IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140, Ex. 2009 (Grindon Dep. Transcript
`Aug. 15, 2018).
`
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2011 Declaration of Jennifer A. Babbitt.
`
`SearchWorks Catalog Entry for Thomas Olson & Frank Brill, Moving
`Object Detection & Event Recognition Algorithms for Smart Cameras,
`1 PROC. 1997 IMAGE UNDERSTANDING WORKSHOP 159-175 (1997).
`
`Scanned Cover and Front Matter of Jonathan D. Courtney, Automatic
`Video Indexing Via Object Motion Analysis, 30(4) PATTERN
`RECOGNITION 607-625 (1997)
`
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Board should deny the instant Petition because Petitioners Canon Inc.,
`
`Canon U.S.A., Inc., and Axis Communications AB (collectively, “Petitioners”) have
`
`not shown a reasonable likelihood that they will prevail with respect to any
`
`challenged claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923 (“the ’923 patent”). Petitioners raise
`
`two grounds in their petition: (1) anticipation by a thesis entitled “Visual Memory”
`
`by Christopher James Kellogg (“Kellogg”) (Ex. 1003); and (2) obviousness due to a
`
`combination of Kellogg and a workshop report entitled “Event Recognition and
`
`Reliability Improvements for the Autonomous Video Surveillance System” by Frank
`
`Brill et al. (“Brill”) (Ex. 1004).
`
`The references asserted in this petition fail at least for reasons already
`
`established during ex parte Reexamination 90/012,876 (“the ’923 patent
`
`reexamination), which involved very similar prior art from the same group of authors
`
`at the same company, Texas Instruments. Petitioners rely on Kellogg and Brill,
`
`which are references that flow from prior art that were at issue and overcome in the
`
`’923 patent reexamination. During the ’923 patent reexamination, the reexamination
`
`Panel considered a patent to Courtney (U.S. Patent No. 5,969,755) (“Courtney”) (Ex.
`
`1021) and a patent to Brill and Olson (U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835) (“Brill Patent”)
`
`(Ex. 2007). The new Kellogg and Brill references are duplicative of what was
`
`already considered.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`Kellogg is purported to be a master’s degree thesis supervised by Bruce E.
`
`Flinchbaugh (the manager of the Image Understanding Branch at Texas
`
`Instruments), Ex. 1003 at 2, and is very similar to the Courtney and Brill Patent
`
`references, as explained below. Brill, asserted in the instant petition, is also highly
`
`similar to the Brill Patent (which came later), and also explicitly states that its core
`
`system is the same as the one found in Courtney. Ex. 1004 at 11 (“In the
`
`implementation we will use the methods discussed in [Courtney, 1997, Olson and
`
`Brill, 1997] to track objects and recognize the simple events.”), 12 (“The primary
`
`technique used by AVS for event recognition is motion graph matching as described
`
`in [Courtney, 1997].”) It is also very similar to an earlier article from Olson and
`
`Brill entitled, “Moving Object Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms for
`
`Smart Cameras,” (“Olson and Brill 1997”) (Ex. 2005), that was overcome in ex parte
`
`Reexamination 90/012,878 of the very similar Lipton patent (U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,868,912) (“the related ’912 patent reexamination”), also being challenged by the
`
`same Petitioners. Ex. 1004 at 4 (“The structure and function of the AVS system is
`
`described in detail in a previous IUW paper [Olson and Brill 1997].”), 12; see Ex.
`
`2005 at 5. Thus, the references Petitioners chose for the instant Petition are
`
`redundant over the prior art already overcome in the ’923 patent reexamination and
`
`the related ’912 patent reexamination. The new references are authored by the same
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`authors and their colleagues, describe the same systems, and suffer from the same
`
`key deficiencies that previously led the Patent Office to allow the claims.
`
`In particular, the reexamination prior art and the references asserted here—
`
`either alone or in combination—fail to disclose a requirement of all of the challenged
`
`’923 patent claims: “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.” Ex. 1001, claim 1. Instead, the alleged event-identification process in
`
`the asserted prior art merely describes storage and retrieval of already-identified
`
`events, rather than event identification based on attributes. Indeed, the references
`
`asserted here, just like the references at issue in the reexamination, involve mere
`
`event indexing and retrieval—i.e., searching for or querying a stored event using an
`
`index. The references also fail to teach another claim requirement of all of the
`
`claims: that the alleged attributes be determined “independent” of the identification
`
`of an event. In the asserted references, the indexing process ties together the alleged
`
`attribute detection and event determination such that the alleged attribute detection
`
`is not independent of the events or the event determination process. This is the exact
`
`type of system the inventors sought to avoid with the ’923 patent.
`
`The Petition also suffers from other fatal flaws apart from the fact that
`
`Petitioners’ arguments are redundant of those already presented, including that
`
`Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the references were printed publications.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`Patent Owner therefore respectfully urges the Board to dismiss this Petition in its
`
`entirety.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. The ʼ923 Patent
`The ’923 patent teaches an improved video surveillance system that distills
`
`important information from video, determines events, and generates alarms. Ex.
`
`1001 at 2:43-53.
`
`First, a video camera or other sensor provides the initial input data. Ex. 1001
`
`at 6:3-4, 9:23-24. Second, any motion or change detection algorithm can be used to
`
`detect objects. Id. at 9:30-48. Video primitives, which are “observable attribute[s]
`
`of an object,” are extracted in real time from the source video. Id. at 7:6-7, 9:25-26.
`
`The ’923 patent is directed to using video primitives as the primary
`
`commodity of information interchange. Id. at 5:12-14. The system then uses event
`
`discriminators, which are identified by describing interactions between video
`
`primitives. Id. at 5:30-32, 7:5-7, 8:50-58. The system is automatically operated,
`
`detects and archives video primitives, and detects event occurrences in real time
`
`using event discriminators. Id. at 9:13-17. “Without tasking, the video surveillance
`
`system operates by detecting and archiving video primitives and associated video
`
`imagery without taking any action.” Id. 6:64-67. The patent describes event
`
`detection as an analysis based upon combinations of video primitives. Id. at 6:30-
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`36. Finally, a response may then be identified, which may include activating an alert
`
`or forwarding data to another computer system. Id. at 8:36-49. The action taken
`
`occurs in real time as appropriate. Id. at 9:17-22. For example, “an example of an
`
`event discriminator for an object, a spatial attribute, and a temporal attribute
`
`associated with a response include: a person enters an area between midnight and
`
`6:00 a.m., and a security service is notified.” Id. at 9:9-12.
`
`B. Overview of the Claims of the ’923 Patent
`Petitioners have challenged all forty-one claims of the ’923 patent, of which
`
`claims 1, 8, 9, 20, 22, 29, and 30 are independent claims. Claim 1 recites a method
`
`and is the basis for dependent claims 2 through 7. Claim 8 recites a method. Claim
`
`9 recites a method, and is the basis for dependent claims 10 through 11 and claims
`
`13 through 19. Claim 12 depends on claim 11. Claim 20 recites a method and is the
`
`basis for dependent claim 21. Claim 22 is similar to claim 1 but recites an apparatus.
`
`Claim 22 is the basis for dependent claims 23 through 28. Claim 29 is similar to
`
`claim 8 but recites an apparatus. Claim 30 is similar to claim 9 but recites an
`
`apparatus. Claim 30 is the basis for dependent claims 31 through 32 and claims 34
`
`through 41. Claim 33 depends on claim 32. See generally Ex. 1001.
`
`Using claim 1 as an example, the first step in the process includes “detecting
`
`an object in a video from a single camera.” Ex. 1001, claim 1. The next step involves
`
`“detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by analyzing the video from said
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`single camera” where the plurality of attributes includes “at least one of a physical
`
`attribute and a temporal attribute, each attribute representing a characteristic of the
`
`detected object.” Id. A “new user rule” is selected thereafter. Id. Then, an event is
`
`identified “that is not one of the detected attributes of the object by applying the new
`
`user rule to the plurality of detected attributes” wherein the new user rule is only
`
`applied to the plurality of detected attributes. Id., claim 22. The plurality of
`
`attributes are independent of the identified event, the event is identified without
`
`reprocessing the video, and the identified event “refers to the object engaged in an
`
`activity.” Id.
`
`Independent claims 9 and 30 further require the system to include a video
`
`device with the means for carrying out the described system. See id., claims 9, 30.
`
`Claims 22 and 29 also specify the system is a “non-transitory computer-readable
`
`storage medium containing instructions that when executed by a computer system
`
`cause said computer system to implement the following method.” See id., claims
`
`22, 29.
`
`C. The Petition Proposes One Anticipatory Challenge and One
`Obviousness Challenge
`Here, Petitioners propose two grounds of invalidity as summarized in the chart
`
`below:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`Secondary
`Reference
`
`
`Primary
`Reference
`Kellogg
`
`Kellogg
`
`Brill
`
`’923 Patent
`Claims
`1-41
`
`1-41
`
`Type
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`Ground
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Grindon, states a person of ordinary skill (“POSITA”)
`
`would have a Bachelor of Science in “electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`
`or computer science, with approximately two years of experience or research related
`
`to video processing and/or surveillance systems.” Ex. 1005 at ¶ 77. No explanation
`
`or factual basis is provided.
`
`Petitioners’ level of skill is incorrect because it allows for experience in “video
`
`processing” or “surveillance systems,” but does not require both. The field of the
`
`’923 patent is “a system for automatic video surveillance employing video
`
`primitives.” Ex. 1001 at 1:18-19; see also id. at 4:47 (“the automatic video
`
`surveillance system of the invention”). Because the ’923 patent is at the intersection
`
`of “video processing” and “surveillance systems,” both are required in the ordinary
`
`level of skill.
`
`Thus, a POSITA regarding the ’923 patent would have (i) a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science,
`
`with approximately two years of experience or research in the field of video
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`surveillance systems or (ii) equivalent training and work experience in the field of
`
`video surveillance systems.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“attributes of the object” (Claims 1-7, 9-19, 22-28, 30-41);
`“attributes of each of the detected first and second objects”
`(Claims 8, 29); “attributes of the detected objects” (Claims 20, 21)
`Petitioners propose that “attributes” should be defined as “characteristics
`
`associated with an object,” arguing that “attributes” and “primitives” are used
`
`interchangeably throughout the patent. Pet. at 9-10. Petitioners’ construction,
`
`however, is overly broad and inconsistent with the specification. See Ex. 1001, 4:64-
`
`5:1 (“Event discriminators are identified with one or more objects (whose
`
`descriptions are based on video primitives), along with one or more optional spatial
`
`attributes, and/or one or more optional temporal attributes.”), 7:5-7 (“An event
`
`discriminator is described in terms of video primitives. A video primitive refers to
`
`an observable attribute of an object viewed in a video feed.”). No construction of
`
`“attributes” is necessary here for Petitioners’ challenges. As the Board found in the
`
`Axis Comm’ns v. Avigilon Fortress Corp., IPR2018-00138 and IPR2018-00140
`
`(collectively, “the related ’661 patent IPRs”) Institution Decisions, where the Board
`
`construed the “attributes” term in the claims of the related U.S. Patent 8,564,661
`
`(“the ’661 patent”) (Ex. 1035), the “attributes” terms should be given their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`
`B.
`“new user rule” (Claims 1-41)
`Petitioners’ construction erroneously defines “new user rule” as “a specified
`
`combination of a set of attributes for identifying an event.” Pet. at 10. This is
`
`incorrect because, as Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Grindon, confirms, Petitioners’
`
`construction equates “new user rule” with “event discriminators.” See Ex. 1005 at
`
`¶ 93. But a “new user rule” and an “event discriminator” are not the same thing.
`
`The ’923 patent explains “[e]vent discriminators are identified with one or more
`
`objects (whose descriptions are based on video primitives), along with one or more
`
`optional spatial attributes, and/or one or more optional temporal attributes.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 4:63-5:1. The ’923 patent provides an example: “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 15 minutes’ and ‘between
`
`10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.’” Id. at 5:1-5.
`
`Selecting a “new user rule” requires more than merely providing an event
`
`discriminator. Rather, a “new user rule” is applied to “the plurality of detected
`
`attributes” and may trigger a response that is performed when a particular event or
`
`type of event is detected. Ex. 1001, claim 1. In the related ’661 patent IPRs, Dr.
`
`Grindon agreed that user “rules” must have the ability to trigger responses.
`
`IPR2018-00138, Ex. 2009 at 21:11-17 (Ex. 2010). Furthermore, the specification of
`
`the ’923 patent is consistent with this understanding. For example, Fig. 3 illustrates
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`a process for tasking a system. Ex. 1001 at Fig. 3, 7:1-2. In block 35 of Fig. 3, “one
`
`or more discriminators are identified by describing interactions between video
`
`primitives . . . spatial areas of interest, and temporal attributes of interest.” Ex. 1001
`
`at 8:50-54. However, the response is not a part of the event discriminator, described
`
`in block 35. Rather, it is its own separate step identified in block 34. Id. at 8:56-58,
`
`11:13-14 (“In block 61, responses are undertaken as dictated by the event
`
`discriminators that detected the event occurrences. The response, if any, are
`
`identified for each event discriminator in block 34.”).
`
`A “new user rule” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. To the
`
`extent the Board requires an explicit recitation of that plain and ordinary meaning, it
`
`should be construed as “new a set of conditions such that when a defined event is
`
`detected it may trigger a response,” as discussed in ’923 patent. Ex. 1001 at 4:54-
`
`56 (“The system can have a prescribed response to the analysis, such as record data,
`
`activate an alarm mechanism, or active [sic] another sensor system.”).
`
`C.
`
`“applying” (Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (1)”
`Discussion) (Claims 1-41)
`Petitioners argue that “applying,” in the phrase “by applying the new user rule
`
`to the plurality of detected attributes,” should “encompass any mechanism for
`
`analyzing the detected attributes to determine if they satisfy the user rule criteria,
`
`e.g., querying a database.” Pet. at 11-12. Petitioners’ construction is overbroad and
`
`attempts to sweep in inapplicable prior art, because merely querying a database is
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`not sufficient to disclose “applying the new user rule to the plurality of detected
`
`attributes.” Id.
`
`As an example, the language of claim 1 recites “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.” Ex. 1001, claim 1. A mere query does
`
`not satisfy the claim language because mere data retrieval is not “applying the new
`
`user rule” to “identify” an event. A query simply retrieves data that matches some
`
`parameters. Some level of analysis, determination, identification, etc., is required
`
`when “applying the new user rule to the plurality of detected attributes.” Ex. 1001,
`
`claim 1, at 5:12-23, 8:37-49, 14:56-15:4.
`
`As Patent Owner argued in the ’923 patent reexamination, “the ’923 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.” Ex.
`
`1016 at 31. This active evaluation of attributes is a more involved process and is not
`
`satisfied by retrieving results from a database. The term should thus be given its
`
`plain meaning.
`
`D.
`
`“event” (Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (3)” Discussion)
`(Claims 1-41)
`Petitioners propose that an ‘“event’ comprises a minimum of two attributes.”
`
`See Pet. at 14. This contradicts the patentee’s express definition of “event,” which
`
`is “one or more objects engaged in an activity.” Ex. 1001 at 3:44–46. The claims
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`further confirm the same. See, e.g., id. claim 1 (“the event of the object refers to the
`
`object engaged in an activity”). The case law is unambiguous that an applicant’s
`
`express definition controls. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005). In fact, Petitioners previously agreed to the patentee’s definition in the related
`
`’661 patent IPRs. IPR2018-00138, Paper 1 at 13 (“Accordingly, an ‘event’ should
`
`be construed as ‘one or more objects engaged in an activity.’”); IPR2018-00138,
`
`Paper 8 at 7-8; IPR2018-00140, Paper 1 at 14; IPR2018-00140, Paper 8 at 7.
`
`Petitioners’ proposed construction should be rejected in favor of the applicant’s
`
`definition.
`
`E.
`
`“independent” (Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (2)”
`Discussion) (Claims 1-41)
`Petitioners argue that the proper construction of “independent” requires that
`
`the “event detection process does not alter the attribute detection process.” Pet. at
`
`15. Petitioners’ construction is incorrect. “Independent” should be construed to
`
`mean “the attributes are detected without regard to or knowledge of events or
`
`identification of events.”
`
`In the related ’661 patent IPRs, the Board construed the “independent” term
`
`in the claims of the related ’661 patent as “attributes are detected without regard to
`
`or knowledge of events.” IPR2018-00138, Paper 8 at 10; IPR2018-00140, Paper 8
`
`at 10. The Board drew this conclusion for two reasons. First, the ’661 patent
`
`“describe[d] two different and distinct steps of detecting attributes and tasking event
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00311
`discriminators.” Id. (citing Ex. 1035 at 16:24–30). Secondly, the ’661 patent
`
`explained “detecting video primitives or attributes may be performed without
`
`tasking any event discriminators.” IPR2018-00138, Paper 8 at 10; IPR2018-00140,
`
`Paper 8 at 10. These reasons also apply to the ’923 patent, which contain the same
`
`specification statements. “Tasking the video surveillance system involves
`
`specifying 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.” Compare Ex. 1001 at 6:63-67 with Ex. 1035 at
`
`16:24–30. Thus, without tasking particular event discriminators, the attribute
`
`detection process still operates to independently detect the attributes.
`
`Additional