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