UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`——————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`——————————
`
`Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc., and Axis Communications AB
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Avigilon Fortress Corporation,
`
`Patent Owner
`——————————
`Case: Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923
`Issue Date: April 26, 2011
`
`Title: Video Surveillance System Employing Video Primitives
`——————————
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN R. GRINDON, D.Sc.
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 1 of 210
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 2
`I.
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ..................................................................... 7
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY ...................................... 9
`A.
`Anticipation Analysis: 35 U.S.C. § 102 ..............................................11
`B.
`Obviousness Analysis: 35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................12
`IV. THE ’923 PATENT ......................................................................................17
`A.
`Overview .............................................................................................17
`B.
`Prosecution History .............................................................................24
`1.
`Prosecution ................................................................................24
`2.
`Inter partes reexamination ........................................................24
`3.
`Ex parte reexamination .............................................................25
`4.
`Prior Proceedings in the Related Patents ..................................28
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................................29
`C.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................30
`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 object” (claims 20,
`21) ........................................................................................................33
`“new user rule” (claims 1-41) .............................................................34
`Independence-based limitations (claims 1-41) ...................................36
`1.
`Independence Argument (1): requires identifying an
`event that refers to one or more objects engaged in an
`activity by analyzing the detected attributes .............................37
`
`B.
`C.
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 2 of 210
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`D.
`
`Independence Argument (3): the identified event is not
`one of the detected attributes ....................................................38
`Independence Argument (2): the detected attributes are
`“independent” of the event identified or detected ....................43
`“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) .............50
`E. Means-plus-function elements (claims 9-19, 30-41) ..........................54
`1.
`“means for detecting an object in a video from a single
`camera” [9.1]; “means for detecting first and second
`objects in a video from a single camera” [30.1] .......................55
`“means for detecting a plurality of attributes of the object
`by analyzing the video from said single camera, the
`plurality of attributes including at least a physical
`attribute and a temporal attribute, each attribute
`representing a characteristic of the detected object” [9.2];
`“means for detecting a plurality of attributes of the object
`by analyzing the video from said single camera, each
`attribute representing a characteristic of the respective
`detected object” [30.2] ..............................................................55
`“means for selecting a new user rule after the plurality of
`detected attributes are stored in memory” [9.4] ........................56
`“means for identifying an event…” [9.5]-[9.8]; “means
`for identifying an event of the first object interacting with
`the second object…” [30.4]-[30.6] ...........................................56
`VI. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART ...................................................................57
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`ii
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 3 of 210
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`State of the Prior Art and Applicant-Admitted Prior Art ....................57
`A.
`Kellogg ................................................................................................59
`B.
`Brill ......................................................................................................62
`C.
`Dimitrova .............................................................................................64
`D.
`E. Motivation to Combine Kellogg and Brill ..........................................66
`F. Motivation to Combine Dimitrova and Brill .......................................70
`VII. THE PETITION PRESENTS NEW ISSUES OF
`PATENTABILITY AND THE BOARD SHOULD NOT
`EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO REJECT THE PETITION ...........73
`1.
`Dispute Regarding the Independence-Based Claim
`Elements in the Prior Proceedings ............................................74
`Kellogg Alone or Kellogg and Brill .........................................75
`2.
`Dimitrova and Brill ...................................................................77
`3.
`VIII. CLAIMS 1-41 OF THE ’923 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`OVER THE PRIOR ART ...........................................................................79
`A.
`Kellogg Anticipates Claims 1-41 ........................................................79
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................79
`2.
`Claims 2, 4, 7[2], 13, 16, 23, 25, 28[2], 34 and 38 ...................95
`3.
`Claims 3, 7[1], 17, 24, 28[1] and 39 .........................................96
`4.
`Claims 5, 6, 15, 21, 26, 27 and 37 ............................................98
`5.
`Independent Claim 8 ...............................................................101
`6.
`Independent Claim 9 ...............................................................106
`7.
`Claims 10 and 31.....................................................................110
`8.
`Claims 11 and 32.....................................................................111
`
`iii
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 4 of 210
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`Claims 12 and 33.....................................................................114
`9.
`10. Claims 14 and 35.....................................................................116
`11.
`Claims 18 and 40.....................................................................119
`12. Claims 19 and 41.....................................................................120
`13.
`Independent Claim 20 .............................................................121
`14.
`Independent Claims 22 and 29 ................................................121
`15.
`Independent Claim 30 .............................................................122
`16. Claim 36 ..................................................................................123
`Kellogg in view of Brill Renders Claims 1-41 Obvious ...................124
`1.
`Claims 1-7 ...............................................................................124
`2.
`Claim 8 ....................................................................................126
`3.
`Claims 9-19 .............................................................................128
`4.
`Claims 12 and 33.....................................................................131
`5.
`Claims 14 and 35.....................................................................134
`6.
`Claims 18 and 40.....................................................................136
`7.
`Claims 20-21 ...........................................................................138
`8.
`Claims 22-29 ...........................................................................140
`9.
`Claims 30-41 ...........................................................................140
`Dimitrova in view of Brill Renders Claims 1-41 Obvious ...............145
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ...............................................................145
`2.
`Claims 2, 4, 7[2], 13, 16, 23, 25, 28[2], 34 and 38 .................164
`3.
`Claims 3, 7[1], 17, 24, 28[1] and 39 .......................................165
`4.
`Claims 5, 6, 15, 21, 26, 27 and 37 ..........................................167
`
`iv
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 5 of 210
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`Independent Claim 8 ...............................................................169
`5.
`Independent Claim 9 ...............................................................177
`6.
`Claims 10 and 31.....................................................................185
`7.
`Claims 11 and 32.....................................................................186
`8.
`Claims 12 and 33.....................................................................189
`9.
`10. Claims 14 and 35.....................................................................193
`11.
`Claims 18 and 40.....................................................................197
`12. Claims 19 and 41.....................................................................198
`13.
`Independent Claim 20 .............................................................199
`14.
`Independent Claims 22 and 29 ................................................199
`15.
`Independent Claim 30 .............................................................200
`16. Claim 36 ..................................................................................202
`IX. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................202
`
`v
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 6 of 210
`
`

`

`I, Dr. John R. Grindon, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I make this Declaration based upon my own personal knowledge and,
`
`if called upon to testify, would testify competently to the matters stated herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked by Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Axis
`
`Communications AB (collectively “Petitioner”) to provide technical assistance in
`
`connection with the Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`(“the ’923 patent”). This Declaration, which I understand will be filed with the
`
`Petition, is a statement of certain opinions I have formed on issues related to the
`
`patentability of claims 1-41 of the ’923 patent.
`
`3.
`
`It is my opinion that each of claims 1-41 of the ‘923 Patent is
`
`unpatentable in view of the identified prior art. My opinions are stated in detail in
`
`this Declaration, with reference to the exhibits attached to the Petition and
`
`additional exhibits attached to my Declaration.
`
`4.
`
`I am being paid at my customary rate of $500 per hour for my time
`
`spent in study, preparation, and testifying in this matter. I am also being
`
`reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses associated with my work. No
`
`portion of my compensation is dependent or otherwise contingent upon the
`
`specifics of my testimony or the results of this matter. My compensation is not
`
`contingent upon the outcome of this inter partes review.
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 7 of 210
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`My name is John R. Grindon. I reside in Hazelwood, Missouri. I have
`
`been retained by Petitioner as an expert witness for this matter. I am competent to
`
`testify regarding the opinions set forth in this expert Declaration. I reserve the right
`
`to provide further opinions if requested at a later time.
`
`6.
`
`My qualifications are summarized here and are presented further in
`
`my curriculum vitae, which is attached as Exhibit 1006. I received a Bachelor of
`
`Science (B.S.) degree in Electrical Engineering, with First Honors, from the
`
`University of Missouri at Rolla, now the Missouri University of Science and
`
`Technology. I received a Master of Science (S.M.) degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a Doctor of
`
`Science (D.Sc.) degree in Electrical Engineering from Washington University in
`
`St. Louis.
`
`7.
`
`During my university studies, I was awarded the Westinghouse
`
`Achievement Scholarship. I was a Hughes Masters Fellow at M.I.T. My doctoral
`
`research at Washington University was in the field of signal processing.
`
`8.
`
`I have more than 40 years of experience including research, analysis,
`
`design and development of electronic systems and software for acquiring,
`
`processing, analyzing, extracting information from, and communicating signals
`
`2
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 8 of 210
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`and images. This work includes technology related to that disclosed in the ‘923
`
`patent. I have experience in both hardware and software for this technology.
`
`9.
`
`For more than 20 years, I have provided independent consulting,
`
`including in the areas of technology related to the ’923 patent. From 1987 until
`
`1990, I served as Executive Vice President and Director of Research at the former
`
`Cencit, Inc. Cencit was an engineering research and development company that
`
`created systems for sensing and digitizing the shape of three-dimensional (“3D”)
`
`objects through processing of images. The systems generated 3D data about an
`
`object based on data gathered from video image sequences that included the object.
`
`The 3D data was extracted from the sequences of video images acquired by video
`
`cameras viewing the objects. These systems employed processors, communications
`
`and control circuits, memory storage and retrieval capabilities, and software
`
`algorithms for identifying image primitives, object extraction, location, and 3D
`
`surface mapping. Several U.S. and foreign patents were awarded. For more
`
`information about the technology developed at Cencit, see for example U.S. Patent
`
`No. 4,846,577, filed in April 1987, issued in July 1989.
`
`10.
`
`The systems developed by Cencit were implemented for a variety of
`
`uses. For example, one system was used for craniofacial trauma research by the
`
`Washington University School of Medicine. Another system was used by the
`
`United States Army for research into leak proof fitting of gas masks for biological
`
`3
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 9 of 210
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`warfare. Other applications included the 3D modeling of Space Shuttle astronaut’s
`
`hands for custom fitting of gloves for use with spacesuits, and scanning of the
`
`heads of brain tumor patients for precisely positioning implanted radioactive seeds.
`
`11.
`
`Later, I also helped to develop a 3D shape digitization system for the
`
`Textile/Clothing Technology Corporation (“TC-Squared”) of Cary, North
`
`Carolina. This system extracted 3D data of a human body from sequences of
`
`images, for the original purpose of fabricating custom-fit clothing. Using a
`
`different technology than the Cencit system, but also based upon multiple video
`
`cameras, the TC-Squared system employed sinusoidal patterns of light projected
`
`onto the subject. A first sequence of coarse sinusoidal patterns was used to
`
`generate a sparse set of 3D contours. These 3D contours were unambiguously
`
`identified. A second sequence, of fine sinusoidal patterns, was then projected
`
`which produces high-resolution 3D contours, but with ambiguities for phase angle
`
`multiples of 360°. The 3D contour identifications from the coarse patterns were
`
`then used to unambiguously identify, or map, the high-resolution 3D contours that
`
`were generated from the fine grating projections. Multiple 3D contours were
`
`created using the multiple cameras, each covering a portion of the subject, and
`
`these contours were then combined into a uniform composite 3D map of the shape
`
`of the object. This system is described in further detail for example in a patent by
`
`4
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 10 of 210
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`myself and several co-inventors, U.S. Patent No. 6,373,963, filed in February
`
`1999, issued in April 2002.
`
`12. My role in the development of the TC-Squared system included
`
`among other things development of a design concept, providing technical guidance
`
`to the engineering team, analyzing and predicting performance parametrically
`
`during the design process, defining system parameters and specifications,
`
`development of processing algorithms, and development of camera and system
`
`calibration methods and software.
`
`13. During my 25 years at McDonnell Douglas Corporation, now Boeing,
`
`from 1962-1987, I started with the title of Engineer and progressed through various
`
`positions of increasing responsibility to the position of Branch Chief, Electronics.
`
`Among other things, my work there included digital image processing research and
`
`development for autonomous cruise missile guidance. This work was based on
`
`employing on-board digital video cameras and radar to sense terrain and targets,
`
`and processing of the imagery and radar data to derive information, such as shape
`
`of the terrain surface and identification of targets from the video images. This work
`
`also employed correlating images acquired by an on-board video camera with
`
`stored reference images. I also developed algorithms for missile-borne laser radar
`
`systems (LIDAR) for processing sequences of depth images to detect objects for
`
`5
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 11 of 210
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`the purpose of enabling low-flying cruise missiles to avoid collisions, for example
`
`with power wires in their path.
`
`14. Among other work in image processing at McDonnell Douglas, I led
`
`an image processing research and development team, where we developed
`
`algorithms for target recognition and classification. This work included extracting
`
`primitive features from images and development of classifier algorithms to use the
`
`extracted features for identifying and locating objects in the images. I also
`
`managed a team to develop algorithms for an automatic target classification and
`
`recognition system using on-board infrared (“IR”) cameras. I also developed a new
`
`class of image processing algorithms for autonomous cruise missile location and
`
`guidance using IR cameras to acquire video image sequences of the scenes ahead
`
`of the missile, correlating the scene images with stored reference data for vehicle
`
`position tracking.
`
`15.
`
` I have been qualified as a technical expert for several litigation and
`
`patent review matters involving video image acquisition, image processing, image
`
`analysis, video surveillance, and information extraction. My expert analysis and
`
`testimony has involved patents related to digital video imaging and image
`
`processing systems, including those for sensing and measuring the shape and
`
`location of objects. My curriculum vitae, attached as Exhibit 1036 to the Petition,
`
`6
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 12 of 210
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`includes a listing of matters of public record for which I have served as an expert
`
`and offered testimony at deposition or trial in at least the last five years.
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`16.
`I understand that the Petition and this inter partes review proceeding
`
`involves the ’923 patent, which is owned by Avigilon.
`
`17.
`
`I further understand that the ‘923 patent issued from U.S. Application
`
`No. 12/569,116. This is reflected on the face of the ‘923 patent (Ex. 1001).
`
`18.
`
`The face of the ‘923 patent also indicates that the earliest priority date
`
`it may claim is October 24, 2000, based on the filing date of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,954,498. I express no opinion as to whether the claims of the ‘923 patent are or
`
`are not entitled to this October 24, 2000, priority date, but reserve the right to later
`
`do so.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ‘923 patent includes all patents and
`
`printed publications that were published more than one year before the earliest
`
`possible priority date claimed by the ‘923 patent, which as noted above is October
`
`24, 2000. Further, I understand that each of the prior art references discussed in
`
`this Declaration was published more than one year before October 24, 2000 and
`
`therefore qualifies as “§ 102(b)” prior art.
`
`20.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether certain prior art references
`
`(namely, Kellogg, Dimitrova and Brill) disclose or suggest the features recited in
`
`7
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 13 of 210
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`the claims of the ‘923 patent. I have also been asked to consider the state of the art
`
`in the 2000 timeframe (i.e., before the earliest possible priority date of October 24,
`
`2000), and to compare the claims of the ‘923 patent to the prior art available at that
`
`time.
`
`21.
`
`I have reviewed and considered the following documents, among
`
`others identified herein, in connection with my analysis of the ‘923 patent and this
`
`Declaration:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923 to Lipton et al. (“the ’923 patent,” Ex. 1001);
`
` Prosecution history of U.S. Application No. 12/569,116, which led to the
`
`issuance of the ‘923 patent (Ex. 1002);
`
` Ex Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/012,876, the ex parte reexamination
`
`of the ‘923 patent;
`
` Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,914, the inter partes
`
`reexamination of the ‘923 patent;
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912 (“the ’912 patent”), which is related to the ‘923
`
`patent;
`
` Ex Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/012,878, the ex parte reexamination
`
`of the ’912 patent;
`
` Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,912, the inter partes
`
`reexamination of the ’912 patent;
`
`8
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 14 of 210
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
` “Visual Memory” by Christopher James Kellogg (Ex. 1003, “Kellogg”),
`
`which I understand was published in September 1993 and is prior art to the
`
`‘923 patent; and
`
` “Motion Recovery for Video Content Classification” by N. Dimitrova et al.
`
`(“Dimitrova”), which I understand was published in October 1995 and is
`
`prior art to the ‘923 patent
`
` “Event Recognition and Reliability Improvements for the Autonomous
`
`Video Surveillance System” by Frank Brill et al. (Ex. 1004, “Brill”), which I
`
`understand was published in December 1998 and is prior art to the ‘923
`
`patent.
`
`22. My opinions are also based on my experience in video image
`
`acquisition, image processing, image analysis, video surveillance, and information
`
`extraction.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`23.
`I have been asked to provide my opinions as to whether the identified
`
`prior art (namely, Kellogg, Dimitrova and Brill) teach or render obvious claims 1-
`
`41 of the ‘923 patent from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) in the 2000 timeframe.
`
`24.
`
`I am an electrical engineer and innovator by training and profession.
`
`The opinions I express in this Declaration involve the application of my technical
`
`9
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 15 of 210
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`knowledge and experience to the evaluation of certain prior art with respect to the
`
`‘923 patent.
`
`25. My opinions are also formed by my understanding of the relevant law.
`
`I am not an attorney. Therefore, for purposes of this Declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law as it relates to my opinions.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be found
`
`patentable, it must be (among other things) new and not obvious based on what
`
`was known before the invention was made.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the information that is used to evaluate whether an
`
`invention was new and not obvious when made is generally referred to as “prior
`
`art.” I understand that the prior art includes patents and printed publications that
`
`existed before the earliest filing date of the patent (which I have been informed is
`
`called the “effective filing date”). I also understand that a patent or published
`
`patent application is prior art if it was filed before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention and that a printed publication is prior art if it was publicly
`
`available before the effective filing date. As noted above, I understand that prior art
`
`relative to the ‘923 patent includes all patents or printed publications that were
`
`published more than one year before October 24, 2000.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that in this inter partes review proceeding, the claims
`
`must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the patent
`
`10
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 16 of 210
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`specification, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. After the
`
`claims are construed in this manner, they are then compared to the prior art.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that a dependent claim is a patent claim that refers back
`
`to another patent claim. A dependent claim, as I understand it, includes all of the
`
`limitations of the claim to which it refers.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that in this inter partes review proceeding, the
`
`information that may be evaluated is limited to patents and printed publications.
`
`My analysis, which is set out in detail below, compares the claims to printed
`
`publications that I understand are prior art to the claims.
`
`A. Anticipation Analysis: 35 U.S.C. § 102
`31.
`I understand that a person cannot obtain a patent on an invention if the
`
`prior art included that invention.
`
`32.
`
`If an invention is not new, then the invention has been “anticipated”
`
`by the prior art.
`
`33. A claim is “anticipated” by the prior art if each and every limitation of
`
`the claim is disclosed, expressly or inherently, in a single item of prior art, from
`
`which a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention.
`
`34.
`
`I have applied the above standards in my evaluation of whether claims
`
`1-41 of the ‘923 patent are anticipated in light of the prior art.
`
`11
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 17 of 210
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`B. Obviousness Analysis: 35 U.S.C. § 103
`35.
`It is my understanding that a claim is unpatentable if the claimed
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention. I also understand that an obviousness
`
`analysis takes into account the scope and content of the prior art, the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`
`been “obvious” to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time
`
`the invention was made. This means that even if all the requirements of a claim are
`
`not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the
`
`differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed.
`
`37.
`
`In determining the scope and content of the prior art, it is my
`
`understanding that a reference is considered relevant prior art to the ‘923 patent if
`
`it falls within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. In addition, a reference is prior
`
`art if it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor
`
`was involved. A reference is reasonably pertinent if it logically would have
`
`commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. Thus, if a
`
`12
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 18 of 210
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`reference relates to the same problem as the claimed invention, that supports use of
`
`the reference as prior art in an obviousness analysis.
`
`38.
`
`In my opinion, the prior art references identified in the Petition and
`
`addressed in this Declaration (including, Kellogg, Dimitrova and Brill) seek to
`
`solve the same types of problems as the ’923 patent and logically would have
`
`commended themselves to an inventor’s attention considering the problems of the
`
`’923 patent. In particular, the ’923 patent and the identified prior art concern
`
`techniques and systems for detecting objects in a video, determining attributes of
`
`the objects, identifying events by applying a user rule or event definition to the
`
`attributes, and reporting and/or taking other action in response to inferring the
`
`occurrence of such events.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that a determination as to whether a claim would have
`
`been obvious should be based on four factors (though not necessarily in the
`
`following order): (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application
`
`was filed; (ii) the scope and content of the prior art; (iii) the differences between
`
`the claimed invention and the prior art; and (iv) any objective factors indicating
`
`obviousness or non-obviousness that may exist in a particular case.
`
`40.
`
`It is my understanding that an obviousness analysis cannot be based
`
`on hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the relevant art as of the effective filing date of the patent claim.
`
`13
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 19 of 210
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`41.
`
`I understand the objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may include: commercial success of products covered by the patent
`
`claims; a long-felt but unaddressed need for the invention; failed attempts by
`
`others to make the invention; copying of the invention by others in the field;
`
`expressions of surprise by experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the
`
`invention; and the patentee having proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of
`
`the prior art. I also understand that any of this evidence must be specifically
`
`connected to the invention rather than associated with the prior art or with
`
`marketing or other efforts to promote an invention.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that the teachings of two or more prior art references may
`
`be combined in the manner disclosed in the claim if such a combination would
`
`have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date.
`
`In determining whether a combination would have been obvious, I understand that
`
`the following exemplary rationales may support a conclusion of obviousness:
`
` Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
` Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results;
` Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`products) in the same way;
`
`14
`
`Canon Ex. 1005 Page 20 of 210
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
` Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
` “Obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of identified,
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
` Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art; and
` Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`have led a person of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or
`to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`invention.
`I understand that the obviousness analysis need not seek out precise
`
`43.
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, but
`
`instead can take account of the ordinary innovation and experimentation in the
`
`relevant field that does no more than yield predictable results.
`
`44.
`
`I understand that, in assessing whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`modify or combine known elements as claimed, it may be necessary to look to
`
`interrelated teachings of multiple patents or