Paper No. 13
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822 Filed: July 8, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CANON INC., CANON U.S.A., INC., and
`AXIS COMMUNICATIONS AB,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AVIGILON FORTRESS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,923,923 B2 & C1
`____________
`
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822 Filed: July 8, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CANON INC., CANON U.S.A., INC., and
`AXIS COMMUNICATIONS AB,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AVIGILON FORTRESS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,923,923 B2 & C1
`____________
`
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc., and Axis Communications AB
`(“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes
`review of all claims (i.e., claims 1–41) of U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923 B2 &
`C1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’923 patent”). See 35 U.S.C. § 311. Avigilon Fortress
`Corporation (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. (Paper 9,
`“Prelim. Resp.”). Petitioner filed an authorized Reply to respond to Patent
`Owner’s arguments that Dimitrova and Brill are not printed publications
`(Paper 11, “Reply”) to which Patent Owner filed an authorized Sur-Reply
`(Paper 12, “Sur-Reply”).
`Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which
`authorizes institution of an inter partes review when “the information
`presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition,” we institute an inter partes
`review of claims 1–41 of the ’923 patent.
`Our factual findings and conclusions at this stage of the proceeding,
`including claim construction, are preliminary and are based on the
`evidentiary record developed thus far. This is not a final decision as to
`patentability of claims for which inter partes review is instituted. Any final
`decision will be based on the full record as developed during trial.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Concurrent with the instant Petition, Petitioner filed another petition
`for inter partes review of the ’923 patent. Canon Inc. et al. v. Avigilon
`Fortress Corp., Case IPR2019-00311 (PTAB Nov. 12, 2018) (Paper 1).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
`
`
`We issued final written decisions in two cases filed by Petitioner
`involving related U.S. Patent No. 8,564,661 B2 (“the ’661 patent”).1 Axis
`Communications AB et al. v. Avigilon Fortress Corp., Case IPR2018-00138
`(PTAB May 30, 2019) (Paper 25); Axis Communications AB et al. v.
`Avigilon Fortress Corp., Case IPR2018-00140 (PTAB May 30, 2019)
`(Paper 25). In both of these proceedings, we determined that Petitioner had
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that each of the challenged
`claims of the ’661 patent are unpatentable. We also recently denied
`institution of inter partes review of the related ’912 patent. Canon Inc. et al.
`v. Avigilon Fortress Corp., Case IPR2019-00235 (PTAB June 4, 2019)
`(Paper 19) (stating Petitioner did not show asserted reference qualified as a
`prior art printed publication); Canon Inc. et al. v. Avigilon Fortress Corp.,
`Case IPR2019-00236 (PTAB June 4, 2019) (Paper 12) (exercising discretion
`under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to decline institution).
`The ’923 patent was subject to ex parte reexamination, during which
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) determined
`that claims 1–41 were patentable as amended. See Ex. 1001, Reexamination
`Certificate 1:29–32.
`
`B. The ’923 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’923 patent, titled “Video Surveillance System Employing Video
`Primitives,” is generally directed to methods, devices, and computer-
`readable storage media for video surveillance. See Ex. 1001, [54], [57],
`Reexamination Certificate 1:29–4:28. In one embodiment, the disclosed
`
`
`1 Petitioner states the ’923 patent, the ’661 patent, and U.S. Patent No.
`7,868,912 B2 (“the ’912 patent”) are related as each claim priority to
`U.S. Application No. 09/694,712. Pet. 8.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
`
`video surveillance system operates by (1) obtaining source video,
`(2) extracting “video primitives” from the video, (3) archiving the video
`primitives, (4) extracting “event occurrences” from the video primitives
`using “event discriminators,” and (5) undertaking a response, as appropriate.
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 4, 4:30–31, 11:63–65. “Video primitive” refers to an
`“observable attribute” of an object viewed in a video feed, such as the size,
`shape, position, speed, color, and texture of the object. Id. at 7:6–12. The
`’923 patent explains that event discriminators are used to filter the video
`primitives to determine if any event occurrences occurred. Id. at 10:66–
`11:1. For example, an event discriminator can look for a “wrong way” event
`as defined by a person traveling the “wrong way” into an area between 9:00
`a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Id. at 11:1–4. The event discriminator checks the video
`primitives and determines if any video primitives exist which have the
`following properties: a timestamp between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., a
`classification of “person” or “group of people,” a “position inside the area,”
`and a “wrong direction of motion”. Id. at 11:4–9.
`
`C. Claims
`Petitioner challenges all claims (i.e., claims 1–41) of the ’923 patent.
`Claims 1, 8, 9, 20, 22, 29, and 30 are independent. Claim 1 is representative
`and is reproduced below.
`1. A method comprising:
`[a] detecting an object in a video from a single camera;
`[b] 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;
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
`
`
`[c] selecting a new user rule after detecting the plurality
`of attributes; and
`[d1] 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,
`[d2] 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;
`[e] wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are
`independent of which event is identified,
`[f] wherein the step of identifying the event of the object
`identifies the event without reprocessing the video, and
`[g] wherein the event of the object refers to the object
`engaged in an activity.
`Ex. 1001, Reexamination Certificate, 1:34–54 (matter in brackets added for
`clarity; matter in italics indicates additions made to the claim during the
`reexamination proceeding).
`
`D. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`Petitioner argues the challenged claims are unpatentable based upon
`the following ground:
`
`Reference(s)
`Dimitrova2 and Brill3
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`
`Challenged Claims
`1–41
`
`
`
`
`2 Nevenka Dimitrova, Motion Recovery for Video Content Classification,
`ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 13, No. 4, Oct. 1995, 408–
`439 (Ex. 1006, “Dimitrova”).
`3 Frank Brill et al., Event Recognition and Reliability Improvements for the
`Autonomous Video Surveillance System, Proceedings of a Workshop held in
`Monterey, California, Nov. 20–23, 1998, pp. 267–283. (Ex. 1004, “Brill”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`We have discretion to deny review when “the same or substantially
`the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.”
`35 C.F.R. § 325(d). Patent Owner argues the Petition should be dismissed
`under § 325(d) because Dimitrova is cumulative to U.S. Patent No.
`5,969,755 (Ex. 1021, “Courtney ’755”) and (2) Brill is cumulative to a
`number of references at issue during the ex parte reexamination of the ’923
`patent.4 Prelim. Resp. 33–40.
`After considering the evidence and argument of record, we decline to
`exercise our discretion to deny review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`Patent Owner contends Dimitrova is cumulative to Courtney ’755
`because Dimitrova raises “the same or substantially the same issues” as
`Courtney ’755. Prelim. Resp. 34. Specifically, Patent Owner contends that
`during the reexamination proceeding of the ’923 patent, the USPTO found
`the “event querying/filtering system” of Courtney ’755 “relies on a list of
`predefined/predetermined ‘events’ of interest” and therefore “fails to teach
`the independence-based claim elements” of the ’923 patent. Id. at 34 (citing
`Ex. 1017, 14–15).
`Petitioner, however, asserts that Dimitrova is not cumulative to
`Courtney ’755 because the two references are directed to different systems
`that operate differently and because Dimitrova does not apply its queries to a
`predefined list of events. See Pet. 31–33 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 191–195;
`
`4 Specifically, Patent Owner contends Brill is cumulative to three different
`references ((1) U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835 (Ex. 2007), (2) a 1997 paper (i.e.,
`Ex. 2005, the “1997 Olson and Brill paper”), and (3) another paper (i.e.,
`Ex. 2006, “Courtney 1997)). Prelim. Resp. 34–40.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
`
`Ex. 1006, 17, 20, 25, 29). We are persuaded by these asserted material
`differences between Dimitrova and Courtney ’755, and the fact that
`Dimitrova is asserted against all claims, and thus, we decline to exercise our
`discretion to deny review under § 325(d). Because we are persuaded not to
`exercise our discretion based on Petitioner’s contentions regarding
`Dimitrova, we need not and do not address Patent Owner’s contentions that
`Brill is cumulative to a number of references at issue during the ex parte
`reexamination of the ’923 patent.
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17
`(1966). Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`(i) 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, or (ii) equivalent training and work experience in computer
`engineering and video processing and/or surveillance systems. Pet. 8–9
`(citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76–80).
`Patent Owner provides a similar definition but states that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art must have experience, research, or training in both
`“video processing” and “surveillance systems.” Prelim. Resp. 6–7.
`Specifically, Patent Owner states a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the invention (“POSITA”) would have (i) a Bachelor of Science
`degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science,
`with approximately two years of experience or research in the field of video
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
`
`surveillance systems or (ii) equivalent training and work experience in the
`field of video surveillance systems. Id.; see also id. at 7 (stating the ’923
`patent is at the intersection of “video processing” and “surveillance systems”
`and, therefore, both are required in the ordinary level of skill).
`Although the parties articulate different levels of skill for a POSITA,
`neither party explains how their recited level of skill impacts the
`obviousness analysis. We also note that Patent Owner’s proposed skill level
`differs from that proffered during the ex parte reexamination proceeding of
`the ’923 patent. For example, during the reexamination proceeding, Patent
`Owner did not state a POSITA must have experience, research, or training in
`both “video processing” and “surveillance systems.” Rather, Patent Owner
`defined the level of ordinary skill in the art of the ’923 patent as:
`a person typically having a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical
`Engineering or Computer Science or the equivalent education or
`experience. This individual would have benefited from course
`work that includes image or signal processing, and computer
`science or programming, or the equivalent education or
`experience. In addition, this person would typically have about
`three years of industrial experience that would develop his/her
`knowledge of image processing and pattern recognition, or the
`equivalent.
`Ex. 1016, 63 n.9 (emphasis added).
`Based on the record before us, including the types of problems and
`solutions described in the ’923 patent and the cited prior art, we determine
`the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner is consistent with the
`’923 patent and the asserted prior art. Accordingly, at this stage in the
`proceeding, we apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. We
`further note that our analysis would be the same under either party’s
`definition.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
`
`
`C. Claim Construction
`The Petition was filed prior to November 13, 2018, and
`the ’923 patent has not expired. Therefore, we interpret terms in the
`challenged claims according to their broadest reasonable construction in
`light of the specification of the ’923 patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`(2017); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46
`(2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard); see also Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for
`Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,344 (Oct. 11, 2018) (“The Office will
`continue to apply the BRI standard for construing unexpired patent claims
`. . . in AIA proceedings where a petition was filed before the [November 13,
`2018] effective date of the rule.”).
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different
`from its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed,
`and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor
`Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed.
`Cir. 2017).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
`
`
`The parties propose constructions for a number of claim terms. We
`address the parties’ proposed constructions below.
`1. “attributes” of an object
`Petitioner asserts that the term “attributes” (claims 1–41) should be
`construed as “characteristics associated with an object.” Pet. 9–10. Patent
`Owner disputes Petitioner’s construction as “overly broad and inconsistent
`with the specification” but states no construction of this term is necessary.
`Prelim. Resp. 7–8. We agree with Patent Owner that no express
`construction of “attributes” is required for purposes of this Decision.
`
`2. “new user rule”
`Petitioner defines a “new user rule” (claims 1–41) as a “specified
`combination of a set of attributes for identifying an event.” Pet. 10 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 4:63–64, 7:1–12, 10:58–64, 10:66–11:1, Fig. 4; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 93–
`95). Patent Owner contends Petitioner’s construction improperly equates
`“new user rule” with “event discriminators.” Prelim. Resp. 8. Patent Owner
`asserts selecting a “new user rule” requires “more than merely providing an
`event discriminator” and that the term “new user rule” should be construed
`according to its ordinary meaning as a “new [] set of conditions such that
`when a defined event is detected it may trigger a response.” Id. at 8–10
`(emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1001, 4:54–56, 4:63–5:5, 8:50–54, 56–58,
`11:13–14; Ex. 1005 ¶ 93); see also id. at 9 (stating “Dr. Grindon agreed that
`user ‘rules’ must have the ability to trigger responses”).
`We determine that no explicit construction of “new user rule” is
`necessary for purposes of this Decision. Petitioner provides evidence and
`argument that under either proposed definition, Dimitrova and Brill meet
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
`
`this limitation. See Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 11; Ex. 1006, 11, 27;
`Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 362–364, 366).
`3. “independence-based” limitations
`a. “independence” argument (1)5: “applying the new user rule to the
`plurality of detected attributes”
`Claim 1 recites “identifying an event of the object . . . by applying the
`new user rule to the plurality of detected attributes.” Independent claims 8,
`9, 22, 29, and 30 recite the same or similar limitations.
`Petitioner asserts that the term “applying” in the phrase “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. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1005
`¶¶ 100–105). Patent Owner responds by contending Petitioner’s
`construction is overbroad and that “merely querying a database is not
`sufficient to disclose ‘applying the new user rule to the plurality of detected
`attributes.’” Prelim. Resp. 10–12. Citing various portions of the ’923
`patent, Patent Owner contends, under the plain meaning of the claim,
`“[s]ome level of analysis, determination, identification, etc. is required when
`‘applying the new user rule to the plurality of detected attributes.’” Id. at 10
`(citing Ex. 1001, 5:12–23, 8:37–49, 14:56–15:4); see also id. (stating a
`“mere query does not satisfy the claim language because mere data retrieval
`is not ‘applying the new user rule’ to ‘identify’ an event”). Patent Owner
`further contends that because it argued during the reexamination proceeding
`that “the ’923 patent teaches that multiple detected attributes are to be
`
`5 This Decision refers to the independence arguments (1), (3), (2) as
`identified by the parties and in the order argued by the parties. See, e.g.,
`Pet. 11–19; Prelim. Resp. 11–19.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
`
`examined and then, based upon such attributes, a decision is made as to
`whether or not certain events occurred,” this means that “[t]his active
`evaluation of attributes is a more involved process and is not satisfied by
`retrieving results from a database.” Id. at 10–11 (citing Ex 1016, 31).
`At this stage of the proceeding, we are not persuaded that the disputed
`claim terms should be construed narrowly as asserted by Patent Owner.
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, the cited portions of the ’923 patent
`do not state that applying a new user rule to the plurality of detected
`attributes requires some level of analysis, determination, or identification
`beyond querying a database. For example, column 5, line 6 through line 23
`of Exhibit 1001 describes several “unique and novel features” of the system,
`including that the system can “further analyze previously processed video
`without needing to reprocess completely the video” and that by “analyzing
`previously processed video, the system can perform inference analysis based
`on previously recorded video primitives, which greatly improves the
`analysis speed of the computer system.” Column 8, line 37 through line 49
`describes examples of a “response” such as activating an alarm or
`forwarding data to another computer system. Column 14, line 56 through
`column 15, line 4 describes an alternative embodiment in which the system
`analyses archived video primitives with event discriminators to generate
`additional reports. Nor do we agree, at this stage of the proceeding, with
`Patent Owner’s argument that, because of statements it made during the
`reexamination proceeding, the claim term “applying the new user rule” to
`“identify an event” “is “not satisfied [by a query that] retriev[es] events from
`a database” See Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 1016, 31). Rather, the
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
`
`identified statements relate to Patent Owner’s arguments that “the attributes
`collected are independent of the events identified.” Id.
`Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we disagree with Patent Owner’s
`proposed construction. We determine no construction of the term is required
`at this stage of the proceeding.
`
`b. “independence argument (3): event”
`
`Independent claim 1 recites “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 . . . .” Ex. 1001, Reexamination
`Certificate 1:43–45. The remaining independent claims recite the same or
`similar limitations. Petitioner argues the claimed user defined “event”
`comprises a “minimum of two attributes.” See Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1005
`¶ 113). Petitioner acknowledges that the ’923 patent defines “event” as “one
`or more objects engaged in an activity,” but asserts Patent Owner’s attempt
`to distinguish the Courtney ’755 during the ’923 reexamination proceeding
`“results in a departure from the basic definition of ‘event’ in the ‘definitions’
`section of the ’923 patent.” See id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:44–46).
`Petitioner asserts that to distinguish Courtney ’755, Patent Owner argued
`“the claim language requires that the claimed event is more than a single
`attribute.” Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1016, 39). Petitioner also asserts that in
`IPR2018-00140, Patent Owner distinguishes prior art “by conflating single
`activity attributes with events by arguing that activities like appear, enter or
`exit, when recorded by the prior art are merely predetermined events.” Id. at
`13.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
`
`
`Patent Owner responds “event” should be construed as “one or more
`objects engaged in activity” as defined by the ’923 patent. Prelim.
`Resp. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:44–46).
`We agree with Patent Owner that the term “event” is defined by the
`’923 patent as “one or more objects engaged in an activity.” Ex. 1001, 3:44–
`45. “The event may be referenced with respect to a location and/or a time.”
`Id. at 3:45–46. Based on the current record, we are not persuaded that the
`term “event” should be construed differently from the definition provided by
`the ’923 patent. During the ’923 reexamination proceeding, Patent Owner’s
`arguments were directed to claim language reciting “identifying an event of
`the object that is not one of the detected attributes of the object,” not to
`redefining the meaning of the term “event.” See Ex. 1016, 39 (stating that
`although the ’923 patent discloses “identified events that are the same as a
`detected attribute” as well as “events that are not detected attributes,” the
`“claims of the ’923 patent require identification of an event that is not a
`detected attribute and are silent regarding identification of an event that is a
`detected attribute”).
`For the foregoing reasons, we construe the term “event” as defined in
`the ’923 patent as “one or more objects engaged in an activity.” Ex. 1001,
`3:44–46. We determine that no further construction of the term “event” is
`required to resolve issues in dispute at this stage of the proceeding.
`
`c. “independence argument (2): plurality of attributes that are detected are
`independent of which event is identified”
`Claim element 1[e] recites “wherein the plurality of attributes that are
`detected are independent of which event is identified.” Petitioner asserts
`that the claim term “independent” requires that the “event detection process
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
`
`does not alter the attribute detection process.” Pet. 15 (emphasis omitted);
`see also id. at 41 (stating claim element 1[e] requires that event detection
`process does not alter the attribute detection process). Patent Owner
`responds by asserting that “independent” should be construed to mean “the
`attributes are detected without regard to or knowledge of events or
`identification of events.” Prelim. Resp. 12.
`At this stage of the proceeding, we need not construe this claim
`limitation as Petitioner provides evidence and argument that Dimitrova
`discloses this limitation under either claim interpretation. See Pet. 41–43
`(citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 380).
`
`4. “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)
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues the above limitations “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.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 138). Patent
`Owner responds the claims “cover applying the new user rule to only the
`plurality of detected ‘attributes,’ not ‘attributes [and their abstractions]’ as
`Petitioners contend.” Prelim. Resp. 16; see also id. at 17 (stating a system
`that applies the user rule to something other than attributes falls outside the
`claims).
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
`
`
`We determine that no explicit construction of the above “wherein”
`clauses is necessary for purposes of this Decision. Petitioner provides
`evidence and argument that Dimitrova stores and queries attributes without
`requiring a hierarchy. See, e.g., Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1006, 19, 21–23;
`Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 372–374) (stating Dimitrova’s “exact” query operator prevents
`the system from returning higher-level abstractions)
`
`5. “means-plus-function”
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the following phrases it contends
`are means-plus-function limitations subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6: “means
`for detecting an object in a video from a single camera” (claim 9); “means
`for detecting first and second objects in a video from a single camera”
`(claim 30); “means for detecting a plurality of attributes of the object . . .”
`(claim 9); “means for detecting a plurality of attributes of the object. . .”
`(claim 30); “means for selecting a new user rule after the plurality of
`detected attributes are stored in memory” (claim 9); “means for identifying
`an event. . .” (claim 9); “means for identifying an event of the first object
`interacting with the second object. . .” (claim 30). Pet. 21–23.
`Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s constructions for these
`terms or propose its own constructions. See Prelim. Resp. 17 (“Patent
`Owner does not believe it is necessary at the Preliminary Response stage to
`address the means-plus-function constructions proposed by Petitioners, but
`reserves the right to do so if trial is instituted.”).
`Each of these limitations recites “means” and further recites a
`function, thus creating a presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 applies.
`See 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (“An element in a claim for a combination may be
`expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
`
`recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall
`be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described
`in the specification and equivalents thereof.”); see also Williamson v. Citrix
`Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part)
`(quoting Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161
`F.3d 696, 703 (Fed. Cir. 1998)) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’
`creates a presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 applies”).
`We agree with Petitioner that these limitations are means-plus-
`function limitations subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. We also agree, on this
`record, with Petitioner’s identification of the structure corresponding to the
`recited functions. See Pet. 21–23.
`Neither party proposes express constructions for any other claim
`terms in this proceeding. For purposes of this Decision, we do not find it
`necessary to construe expressly any other claim terms.
`
`D. Asserted Unpatentability of Claims 1–41 over Dimitrova and Brill
`Citing the Declaration of John R. Grindon, D.Sc. (Ex. 1005) for
`support, Petitioner contends claim 1–41 are unpatentable as obvious over
`Dimitrova and Brill.
`For the reasons discussed below, we determine, on the present record,
`the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would
`prevail in establishing that at least one claim is unpatentable over Dimitrova
`and Brill, which is sufficient to warrant institution of an inter partes review.
`
`1. Prior Art Status of Dimitrova
`Dimitrova is an article titled “Motion Recovery for Video Content
`Classification” contained in the ACM Transactions on Information Systems
`journal, Vol. 13, No. 4, dated October 1995. Ex. 1006, 1; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 34–
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
`
`39. The parties dispute whether Petitioner has shown that Dimitrova was
`publicly accessible, and therefore, available as prior art under pre-AIA
`§ 102(b). See, e.g., Pet. 3; Prelim. Resp. 19–25; Reply 1–5; Sur-Reply 1–5.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), a petitioner in an inter partes review may
`only challenge the claims of a patent based on “prior art consisting of patents
`or printed publications.” For institution purposes, Petitioner has the burden
`to present information in the Petition to show a reasonable likelihood that it
`will prevail on the merits, which includes, inter alia, presenting information
`to show the asserted art is a patent or printed publication. See 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). “Whether a reference qualifies as a printed
`publication under § 102 is a legal conclusion based on underlying fact
`findings.” Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765,
`772 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “A reference is considered publicly accessible if it was
`‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons
`interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising
`reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Id.
`Petitioner asserts Dimitrova qualifies as a prior art printed publication
`under pre-AIA § 102(b) because “Dimitrova was published in the ACM
`Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 13, No. 4, (‘ACM Journal’) in
`October 1995” which is more than one year before October 24, 2000, the
`earliest possible priority date for the ’923 patent. Pet. 3 n.1; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 34–
`39).
`
`In support of this argument, Petitioner provides, inter alia, (1) a copy
`of the ACM Journal (Ex. 1007, Ex. G) from the University of California
`Los Angeles Science and Engineering Library bearing a date stamp of
`“November 17, 1995” purported to show the reference was received by the
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00314
`Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
`
`library on that date and would have been shelved shortly thereafter
`(Ex. 1007 ¶ 34–35), (2) a copy of Dimitrova obtained from Library of
`Congress bearing a date stamp of November 21, 1995, purported to show the
`reference was received by the Library of Congress on that date and would
`have been shelved shortly thereafter (Ex. 1007, Ex. H), and (3) a Machine-
`Readable Cataloging (“MARC”) record of the MIT Libraries for the ACM
`Journal, purported to show that the MIT Libraries received the ACM Journal
`issue that contained Dimitrova in 1995, that the ACM Journal including
`Dimitrova was archived at the MIT Library Storage Annex, and that on-line
`access to Dimitrova was provided
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
