throbber
DEMONSTRATIVES OF
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket