`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc., and Axis Communications AB,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Avigilon Fortress Corporation,
`
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00314
`U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923
`______________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`I.
`II.
`
`CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 3
`A.
`The ʼ923 Patent ..................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Overview of the Claims of the ’923 Patent ........................................... 4
`C.
`The Petition Proposes One Obviousness Challenge ............................. 6
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................. 6
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 7
`A.
`“attributes of the object” (Claims 1-7, 9-19, 22-28, 30-41);
`“attributes of each of the detected first and second objects”
`(Claims 8, 29); “attributes of the detected objects” (Claims 20,
`21) .......................................................................................................... 7
`“new user rule” (Claims 1-41) .............................................................. 8
`“applying”
`(Petitioners’
`“Independence Argument
`(1)”
`Discussion) (Claims 1-41) ................................................................... 10
`“event” (Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (3)” Discussion)
`(Claims 1-41) ....................................................................................... 11
`“independent” (Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (2)”
`Discussion) (Claims 1-41) ................................................................... 12
`“wherein the applying the new user rule to the plurality of
`detected attributes comprises applying the new user rule to only
`the plurality of detected attributes” (Claims 1-19, 22-29);
`“wherein the analysis of the combination of the attributes to
`detect the event comprises analyzing only the combination of the
`attributes” (Claims 20-21); “wherein the applying the selected
`new user rule to the plurality of attributes stored in memory
`comprises applying the selected new user rule to only the
`plurality of attributes stored in memory” (Claims 30-41)................... 14
`G. Means-Plus-Function Claims .............................................................. 17
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`V.
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`THE BOARD SHOULD REJECT THE PETITION IN ITS
`ENTIRETY .................................................................................................. 18
`A.
`Petitioners Fail to Prove Dimitrova Is a “Printed Publication” .......... 18
`1.
`Petitioners Provide No Evidence that Dimitrova Was
`Disseminated ............................................................................. 18
`Petitioners Fail to Provide Adequate Evidence that
`Dimitrova Was Meaningfully Indexed ..................................... 21
`Petitioners Fail to Prove Brill Is a “Printed Publication”.................... 29
`1.
`Petitioners Provide No Evidence that Brill Was Published ...... 29
`2.
`Petitioners Fail to Provide Adequate Evidence Brill Was
`Meaningfully Indexed ............................................................... 32
`The Art Presented Is Cumulative to That Considered in Prior
`Reexamination ..................................................................................... 33
`There Is No Motivation to Combine Dimitrova and Brill .................. 40
`Ground 1: Petitioners Fail to Prove Dimitrova in Combination
`with Brill Renders Claims 1-41 Obvious ............................................ 41
`1.
`Overview of Dimitrova ............................................................. 41
`2.
`Overview of Brill ...................................................................... 42
`3.
`Petitioners Fail to Show Dimitrova in Combination with
`Brill Renders Obvious the Limitation “identifying an
`event of the object that is not one of the detected attributes
`of the object by applying the new user rule to the plurality
`of detected attributes; wherein the applying the new user
`rule to the plurality of detected attributes comprises
`applying the new user rule to only the plurality of detected
`attributes” (Claims 1-41) ........................................................... 45
`Petitioners Fail to Show Dimitrova in Combination with
`Brill Renders Obvious the Limitation “the plurality of
`attributes that are detected are independent of which event
`is identified” (Claims 1-41) ...................................................... 50
`
`C.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`Petitioners Fail to Show Dimitrova in Combination with
`Brill Renders Obvious the Limitation “wherein selecting
`the new user rule comprises selecting a subset of the
`plurality of attributes for analysis” (Claims 2, 4, 7, 11, 12,
`13, 14, 16, 23, 25, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38) ................................. 60
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 62
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`ABS Global, Inc. v. Inguran, LLC,
`IPR2016-00927, Paper 33 (Oct. 2, 2017) ....................................................passim
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizard Inc.,
`908 F.3d 765,774 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................... 24, 25, 28, 30
`Acceleration Bay v. Activision Blizzard
`908 F.3d 765 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................ 27, 28, 30
`Am. Innotek, Inc. v. United States,
`128 Fed. Cl. 135 (2016) ...................................................................................... 23
`Artista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`IPR 2016-00303 .................................................................................................. 21
`Axis Comm’ns v. Avigilon Fortress Corp.,
`IPR2018-00138 ....................................................................................... 10, 31, 35
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 20, 32
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ...................................................................passim
`Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microeletronics Int’l, Inc.,
`246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 19
`Ford Motor Co. v. Cruise Control Techs. LLC,
`IPR2014-00291, Paper 44 (Jun. 29, 2015) ............................................. 22, 32, 33
`Ford Motor Co. v. Versata Dev. Group, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01019, Paper 9 (Oct. 4, 2016) ....................................................... 32, 33
`Ford Motor,
`IPR 2016-01019 .................................................................................................. 33
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .....................................................................passim
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 41
`In re Klopfenstein,
`380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 20, 33
`Neil Zeigmann, N.P.Z., Inc. v. Stephens,
`IPR2015-01860, Paper 13 (Sept. 6, 2017) .......................................................... 41
`Nichols Inst. Diagnostics, Inc. v. Scantibodies Clinical Lab., Inc.,
`195 Fed. Appx. 947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................. 21
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 13
`Rheox, Inc. v. Entact, Inc.,
`276 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 18
`Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.,
`54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................ 17
`Spectrum Int’l Inc. v. Sterilite Corp.,
`164 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 17
`Thermo Fisher Sci. Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of California,
`IPR2018-01370, Paper 11 (Feb. 7, 2019) ........................................................... 20
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Berman,
`IPR2016-01571, Paper 10 (Dec. 14, 2016)......................................................... 41
`VirnetX v. Apple,
`909 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 31, 35
`In re Wyer,
`655 F.2d 221 (C.C.P.A. 1981) ............................................................................ 20
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................. 20, 31
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................. 36, 41
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`Rules
`Fed. R. Evid. 602 ...................................................................................................... 25
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. §42.62(a) .................................................................................................. 25
`157 CONG. REC. 2710 (statement of Sen. Grassley) ................................................ 42
`157 CONG. REC. 12992 (Sept. 6, 2011) (statement of Sen. Leahy) ......................... 42
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, 48 (2011) ............................................................................. 42
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2001 Declaration of Michael W. De Vries in Support of Unopposed Motion
`to Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Patent Owner Avigilon Fortress
`Corporation
`
`2002 Declaration of Adam R. Alper in Support of Unopposed Motion to
`Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Patent Owner Avigilon Fortress
`Corporation
`
`2003 Declaration of Akshay S. Deoras s in Support of Unopposed Motion to
`Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Patent Owner Avigilon Fortress
`Corporation
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.132 Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger (excerpt of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,868,912 Reexamination).
`
`Thomas Olson & Frank Brill, Moving Object Detection & Event
`Recognition Algorithms for Smart Cameras, 1 PROC. 1997 IMAGE
`UNDERSTANDING WORKSHOP 159-175 (1997).
`
`Jonathan D. Courtney, Automatic Video Indexing Via Object Motion
`Analysis, 30(4) PATTERN RECOGNITION 607-625 (1997).
`
`2007 U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835 to Brill et al.
`
`2008 Young Francis Day, et al, Spatio-Temporal Modeling of Video Data
`for On-Line Object-Oriented Query Processing, Proceedings of the
`International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems, 98-
`105 (1995).
`
`Forouzan Golshani & Nevenka Dimitrova, A Language for Content-
`Based Video Retrieval, 6 MULTIMEDIA TOOLS AND APPLICATIONS,
`289-312 (1998).
`
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2009
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2010
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`Description
`
`IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140, Ex. 2009 (Grindon Dep. Transcript
`Aug. 15, 2018).
`
`2011 Declaration of Jennifer A. Babbitt.
`
`SearchWorks Catalog Entry for Thomas Olson & Frank Brill, Moving
`Object Detection & Event Recognition Algorithms for Smart Cameras,
`1 PROC. 1997 IMAGE UNDERSTANDING WORKSHOP 159-175 (1997).
`
`Scanned Cover and Front Matter of Jonathan D. Courtney, Automatic
`Video Indexing Via Object Motion Analysis, 30(4) PATTERN
`RECOGNITION 607-625 (1997)
`
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Board should deny the instant Petition because Petitioners Canon Inc.,
`
`Canon U.S.A., Inc., and Axis Communications AB (collectively, “Petitioners”) have
`
`not shown a reasonable likelihood that they will prevail with respect to any
`
`challenged claim of the ’923 patent. Petitioners raise one ground in their petition:
`
`obviousness due to a combination of an article entitled, “Motion Recovery for Video
`
`Content Classification” by Nevenka Dimitrova et al. (“Dimitrova”) (Ex. 1006) and
`
`a workshop report entitled “Event Recognition and Reliability Improvements for the
`
`Autonomous Video Surveillance System” by Frank Brill et al. (“Brill”) (Ex. 1004).
`
`Both Dimitrova and Brill are references that are cumulative to prior art that
`
`was raised and overcome in the ’923 patent reexamination. During ex parte
`
`Reexamination 90/012,876 (“the ’923 patent reexamination”), the reexamination
`
`Panel considered the Courtney patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,969,755) (Ex. 1021) and a
`
`patent to Brill and Olson (U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835) (“Brill Patent”) (Ex. 2007).
`
`Dimitrova is very similar to the Courtney and Brill Patent references, as explained
`
`below. Brill, asserted in the instant petition, is also highly similar to the Brill Patent
`
`(which came later), and also explicitly states that its core system is the same as the
`
`one found in Courtney. Ex. 1004 at 11 (“In the implementation we will use the
`
`methods discussed in [Courtney, 1997, Olson and Brill, 1997] to track objects and
`
`recognize the simple events.”), 12 (“The primary technique used by AVS for event
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`recognition is motion graph matching as described in [Courtney, 1997].”) It is also
`
`very similar to an earlier article from Olson and Brill entitled, “Moving Object
`
`Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms for Smart Cameras,” (“Olson and Brill
`
`1997”) (Ex. 2005), that was overcome during ex parte Reexamination 90/012,878
`
`of the very similar Lipton patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912) (“the related ’912
`
`patent reexamination”), also being challenged by the same Petitioners. Ex. 1004 at
`
`4 (“The structure and function of the AVS system is described in detail in a previous
`
`IUW paper [Olson and Brill 1997].”), 12; see Ex. 2005 at 5. Thus, the references
`
`Petitioners chose for the instant Petition are redundant over the prior art already
`
`overcome in the ’923 patent reexamination and the related ’912 patent
`
`reexamination. The new references are authored by the same authors and their
`
`colleagues, describe the same systems, and suffer from the same key deficiencies
`
`that previously led the Patent Office to allow the claims. In particular, the
`
`reexamination prior art and the references asserted here fail to disclose a requirement
`
`of all of the challenged ’923 patent claims: “identifying an event of the object that is
`
`not one of the detected attributes of the object by applying the new user rule to the
`
`plurality of detected attributes.” Ex. 1001, claim 1. Instead, the alleged event
`
`identification process in the asserted prior art merely describes storage and retrieval
`
`of already-identified events, rather than event identification based on attributes.
`
`Indeed, the references asserted here (just like the references at issue in the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`reexamination) involve mere event indexing and retrieval—i.e., searching for or
`
`querying a predefined event in an index. Further, the references fail to teach the
`
`claim requirement that the alleged attributes be determined “independent” of the
`
`identification of an event. In the asserted references, the indexing process ties
`
`together the alleged attribute detection and event determination such that the alleged
`
`attribute detection is not independent of the events or the event determination
`
`process. This is the exact type of system the inventors sought to avoid with the ’923
`
`patent.
`
`The Petition also suffers from other fatal flaws apart from the fact that
`
`Petitioners’ arguments are redundant of those already presented, including that
`
`Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the references were printed publications.
`
`Patent Owner therefore respectfully urges the Board to dismiss this Petition in its
`
`entirety.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. The ʼ923 Patent
`The ’923 patent teaches an improved video surveillance system that distills
`
`important information from video, determines events, and generates alarms. Ex.
`
`1001 at 2:43-53.
`
`First, a video camera or other sensor provides the initial input data. Ex. 1001
`
`at 6:3-4, 9:23-24. Second, any motion or change detection algorithm can be used to
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`detect objects. Id. at 9:30-48. Video primitives, which are “observable attribute[s]
`
`of an object,” are extracted in real time from the source video. Id. at 7:6-7, 9:25-26.
`
`The ’923 patent is directed to using video primitives as the primary
`
`commodity of information interchange. Id. at 5:12-14. The system then uses event
`
`discriminators, which are identified by describing interactions between video
`
`primitives. Id. at 5:30-32, 7:5-7, 8:50-58. The system is automatically operated,
`
`detects and archives video primitives, and detects event occurrences in real time
`
`using event discriminators. Id. at 9:13-17. “Without tasking, the video surveillance
`
`system operates by detecting and archiving video primitives and associated video
`
`imagery without taking any action.” Id. 6:64-67. The patent describes event
`
`detection as an analysis based upon combinations of video primitives. Id. at 6:30-
`
`36. Finally, a response may then be identified, which may include activating an alert
`
`or forwarding data to another computer system. Id. at 8:36-49. The action taken
`
`occurs in real time as appropriate. Id. at 9:17-22. For example, “an example of an
`
`event discriminator for an object, a spatial attribute, and a temporal attribute
`
`associated with a response include: a person enters an area between midnight and
`
`6:00 a.m., and a security service is notified.” Id. at 9:9-12.
`
`B. Overview of the Claims of the ’923 Patent
`Petitioners have challenged all forty-one claims of the ’923 patent, of which
`
`claims 1, 8, 9, 20, 22, 29 and 30 are independent claims. Claim 1 recites a method
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`and is the basis for dependent claims 2 through 7. Claim 8 recites a method. Claim
`
`9 recites a method, and is the basis for dependent claims 10 through 11 and claims
`
`13 through 19. Claim 12 depends on claim 11. Claim 20 recites a method and is the
`
`basis for dependent claim 21. Claim 22 is similar to claim 1 but recites an apparatus.
`
`Claim 22 is the basis for dependent claims 23 through 28. Claim 29 is similar to
`
`claim 8 but recites an apparatus. Claim 30 is similar to claim 9 but recites an
`
`apparatus. Claim 30 is the basis for dependent claims 31 through 32 and claims 34
`
`through 41. Claim 33 depends on claim 32. See generally Ex. 1001.
`
`Using claim 1 as an example, the first step in the process includes “detecting
`
`an object in a video from a single camera.” Ex. 1001 at claim 1. The next step
`
`involves “detecting a plurality of attributes of the objects by analyzing the video
`
`from said single camera” where the plurality of attributes includes “at least one of a
`
`physical attribute and a temporal attribute, each attribute representing a
`
`characteristic of the detected object.” Id. A “new user rule” is selected thereafter.
`
`Id. Then an event is identified “that is not one of the detected attributes of the object
`
`by applying the new user rule to the plurality of detected attributes” wherein the new
`
`user rule is only applied to the plurality of detected attributes. Id. at claim 22. The
`
`plurality of attributes are independent of the identified event, the event is identified
`
`without reprocessing the video, and the identified event “refers to the object engaged
`
`in an activity.” Id. Independent claims 9 and 30 further require the system to include
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`a video device with the means for carrying out the described system. See id. at
`
`claims 9, 30. Claims 22 and 29 also specify the system is a “non-transitory
`
`computer-readable storage medium containing instructions that when executed by a
`
`computer system cause said computer system to implement the following method.”
`
`See id. at claims 22, 29.
`
`C. The Petition Proposes One Obviousness Challenge
`Petitioner proposes one ground of invalidity as summarized in the chart
`
`below:
`
`Ground
`
`1
`
`
`’923 Patent
`Claims
`1-41
`
`Type
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Primary
`Reference
`Dimitrova
`
`Secondary
`Reference
`Brill
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Grindon, states a person of ordinary skill (“POSITA”)
`
`would have a Bachelor of Science degree in “electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, or computer science, with approximately two years of experience or
`
`research related to video processing and/or surveillance systems.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 77.
`
`No explanation or factual basis is provided.
`
`Petitioners’ level of skill is incorrect because it allows for experience in “video
`
`processing” or “surveillance systems,” but does not require both. The field of the
`
`’923 patent is “a system for automatic video surveillance employing video
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`primitives.” Ex. 1001 at 1:18-19; see also id. at 4:47 (“the automatic video
`
`surveillance system of the invention”). Because the ’923 patent is at the intersection
`
`of “video processing” and “surveillance systems,” both are required in the ordinary
`
`level of skill.
`
`Thus, a POSITA regarding the ’923 patent would have (i) a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science,
`
`with approximately two years of experience or research in the field of video
`
`surveillance systems or (ii) equivalent training and work experience in the field of
`
`video surveillance systems.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“attributes of the object” (Claims 1-7, 9-19, 22-28, 30-41);
`“attributes of each of the detected first and second objects”
`(Claims 8, 29); “attributes of the detected objects” (Claims 20, 21)
`Petitioners propose that “attributes” should be defined as “characteristics
`
`associated with an object,” arguing that “attributes” and “primitives” are used
`
`interchangeably throughout the patent. Pet. at 9-10. Petitioners’ construction is
`
`overly broad and inconsistent with the specification. See Ex. 1001, 4:64-5:1 (“Event
`
`discriminators are identified with one or more objects (whose descriptions are based
`
`on video primitives), along with one or more optional spatial attributes, and/or one
`
`or more optional temporal attributes.”), 7:5-7 (“An event discriminator is described
`
`in terms of video primitives. A video primitive refers to an observable attribute of
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`an object viewed in a video feed.”). No construction of “attributes” is necessary here
`
`for Petitioners’ challenges. As the Board found in the Axis Comm’ns v. Avigilon
`
`Fortress Corp., IPR2018-00138 and IPR2018-00140 (collectively, “the related ’661
`
`patent IPRs”) Institution Decisions, where the Board construed the “attributes” term
`
`in the claims of the related U.S. Patent 8,564,661 (“the ’661 patent”) (Ex. 1035), the
`
`“attributes” terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`B.
`“new user rule” (Claims 1-41)
`Petitioners’ construction erroneously defines “new user rule” as “a specified
`
`combination of a set of attributes for identifying an event.” Pet. at 10. This is
`
`incorrect because, as Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Grindon, confirms, Petitioners’
`
`construction equates “new user rule” with “event discriminators.” See Ex. 1005, ¶
`
`93. But a “new user rule” and an “event discriminator” are not the same thing. The
`
`’923 patent explains “[e]vent discriminators are identified with one or more objects
`
`(whose descriptions are based on video primitives), along with one or more optional
`
`spatial attributes, and/or one or more optional temporal attributes.” Ex. 1001 at 4:63-
`
`5:1. The ’923 patent provides an example: “an operator can define an event
`
`discriminator (called a ‘loitering’ event in this example) as a ‘person’ object in the
`
`‘automatic teller machine’ space for ‘longer than 15 minutes’ and ‘between 10:00
`
`p.m. and 6:00 a.m.’” Id. at 5:1-5.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`Selecting a “new user rule” requires more than merely providing an event
`
`discriminator. Rather, a “new user rule” is applied to “the plurality of detected
`
`attributes” and may trigger a response that is performed when a particular event or
`
`type of event is detected. Ex. 1001, claim 1. In the related ’661 patent IPRs, Dr.
`
`Grindon agreed that user “rules” must have the ability to trigger responses.
`
`IPR2018-00138, Ex. 2009 at 21:11-17 (Ex. 2010). Furthermore, the specification of
`
`the ’923 patent is consistent with this understanding. For example, Fig. 3 illustrates
`
`a process for tasking a system. Ex. 1001 at Fig. 3, 7:1-2. In block 35 of Fig. 3, “one
`
`or more discriminators are identified by describing interactions between video
`
`primitives . . . spatial areas of interest, and temporal attributes of interest.” Ex. 1001
`
`at 8:50-54. However, the response is not a part of the event discriminator, described
`
`in block 35. Rather, it is its own separate step identified in block 34. Id. at 8:56-58,
`
`11:13-14 (“In block 61, responses are undertaken as dictated by the event
`
`discriminators that detected the event occurrences. The response, if any, are
`
`identified for each event discriminator in block 34.”).
`
`A “new user rule” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. To the
`
`extent the Board requires an explicit recitation of that plain and ordinary meaning, it
`
`should be construed as “new a set of conditions such that when a defined event is
`
`detected it may trigger a response,” as discussed in ’923 patent. Ex. 1001 at 4:54-
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`56 (“The system can have a prescribed response to the analysis, such as record data,
`
`activate an alarm mechanism, or active [sic] another sensor system.”).
`
`C.
`
`“applying” (Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (1)”
`Discussion) (Claims 1-41)
`Petitioners argue that “applying,” in the phrase “by applying the new user rule
`
`to the plurality of detected attributes,” should “encompass any mechanism for
`
`analyzing the detected attributes to determine if they satisfy the user rule criteria,
`
`e.g., querying a database.” Pet. at 11-12. Petitioners’ construction is overbroad and
`
`attempts to sweep in inapplicable prior art, because merely querying a database is
`
`not sufficient to disclose “applying the new user rule to the plurality of detected
`
`attributes.”
`
`As an example, the language of claim 1 recites “identifying an event of the
`
`object that is not one of the detected attributes of the object by applying the new user
`
`rule to the plurality of detected attributes.” Ex. 1001, claim 1. A mere query does
`
`not satisfy the claim language because mere data retrieval is not “applying the new
`
`user rule” to “identify” an event. A query simply retrieves data that matches some
`
`parameters. Some level of analysis, determination, identification, etc., is required
`
`when “applying the new user rule to the plurality of detected attributes.” Ex. 1001,
`
`claim 1, , at 5:12-23, 8:37-49, 14:56-15:4.
`
`As Patent Owner argued in the ’923 patent reexamination, “the ’923 patent
`
`teaches that multiple detected attributes are to be examined and then, based upon
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`such attributes, a decision is made as to whether or not certain events occurred.” Ex.
`
`1016 at 31. This active evaluation of attributes is a more involved process and is not
`
`satisfied by retrieving results from a database. The term should thus be given its
`
`plain meaning.
`
`D.
`
`“event” (Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (3)” Discussion)
`(Claims 1-41)
`Petitioners propose that an “event comprises a minimum of two attributes.”
`
`See Pet. at 14. This contradicts the patentee’s express definition of “event,” which
`
`is “one or more objects engaged in an activity.” Ex. 1001 at 3:44–46. The claims
`
`further confirm the same. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, claim 1 (“the event of the object refers
`
`to the object engaged in an activity”). The case law is unambiguous that an
`
`applicant’s express definition controls. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005). In fact, Petitioners previously agreed to the patentee’s definition
`
`in the related ’661 patent IPRs. IPR2018-00138, Paper 1 at 13 (“Accordingly, an
`
`‘event’ should be construed as ‘one or more objects engaged in an activity.’”);
`
`IPR2018-00138, Paper 8 at 7-8; IPR2018-00140, Paper 1 at 14; IPR2018-00140,
`
`Paper 8 at 7. Petitioners’ proposed construction should be rejected in favor of the
`
`applicant’s definition.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`“independent” (Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (2)”
`Discussion) (Claims 1-41)
`Petitioners argue that the proper construction of “independent” requires that
`
`the “event detection process does not alter the attribute detection process.” Pet. at
`
`15. Petitioners’ construction is incorrect. “Independent” should be construed to
`
`mean “the attributes are detected without regard to or knowledge of events or
`
`identification of events.”
`
`In the related ’661 patent IPRs, the Board construed the “independent” term
`
`in the claims of the related ’661 patent as “attributes are detected without regard to
`
`or knowledge of events.” IPR2018-00138, Paper 8 at 10; IPR2018-00140, Paper 8
`
`at 10. The Board drew this conclusion for two reasons. First, the ’661 patent
`
`“describe[d] two different and distinct steps of detecting attributes and tasking event
`
`discriminators.” Id. (citing Ex. 1035 at 16:24–30). Secondly, the ’661 patent
`
`explained “detecting video primitives or attributes may be performed without
`
`tasking any event discriminators.” Id. These reasons also apply to the ’923 patent,
`
`which contain the same specification statements. “Tasking the video surveillance
`
`system involves specifying one or more event discriminators. Without tasking, the
`
`video surveillance system operates by detecting and archiving video primitives and
`
`associated video imagery without taking any action.” Compare Ex. 1001 at 6:63-67
`
`with Ex. 1035 at 16:24–30. Thus, without tasking particular event discriminators,
`
`the attribute detection process still operates to independently detect the attributes.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00314
`Additionally, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Zeger, explained the “independent”
`
`term in the ’923 patent reexamination. Dr. Zeger explained in the ’923 patent
`
`reexamination, “the choice of which attributes the system is configured to detect is
`
`not dictated/determined by which events the system might be later tasked to
`
`identify.” See Ex. 1033, ¶ 55. Petitioners may attempt to discredit Dr. Zeger’s
`
`explanations by pointing to the ’661 patent Institution Decision to argue that the
`
`Board was not preliminary persuaded by his declaration. IPR2018-00138, Paper 8
`
`at 9-10; IPR2018-00140, Paper 8 at 10. But the Board did not have issue with the
`
`content or credibility of Dr. Zeger’s declaration. Id. Rather, it found that “Dr. Zeger
`
`[did] not provide any explanation that the use of the term “independence” is the same
`
`in the ’912 patent as in the ’661 patent.” Id. In the instant Petition, Dr. Zeger’s
`
`explanation in his declaration from the ’923 patent reexamination is certainly
`
`relevant here because same claims in the’923 patent is at issue.
`
`Patent Owner proposes a slight alteration to the construction the Board
`
`adopted by appending the phrase “