UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`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 RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 2
`A.
`Proposed Grounds ................................................................................. 2
`B.
`Overview of the ’923 Patent .................................................................. 2
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 5
`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)
` ............................................................................................................... 6
`“new user rule” (Claims 1-41) .............................................................. 6
`“applying”
`(Petitioners’
`“Independence Argument
`(1)”
`Discussion) (Claims 1-41) ..................................................................... 8
`“event” (Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (3)” Discussion)
`(Claims 1-41) ....................................................................................... 10
`“independent” (Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (2)”
`Discussion) (Claims 1-41) ................................................................... 11
`“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 1-9, 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)................... 12
`“a video device” (Claims 9, 20, and 30) ............................................. 14
`G.
`H. Means-Plus-Function Claims .............................................................. 15
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`IV. PETITIONERS HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED BY A
`PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF
`CLAIMS 1-41 OF THE ’923 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .............. 16
`A. Ground 1: Dimitrova In Combination With Brill Does Not
`Render Claims 1-41 Obvious .............................................................. 16
`1.
`Dimitrova in combination with Brill does not disclose
`“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) ......................... 16
`Dimitrova in combination with Brill does not “the
`plurality of attributes that are detected are independent of
`which event is identified” (Claims 1-41) .................................. 24
`Dimitrova in combination with Brill does not disclose
`“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) ............. 30
`No Motivation Exists to Combine Dimitrova and Brill ............ 32
`Objective Evidence Establishes Non-Obviousness of the
`’923 Patent ................................................................................ 34
`PETITIONERS HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT
`DIMITROVA AND BRILL ARE PRINTED PUBLICATIONS ............ 36
`A.
`The Florio Declaration Is Insufficient Evidence Because Ms.
`Florio Does Not Have Personal Knowledge Of The Relevant
`Libraries’ Shelving Practices. ............................................................. 36
`Petitioners’ Explanation Of The Alleged Printed Publication
`Status Of Dimitrova And Brill Is Deficient ........................................ 39
`1.
`Petitioners fail to show that Dimitrova was publicly
`accessible. ................................................................................. 41
`Petitioners fail to show that Brill was publicly accessible. ...... 49
`
`V.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`5.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`C.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`The Deficiencies In The Petition Cannot Be Overcome With
`Information Submitted As Supplemental Information ........................ 50
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`ABS Global, Inc. v. Inguran, LLC,
`IPR2016-00927, Paper 33 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2017) .........................................passim
`Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.,
`908 F.3d 765 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .....................................................................passim
`Am. Innotek, Inc. v. United States,
`128 Fed. Cl. 135 (2016) ...................................................................................... 43
`Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`IPR 2016-00303 .................................................................................................. 42
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc.,
`445 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 40
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) ............................................. 50
`Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microeletronics Int’l, Inc.,
`246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 13
`Ecolochem, Inc. v. S. Cal. Edison Co.,
`227 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 34
`Ford Motor Co. v. Cruise Control Techs. LLC,
`IPR2014-00291, Paper 44 (PTAB Jun. 29, 2015) ........................................ 42, 49
`Ford Motor v. Versata Dev. Grp.,
`IPR2016-01019, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 4, 2016) ...................................... 39, 49, 50
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 34
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ........................................................ 40, 44, 45, 46
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .......................................................... 37, 44, 45, 46
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`In re Klopfenstein,
`380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 50
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 5
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 5
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 50, 51
`
`Intri-Plex Techs. Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol
`Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00309, Paper 83 (PTAB, Mar. 23, 2014) ............................................ 35
`Leo Pharm. Prods., v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 35
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (rev’d on other grounds) .................................... 5
`Nichols Inst. Diagnostics, Inc. v. Scantibodies Clinical Lab., Inc.,
`195 Fed. Appx. 947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................. 41
`Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG,
`812 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 35
`Proveris Sci. Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc.,
`739 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 14
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,
`511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 40
`Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc.,
`752 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 40
`Thermo Fisher Sci. Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of California,
`IPR2018-01370, Paper 11 (PTAB Feb. 7, 2019) ................................................ 41
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling
`USA, Inc.,
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 34
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................. 39, 40
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ............................................................................................... 51
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 50
`37 C.F.R. §42.62(a) .................................................................................................. 37
`Fed. R. Evid. 602 ..................................................................................................... 36
`
`
`
`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 Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`2012
`
`2013
`
`2016
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2010
`
`Patent Owner’s 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)
`
`2014 MARC Standards Wikipedia Search.
`
`2015 Declaration of Jennifer A. Babbitt.
`
`LinkedIn Profile of Marilyn McSweeney.
`
`2017 Declaration of Jennifer A. Babbitt in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Authorization to Compel
`Testimony and/or Documents.
`
`2018 Deposition Transcript of John Grindon, D.Sc. dated October 2, 2019.
`
`2019 Declaration of Dr. Alan Bovik in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Responses to Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923.
`
`2020 Dr. Alan Bovik Curriculum Vitae
`
`2021 David G. Lowe, Distinctive Image Feature From Scale-Invariant
`Keypoints, 60(2) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER
`VISION 91-110 (2004).
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2022 Herbert Bay, et al., Speeded-Up Robust Features (SURF), 110
`COMPUTER VISION AND IMAGE UNDERSTANDING 346-359
`(2008).
`
`2023 Declaration of Jennifer A. Babbitt in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Response.
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Board should find claims 1-41 of U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923 (“the ’923
`
`patent”) patentable over the grounds of invalidity raised by Canon Inc., Canon
`
`U.S.A., Inc., and Axis Communications AB (collectively “Petitioners”). Neither of
`
`the asserted references, alone or in combination, discloses the claimed invention of
`
`the ’923 patent.
`
`The Petition solely asserts the combination of the Dimitrova reference with
`
`the Brill reference. Although the Board found sufficient basis to institute these
`
`proceedings on Petitioners’ proposed ground, further proceedings and expert
`
`testimony make clear that the references lack key aspects of the ’923 patent’s claims.
`
`For example, unlike the ’923 patent, which deals with the problem of how to analyze
`
`video data effectively by separating attribute detection from event identification, the
`
`systems of Dimitrova and Brill operate on events, not attributes, as Petitioners’
`
`expert witness confirmed during deposition, and the alleged attribute detection is not
`
`“independent of which event is identified.” Because neither reference addresses the
`
`fundamental problems and solutions identified in the ’923 patent, as demonstrated
`
`in the language of its claims, the combination of Dimitrova and Brill fails to disclose
`
`several elements of the challenged claims and does not demonstrate obviousness as
`
`alleged by Petitioners.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Accordingly, the Board should uphold the patentability of all the challenged
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`
`
`claims of the ’923 patent in this proceeding.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A.
`Proposed Grounds
`The Petition relies on two references in support of its proposed ground of
`
`unpatentability:
`
`• “Motion Recovery for Video Content Classification” by Nevenka
`Dimitrova et al. (“Dimitrova”)
`• “Event Recognition and Reliability Improvements for the Autonomous
`Video Surveillance System” by Frank Brill et al. (“Brill”)
`The proposed ground is summarized in the table below:
`Ground
`’923 Patent
`Type
`Primary
`Claims
`Reference
`1-41
`Dimitrova
`
`Secondary
`Reference
`Brill
`
`1
`
`§ 103
`
`
`
`The Board instituted trial for all claims on this ground. See generally Paper
`
`13.
`
`B. Overview of the ’923 Patent
`The ’923 patent is directed to an improved video surveillance system that
`
`detects primitives from a single video device, determines events, and generates
`
`alarms. Ex. 1001 at 2:43-53. A single video camera provides the video. Ex. 1001
`
`at 6:3-4, 9:23-24. The system detects objects in that video from a single camera.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Id. at 9:30-48. Video primitives, which are “observable attribute[s] of an object,”
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`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. Finally, a response may then be
`
`identified, which may include activating an alert or forwarding data to another
`
`computer system. Id. at 8:37-49. 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.
`
`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
`
`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
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`
`13 through 19. Claim 12 depends on claim 11. Claim 20 recites a method and is the
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`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, claim 1. The next step involves
`
`“detecting a plurality of attributes of the object 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 applied
`
`“to only the plurality of detected attributes.” Id., claim 1. 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 a video
`
`device with the means for carrying out the described system. See id., claims 9, 30.
`
`Claims 22 and 29 also specify the system is a “non-transitory computer-readable
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`
`storage medium containing instructions that when executed by a computer system
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`cause said computer system to implement the following method.” See id., claims
`
`22, 29.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The Board gives claim terms their broadest reasonable construction, “read in
`
`light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent,” In re Suitco
`
`Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010), but the construction “must be
`
`consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.” Microsoft Corp. v.
`
`Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (rev’d on other grounds)
`
`(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “While the Board must give the
`
`terms their broadest reasonable construction, the construction cannot be divorced
`
`from the specification and the record evidence.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279,
`
`1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`In its Institution Decision, the Board found that none of the Petitioners’
`
`proposed terms needed construction, with the exception of the term “event,” which
`
`the Board agreed with Patent Owner that it be construed as it is defined in the ’923
`
`patent as “one of more objects engaged in an activity.” Paper 13 at 15.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`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)
`The Board properly declined to construe the “attributes” terms in its
`
`Institution Decision. Paper 13 at 10-11. To the extent the Board determines that
`
`claim construction
`
`is necessary, Petitioners’ construction—“characteristics
`
`associated with an object” (Pet. at 9-10)—is overly broad and inconsistent with the
`
`specification. See, e.g., 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 an object viewed in
`
`a video feed.”). No construction of “attributes” is necessary here for Petitioners’
`
`challenges. Thus, the “attributes” terms should all receive their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning.
`
`B.
`“new user rule” (Claims 1-41)
`The Board did not explicitly construe the term “new user rule” for the
`
`purposes of institution because it found that Petitioners provided evidence and
`
`argument that the prior art met this limitation under either party’s construction.
`
`Paper 13 at 11. To the contrary, for the reasons explained below, Petitioners have
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`not presented sufficient evidence that this element is met under the proper
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`construction.
`
`A “new user rule” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which is a
`
`“new a set of conditions such that when a defined event is detected it may trigger a
`
`response,” as discussed in ’923 patent. Id.; Ex. 1001 at 4:54-56 (“The system can
`
`have a prescribed response to the analysis, such as record data, activate an alarm
`
`mechanism, or active [sic] another sensor system.”).
`
`Petitioners’ construction—“specified combination of a set of attributes for
`
`identifying an event” (Pet. at 10)—is incorrect because it improperly equates “new
`
`user rule” with “event discriminators.” 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; Ex. 2018 at 46:22-47:6.
`
`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.
`
`As Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Bovik explains, selecting a “new user rule”
`
`requires more than merely providing an event discriminator. Ex. 2019 at 18. Rather,
`
`a “new user rule” is applied to “the plurality of detected attributes” and may trigger
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`
`a response that is performed when a particular event or type of event is detected. Ex.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`1001, claim 1. In the related ’661 patent IPRs, Petitioners’ expert 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 8:50-53
`
`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.”).
`
`C.
`
`“applying” (Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (1)”
`Discussion) (Claims 1-41)
`In the Institution Decision, the Board disagreed with Patent Owner’s argument
`
`that merely querying a database was insufficient to disclose “applying the new user
`
`rule to the plurality of detected attributes.” Paper 13 at 14. Patent Owner
`
`respectfully disagrees. The ’923 patent is clear that more is required to satisfy this
`
`element of the claim than a mere query. Accordingly, “applying the new user rule
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`to the plurality of detected attributes” should be given its plain and ordinary
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`meaning.
`
`The claims of the ’923 patent indicate that merely querying a database is
`
`insufficient to serve as the claimed “applying.” The language of claim 1 requires
`
`“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 1.1 Retrieving the detected attributes from a database thus can at most
`
`be a part of the claim; the rule still must be applied to those attributes. Similarly,
`
`claim 2 indicates that selecting the new user rule comprises “selecting a subset of
`
`the plurality of attributes for analysis.” Id., claim 2. Because claim 2 depends from
`
`claim 2, this claim demonstrates that claim 1 also requires that some “analysis” be
`
`performed on the selected attributes. Similarly, claim 13 indicates that “applying a
`
`selected new user rule comprises analyzing.” Id., claim 13; see also id., claim 20
`
`(“the new user rule providing an analysis of a combination of the attributes to detect
`
`an event that is not one of the detected attributes”),
`
`The specification is also consistent with this reading. The portions that the
`
`Board cites to as supporting its position that “applying the new user rule” does not
`
`require “some level of analysis, determination, or identification beyond querying a
`
`
`1 All emphasis added throughout this brief unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`database,” show the opposite. Paper 13 at 13. For example, the ’923 patent explains
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`that it has a “unique and novel” system where the system can “further analyze
`
`previously processed video without needed to reprocess completely the video” and
`
`that by “analyzing previously processed video, the system can perform inference
`
`analysis.” Ex. 1001 5:6-23. This shows that when “applying the new user rule to
`
`the plurality of detected attributes” some level of analysis occurs that is greater than
`
`mere data retrieval. Id. at 16:2-3. This is confirmed by Patent Owner’s expert Dr.
`
`Bovik, who explains that querying a database is insufficient because it is “a passive
`
`action” while the claim language requires “active analysis.” Ex. 2019 at 20.
`
`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
`
`such attributes, a decision is made as to whether or not certain events occurred.” Ex.
`
`1016 at 31. This “decision” is the result of an analysis of the detected attributes in
`
`accordance with the new user rule, and cannot be satisfied merely by retrieving
`
`results from a database.
`
`D.
`
` “event” (Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (3)” Discussion)
`(Claims 1-41)
`For the reasons stated in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (“POPR”),
`
`Patent Owner agrees with the Board’s construction of this term as “one or more
`
`objects engaged in an activity.” Paper 13 at 15.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`E.
`
`“independent” (Petitioners’ “Independence Argument (2)”
`Discussion) (Claims 1-41)
`The ’923 patent’s use of “independent” in the phrase “wherein the plurality of
`
`attributes that are detected are independent of which event is identified” is clear on
`
`its face and no construction is necessary. The “concept of ‘independence’ is central
`
`to understanding the system described by the ’923 patent.” Ex. 2019 at 19. The
`
`Board declined to construe this term in its Institution Decision, holding that
`
`“Petitioner provides evidence and argument that Dimitrova discloses this limitation
`
`under either claim interpretation.” Paper 13 at 16. As discussed below, Patent
`
`Owner disagrees that Petitioners have met their burden of showing by a
`
`preponderance of evidence that Dimitrova discloses that the “attributes are detected
`
`without regard to or knowledge of events or identification of events.”
`
`To the extent the Board determines that claim construction is necessary,
`
`Petitioners’ construction, “event detection process does not alter the attribute
`
`detection process” is incorrect because it does not take into consideration events that
`
`are previously identified. Patent Owner’s proposed construction is a slight alteration
`
`to the Board’s adopted construction in the related ’661 IPR because it adds an
`
`important point found directly in the claim language. This minor alteration is
`
`supported by Dr. Zeger, Patent Owner’s expert in the ’923 reexamination, who
`
`clarified that this claim language requires attribute detection without regard to or
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`knowledge of the process of identifying the event, as demonstrated by the language
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`of claim 1, “wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are independent of
`
`which event is identified.” See Ex. 1033 at 19; see also IPR2018-00138, Paper 8 at
`
`10; IPR2018-00140, Paper 8 at 10; Ex. 1001, claim 1.2 Thus, “independent” means
`
`“the attributes are detected without regard to or knowledge of events or identification
`
`of events.”
`
`F.
`
` “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 1-9, 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)
`The ’923 patent’s use of the “wherein” terms is clear on its face and the terms
`
`should be construed to mean “applying the new user rule to only the plurality of
`
`detected attributes.” See Paper 9 at 18; see also Ex. 1001, claim 1. The Board
`
`declined to construe this term in its Institution Decision, holding that “Petitioner
`
`
`2 Claims 8, 22, and 29 mirror the same language as claim 1; claim 9 recites,
`“identifying the event independent of when the attributes are stored in memory”;
`claim 20 recites, “wherein the attributes to be detected are independent of the
`event to be detected”; and claim 30 recites, “identifying the event independent of
`when the attributes are stored in memory, the event not being one of the detected
`attributes.”
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`provides evidence and argument that the asserted prior art can ‘search only the
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00314
`
`attributes themselves and does not require traversing a tree structure of abstractions
`
`to search the detected attributes.” Paper 13 at 17. As discussed below, Patent Owner
`
`disagrees that Petitioners have met their burden of showing by a preponderance of
`
`evidence that Dimitrova discloses this claim limitation as properly construed.
`
`Petitioners’ proposed construction that the limitation “should at most only
`
`limit claims as excluding coverage of systems that always reference an object
`
`hierarchy structures such as a tree structure that requires traversal of abstractions to
`
`apply the user rule” is incorrect. Pet. at 21; Ex. 1005 ¶ 138. The claim language is
`
`clear that the new user rule is “only” applied to attributes. See Ex. 1001, Claim