IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Alan J. LIPTON et al.
`
`7,932,923
`
`April 26, 2011
`
`VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM EMPLOYING
`VIDEO PRIMITIVES
`
`12/569,116
`
`September 29, 2009
`
`Bosch Security Systems, Inc.
`
`In Re Patent of
`
`Patent No.
`
`Issued
`
`Title
`
`Application Serial No.
`
`Filed
`
`Requester
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`VIA EFS-WEB
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Reexam
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION
`
`OF US. PATENT NO. 7 932 923 PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 1.915
`
`SIR:
`
`Bosch Security Systems, Inc. (“Requester”), through its undersigned counsel, hereby
`
`respectfully requests inter partes reexamination of US. Patent No. 7,932,923 pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 311 et seq. and the provisions of37 C.F.R. § 1.902 et seq.
`
`Canon EX. 1008 Page 1 of 97
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 1 of 97
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`IDENTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.915(b)(1) .................................... 1
`
`COPY OF ’923 PATENT PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.915(b)(5) ........................... 1
`
`III.
`
`CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.915(b)(7) ...................................... 1
`
`Iv.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OP REAL PARTY IN INTEREST PURSUANT TO 37 CPR. §
`1.915(b)(8) ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`V.
`
`PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO ’923 PATENT .......................................................... 1
`
`VI.
`
`THE ’923 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION .......................................................... 3
`
`VII.
`
`CITATIONS OF PRIOR ART PATENTS AND PRINTED PUBLICATIONS THAT
`ARE PRESENTED TO PROVIDE A SHOWING THAT THERE IS A
`
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE REQUESTER WILL PREVAIL WITH
`RESPECT To AT LEAST ONE OF THE CLAIMS CHALLENGED IN THIS
`
`REQUEST PURSUANT TO 37 CPR. § 1.915(b)(2) ................................................ 22
`
`VIII.
`
`STATEMENTS POINTING OUT EACH SHOWING OF A REASONABLE
`
`LIKELIHOOD THAT THE REQUESTER WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO
`AT LEAST ONE OF THE CLAIMS CHALLENGED IN THIS REQUEST
`PURSUANT TO 37 CPR. § l.9l5(b)(3) ................................................................... 25
`
`IX.
`
`DETAILED EXPLANATIONS PURSUANT TO 37 CPR. § 1.915(b)(3) ............... 27
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1 to 7, 9 to 13, and 15 to 28 Are Anticipated by Courtney ’755 Under
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................ 28
`
`Claim 14 IS Obvious in View of Courtney ’755 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ........ 32
`
`Claims 8 and 29 to 41 Are Unpatentable in View of the Combination of
`Courtney ’755 and Olson et al. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................. 33
`
`Claims 1 to 7, 9 to 13, and 15 to 28 Are Anticipated by Shotton et al. Under 35
`U.S.C. § 102 ..................................................................................................... 38
`
`Claim 14 Is Obvious in View of Shotton et al. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .......... 42
`
`Claims 8 and 29 to 41 Are Obvious in View of the Combination of Shotton et
`
`al. and Brill et a]. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................ 43
`
`Claims 1 to 41 Are Obvious in View of the Combination of Courtney ’5 84 and
`Olson et al. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................. 51
`
`to 41 Are Obvious in View of the Combination of the Courtney
`Claims 1
`Article and Brill et al. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................. 57
`
`Claims 1 to 41 Are Obvious in View of the Combination of Courtney ’5 84 and
`Brill et al. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................... 62
`
`i
`
`Canon EX. 1008 Page 2 of 97
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 2 of 97
`
`

`

`10.
`
`to 41 Are Obvious in View of the Combination of the Courtney
`Claims 1
`Article and Olson et a1. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................... 63
`
`11.
`
`Claims 1
`
`to 41 Are Obvious in View of the Combination of Winter et al.,
`
`Lipton et al., and Brill et a1. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ....................................... 65
`
`12.
`
`Claims 1 to 7 and 9 to 28 Are Obvious in View of the Combination of Pack et
`
`al., Qian et al., and Courtney ’755 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................. 73
`
`13.
`
`Claims 8 and 29 to 41 Are Obvious in View of the Combination of Pack et al.,
`
`Qian et al., Courtney ’755, and Olson et a1. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............... 79
`
`14.
`
`Claims 1 to 7 and 9 to 28 Are Obvious in View of the Combination of Paek et
`
`al., Qian et al., and Shotton et a1. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................... 81
`
`15.
`
`Claims 8 and 29 to 41 Are Obvious in View of the Combination of Pack et al.,
`
`Qian et al., Shotton et al., and Brill et al. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................... 82
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`Claims 1 to 41 Are Obvious in View of the Combination of Paek et al., Qian et
`al., Courtney ’584, and Olson et al. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................ 84
`
`Claims 1 to 41 Are Obvious in View of the Combination of Paek et al., Qian et
`al., the Courtney Article, and Brill et a1. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .................... 85
`
`Claims 1 to 41 Are Obvious in View of the Combination of Pack et al., Qian et
`al., Courtney ’584, and Brill et a1. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................. 87
`
`Claims 1 to 41 Are Obvious in View of the Combination of Paek et al., Qian et
`al., the Courtney Article, and Olson et a1. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .................. 88
`
`X.
`
`REQUESTER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS OF REJECTION ..................................... 90
`
`XI.
`
`FEE PURSUANT TO 37 CPR. § 1.915(a) ................................................................ 91
`
`XII.
`
`CERTIFICATION PURSUANT To 37 CPR. § 1.915(b)(6) .................................... 91
`
`X111. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 92
`
`ii
`
`Canon EX. 1008 Page 3 of 97
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 3 of 97
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`Exhibit 3
`
`Exhibit 4
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923 entitled “Video Surveillance System
`Employing Video Primitives,” issued April 26, 2011 to Alan J. Lipton,
`Thomas M. Strat, Peter L. Venetianer, Mark C. Allmen, William E.
`
`Severson, Niels Haering, Andrew J. Chosak, Zhong Zhang, Matthew
`F. Frazier, James S. Seekas, Tasuki Hirata, and John Clark.
`
`“Complaint” filed on June 29, 2011 in In the Matter of Certain Video
`Analytics Software, Systems, Components Thereof, and Products
`Containing Same, U.S. lntemational Trade Commission Investigation
`No. 337-TA-795.
`
`“Notice of Institution of Investigation” issued on July 27, 2011 for
`U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-795.
`
`“Response of Bosch Security Systems, Inc. and Robert Bosch GmbH
`to the Complaint of Obj ectVideo, Inc. Under Section 337 of the Tariff
`Act of 1930,
`as Amended, and Notice of Investigation” filed
`September 6,
`in U.S. lntemational Trade Commission Investigation
`No. 337-TA-795.
`
`Exhibit 5
`
`Proposed Claim Constructions of Requester and Robert Bosch GmbH,
`filed October 26, 2011 in U.S.
`International Trade Commission
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-795.
`
`Exhibit 6
`
`“Joint Claim Construction Chart” filed October 28, 2011 in U.S.
`
`lntemational Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-795.
`
`Exhibit 7
`
`Exhibit 8
`
`“Amended Complaint” filed May 11, 2011 in OBJECTVIDEO, INC. v.
`ROBERT BOSCH GMBH et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-00217-JAG (ED.
`Va.).
`
`to
`Inc.’s Answer and Counterclaims
`“Bosch Security Systems,
`ObjectVideo Inc.’s Amended Complaint” filed June 8, 2011 in
`OBJECTVIDEO, INC. v. ROBERT BOSCH GMBH et al., Case No.
`
`3: 1 1-cv-00217-JAG (E.D. Va.).
`
`Exhibit 9
`
`“Reply to Counterclaims of Bosch Security Systems, Inc.,” filed June
`22, 2011 in OBJECTVIDEO, INC. v. ROBERT BOSCH GMBH et al.,
`
`Case No. 3:11-cv-002l7-JAG (E.D. Va).
`
`Exhibit 10
`
`10, 2011 in
`“Order” Granting Motion to Stay, dated August
`OBJECTVIDEO, INC. v. ROBERT BOSCH GMBH et al., Case No.
`
`3:11-cv-00217-JAG (E.D. Va.).
`
`Exhibit 11
`
`U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/569,116, filed September 29,
`2009 by Alan J. Lipton, Thomas M. Strat, Peter L. Venetianer, Mark
`C. Allmen, William E. Severson, Niels Haering, Andrew J. Chosak,
`Zhong Zhang, Matthcw F. Frazicr, Jamcs S. Scckas, Tasuki Hirata, and
`John Clark.
`
`iii
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 4 of 97
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 4 of 97
`
`

`

`Exhibit 12
`
`Exhibit 13
`
`Exhibit 14
`
`Exhibit 15
`
`Exhibit 16
`
`Exhibit 17
`
`Exhibit 18
`
`Exhibit 19
`
`Exhibit 20
`
`Exhibit 21
`
`Exhibit 22
`
`Exhibit 23
`
`Listing of Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications that Provide a
`Showing that There Is a Reasonable Likelihood that the Requester Will
`Prevail With Respect To At Least One of the Claims of US. Patent
`No. 7,932,923.
`
`US. Patent No. 5,969,755 to Courtney.
`
`“Moving Obj eet Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms for
`Smart Cameras,” by Olson et a1.
`
`“Object Tracking and Event Recognition in Biological Microscopy
`Videos,” by Shotton et al.
`
`US. Patent No. 6,628,835 to Brill et a1.
`
`European Patent Application No. EP 0 967 584 by Courtney.
`
`“Automatic Video Indexing Via Object Motion Analysis,” by
`Courtney.
`
`US. Patent No. 5,875,305 to Winter et a1.
`
`“Moving Target Classification and Tracking from Real-Time Video,”
`by Lipton et al.
`
`US. Patent No. 7,653,635 to Pack et al.
`
`US. Patent No. 6,721,454 to Qian et a1.
`
`Certificate of Service Pursuant to 37 CPR. § 1.915(b)(6).
`
`iv
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 5 of 97
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 5 of 97
`
`

`

`I.
`
`
`
`IDENTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 1.915 b 1
`
`Inter partes reexamination of all of the claims, i.e., claims 1 to 41, of US. Patent No.
`
`7,932,923 (“the ’923 patent”) is requested.
`
`II.
`
`COPY OF ’923 PATENT PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.915§b[§5[
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.915(b)(5), annexed hereto as Exhibit 1
`
`is a copy of the
`
`entire ’923 patent including the front face, drawings, specification and claims (in double
`
`column format) for which inter partes reexamination is requested. To the best of Requester’s
`
`knowledge, as of the date of this request, no terminal disclaimer, certificate of correction, or
`
`reexamination certificate has been issued in connection with the ’923 patent.
`
`III.
`
`CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.9151bn7!
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.915(b)(7), Requester certifies that the estoppel provisions of
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.907 do not prohibit the inter partes reexamination.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF REAL PARTY IN
`
`INTEREST PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.915§b[§8[
`
`The real party in interest is BOSCH SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. (“Requester”),
`
`which is a subsidiary of ROBERT BOSCH GMBH.
`
`V.
`
`PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO ’923 PATENT
`
`The ’923 patent issued on April 26, 2011 from US. Patent Application Serial No.
`
`12/569,116 (“the ’116 application”), filed September 29, 2009. The ’923 patent includes the
`
`statement that “This application claims the priority to US. patent application Ser. No.
`
`09/987,707, filed Nov. 15, 2001, which claims priority to US. patent application Ser. No.
`
`09/694,712, now US. Pat. No. 6,954,498, each of which is incorporated herein by reference
`
`1
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 6 of 97
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 6 of 97
`
`

`

`in their entirety.” (’923 patent, col. 1, lines 7 to 11.) Because the foregoing statement does
`
`not specify a relationship,
`
`i. e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part, among the
`
`prior application, the foregoing statement does not constitute a “specific reference” to a prior
`
`application as required by 35 U.S.C. § 120. M.P.E.P. § 201.11(III)(A) (“Any benefit claim
`
`that does not w identify a prior application by its application number fl specify a
`
`relationship between the applications will not be considered to contain a specific reference to
`
`a prior application as required by 35 U.S.C. 120” (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, no
`
`claim of the ’923 patent is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of US. Application Serial
`
`No. 09/987,707 or US. Patent Application Serial No. 09/694,712.
`
`In other words, for the
`
`purposes of these reexamination proceedings, none of the claims of the ’923 patent are
`
`entitled to the benefit of a filing date earlier than the filing date of the ’116 application, i.e.,
`
`September 29, 2009.
`
`Although Requester is not obligated to inform the Office of proceedings related to the
`
`’923 and ’498 patents, the Office is hereby informed of the following proceedings, which are
`
`pending as of the date of this Request, that relate to the ’923 and ’498 patents:
`
`In the Matter of Certain Video Analytics Software, Systems,
`Components Thereof and Products Containing Same, US.
`International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337—TA—795
`(Complaint
`filed on June 29, 2011)
`(“the OBJECTVIDEO
`investigation”). Requester and its German parent corporation,
`Robert Bosch GmbH, are parties to the OBJECTVIDEO
`investigation. A copy of the “Complaint” filed on June 29,
`2011 is annexed hereto as Exhibit 2. A copy of the “Notice of
`Institution of Investigation” issued on July 27, 2011 is annexed
`hereto as Exhibit 3. A copy of the “Response of Bosch
`Security Systems,
`Inc. and Robert Bosch GmbH to the
`Complaint of Obj ectVideo, Inc. Under Section 337 of the Tariff
`Act of 1930, as Amended, and Notice of Investigation” filed
`September
`6,
`2011,
`is
`annexed hereto
`as Exhibit
`4.
`Additionally,
`the proposed claim constructions of Requester
`and Robert Bosch GmbH, filed October 26, 2011, and the
`“Joint Claim Construction Chart” filed October 28, 2011, are
`
`annexed hereto as Exhibits 5 and 6, respectively.
`
`OBJECTVIDEO, INC. v. ROBERT BOSCH GMBH et al., Case
`
`No. 3:11—cv—00217—JAG (E.D. Va. 7 Complaint Filed on April
`6, 2011) (“the OBJECTVIDEO district court case”). Requester
`and its German parent corporation, Robert Bosch GmbH, are
`parties to the OBJECTVIDEO district court case. A copy of the
`
`2
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 7 of 97
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 7 of 97
`
`

`

`is annexed
`“Amended Complaint” filed on May 1 l, 201 l
`hereto as Exhibit 7. A copy of “Bosch Security Systems, Inc.’s
`Answer and Counterclaims to Obj cctVidco Inc.’s Amcndcd
`Complaint” filed June 8, 2011 is annexed hereto as Exhibit 8.
`A copy of Obj ectVideo Inc.’s “Reply to Counterclaims of
`Bosch Security Systems, Inc,” filed June 22, 2011, is annexed
`hereto as Exhibit 9. The OBJECTVIDEO district court case has
`
`been staycd pending disposition of thc OBJECTVIDEO
`investigation case, and a copy of the order granting stay, dated
`August 10, 2011, is annexed hereto as Exhibit 10.
`
`VI.
`
`THE 9923 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`
`As stated above, the ’116 application, annexed hereto as Exhibit 11, was filed on
`
`September 29, 2009. As originally filed, the ’116 application contained twenty-six claims, of
`
`which claims 1, 22, 25, and 26 were the only independent claims. Application claims 1, 22,
`
`25, and 26 as filed are reproduced below:
`
`1. A computer—readable medium comprising software
`for a video surveillance system, comprising code segments for
`operating the video surveillance system based on video
`primitives.
`
`22. A computer—readable medium comprising software
`for a video surveillance system, comprising:
`
`code segments for accessing archived video primitives;
`
`and
`
`code segments for extracting event occurrences from
`accessed archived Video primitives.
`
`25. A method comprising the step of operating a video
`surveillance system based on video primitives.
`
`26. A method comprising the steps of:
`
`accessing archived vidco primitives; and
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 8 of 97
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 8 of 97
`
`

`

`extracting event occurrences From accessed video
`primitives.
`
`According to the prosecution history of the ’116 application, the applicants held an
`
`interview with the Examiner on November 24, 2009 and “discussed new claims 27-70.”
`
`(Interview Summary mailed December 2, 2009, page 1.) On December 30, 2009,
`
`the
`
`applicants filed a “Preliminary Amendment and Interview Summary” cancelling original
`
`claims 1 to 26 and adding new claims 27 to 58. Of the newly added Claims, Claims 27, 36,
`
`48, and 50 are independent claims. Claims 27, 36, 48, and 50 as presented and are
`
`reproduced below:
`
`27. A method comprising:
`
`detecting an object in a video;
`
`detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by
`analyzing the video, each attribute representing a characteristic
`of the detected object;
`
`selecting a new user rule; and
`
`after detecting the plurality of attributes, 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 plurality of attributes that are detected are
`independent of which event is identified.
`
`36. A video device comprising:
`
`means for detecting an object in a video;
`
`means for detecting a plurality of attributes of the object
`by analyzing the video,
`each
`attribute
`representing a
`characteristic of the detected object;
`
`a memory storing the plurality of detected attributes;
`
`and
`
`means for identifying an event of the object that is not
`one of the detected attributes of the object by applying a
`selected new user rule to the plurality of attributes stored in
`memory,
`
`Canon EX. 1008 Page 9 of 97
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 9 of 97
`
`

`

`wherein the means for identifying an event is capable of
`identifying the event independent of when the attributes are
`stored in memory.
`
`48. A method comprising:
`
`providing a video device which detects an object upon
`analyzing a video and which detects plural attributes of the
`detected object upon analyzing the video; and
`
`then, selecting a rule, which is not a rule used to detect
`any individual attribute, as a new user rule, 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,
`
`wherein the attributes to be detected are independent of
`the event to be detected.
`
`50. 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 comprising:
`
`detecting an object in a video;
`
`detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by
`analyzing the video, each attribute representing a characteristic
`of the detected object;
`
`selecting a new user rule; and
`
`after detecting the plurality of attributes, 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 plurality of attributes that are detected are
`independent of which event is identified.
`
`The “Preliminary Amendment and Interview Summary” filed December 30, 2009 also
`
`included a purported summary of the November 24, 2009 interview, reproduced below:
`
`thanks Examiner V0 for his time during the
`The Applicant
`personal
`interview of November 24, 2009. During the
`interview, the Applicant discussed draft claims 27-70 presented
`for the Examiner’s consideration to help expedite allowance of
`
`5
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 10 of 97
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 10 of 97
`
`

`

`this application. Applicant discussed distinguishing features of
`the invention, and how those features were attempted to be
`captured
`by the
`draft
`claim language.
`(Preliminary
`Amendment and Interview Summary filed December 30, 2009,
`page 10.)
`
`Thereafter, the Examiner issued a first Office Action, mailed on June 17, 2010, and
`
`rejected claims 27 to 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over US. Patent No.
`
`7,653,635 (“Paek et al.”) in view of US. Patent No. 6,721,454 (“Qian et al.”). According to
`
`the prosecution history of the ’116 application, the applicants conducted a second interview
`
`with the Examiner on July 22, 2010, where the parties “[d]iscussed Qian reference and
`
`claimed limitations” with respect to claims 27 and 45.
`
`(Interview Summary mailed July 26,
`
`2010, page 1.)
`
`On October 13, 20l0, the applicants filed an “Amendment and Interview Summary”
`
`where independent claims 27, 36, and 50 were amended, dependent claims 35 and 58 were
`
`amended into independent form, and new claims 59 to 70 were added. The “Amendment and
`
`Interview Summary” also included the cancellation of claims 28, 42, and 51 and the
`
`amendment of dependent claims 30, 31, 39, 53, and 54.
`
`Independent claims 27, 35, 36, 48,
`
`50, and 59 as presented are reproduced below:
`
`27. A method comprising:
`
`detecting an object in a video;
`
`detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by
`analyzing the video, each attribute representing a characteristic
`of the detected object;
`
`selecting a new user rule after detecting the plurality of
`attributes; and
`
`after detecting the plurality of attributes and after
`selecting of 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;
`
`wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are
`independent of which event is identified, and
`
`wherein the step of identifying the event identifies the
`event without reprocessing the video.
`
`6
`
`Canon EX. 1008 Page 11 of 97
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 11 of 97
`
`

`

`35. A the method of claim 27, filrther comprising:
`
`detecting first and second objects in a video;
`
`detecting a plurality of attributes of each of the detected
`first and second objects by analyzing the video, each attribute
`representing a characteristic of the respective detected object;
`
`selecting a new user rule; and
`
`after detecting the plurality of attributes, identifying an
`event that is not one of the detected attributes of the first and
`
`second objects by applying the new user rule to the plurality of
`detected attributes
`
`wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are
`independent of which event is identified:
`
`wherein the step of identifying an event comprises
`identifying an event of the first object interacting with the
`sccond obj cct by analyzing thc dctcctcd attributcs of thc first
`and second objects, the event not being one of the detected
`attributes.
`
`36. A video device comprising:
`
`mcans for dctccting an obj cct in a vidco;
`
`means for detecting a plurality of attributes of the object
`by analyzing the video,
`each
`attribute
`representing a
`characteristic of the detected object;
`
`a memory storing the plurality of detected attributes;
`
`and
`
`the means for
`means for selecting a new user rule,
`selecting a new user rule capable of selecting the new user rule
`after the plurality of detected attributes are stored in memopy;
`and
`
`means for identifying an event of the object that is not
`one of the detected attributes of the object by applying a
`selected new user rule to the plurality of attributes stored in
`memory,
`
`wherein the means for identifying an event is capable of
`identifying the event independent of when the attributes are
`stored in memory and is capable of identifying the event
`without reprocessing the video.
`
`7
`
`Canon EX. 1008 Page 12 of 97
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 12 of 97
`
`

`

`48. A method comprising:
`
`providing a video device which detects an object upon
`analyzing a video and which detects plural attributes of the
`detected object upon analyzing the video; and
`
`then, selecting a rule, which is not a rule used to detect
`any individual attribute, as a new user rule, 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,
`
`wherein the attributes to be detected are independent of
`the event to be detected.
`
`50. 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 comprising:
`
`detecting an object in a video;
`
`detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by
`analyzing the video, each attribute representing a characteristic
`of the detected object;
`
`selecting a new user rulc after detecting the plurality of
`attributes; and
`
`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,
`the event of the object being identified without
`reprocessing the video;
`
`wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are
`independent of which event is identified.
`
`58. A t-he non-transitory computer-readable storage
`medium ofielaimégrvflierein—themethod—implemented—bwe
`eemjauteHystem—fiufiheFeempH-ses containing instructions that
`when executed by a computer system cause said computer
`system to implement the following method comprising:
`
`detecting first and second objects in a video;
`
`Canon EX. 1008 Page 13 of 97
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 13 of 97
`
`

`

`detecting a plurality of attributes of each of the detected
`first and second objects by analyzing the video, each attribute
`representing a characteristic of the respective detected object;
`
`selecting a new user rule; and
`
`
`after detecting the plurality of attributes, identifying an
`event that is not one of the detected attributes of the first and
`
`second objects by applying the new user rule to the plurality of
`detected attributes;
`
`wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are
`independent of which event is identified,
`
`wherein the step of identifying an event comprises
`identifying an event of the first object interacting with the
`second object by analyzing the detected attributes of the first
`and second objects, the event not being one of the detected
`attributes.
`
`59. A video device comprising:
`
`means for detecting first and second objects in a video;
`
`means for detecting a plurality of attributes of the object
`by analyzing the video,
`each
`attribute
`representing a
`characteristic of the respective detected object;
`
`a memory storing the plurality of detected attributes;
`
`and
`
`identifying an event of the first object
`means for
`interacting with the second object by applying a selected new
`user rule to the plurality of attributes stored in memory, the
`event not being one of the detected attributes,
`
`wherein the means for identifying an event is capable of
`identifying the event independent of when the attributes are
`stored in memory.
`
`Subsequently,
`
`the applicants filed an “Amendment and Interview Summary” on
`
`October 13, 2010 that
`
`included a purported summary of the July 22, 2010 interview,
`
`reproduced below:
`
`The Applicant thanks Examiner V0 for his time during the
`personal interview of July 22,2010. During the interview, the
`Applicant discussed the Office Action, the applied references to
`
`9
`
`Canon EX. 1008 Page 14 of 97
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 14 of 97
`
`

`

`Paek et al. and Qian et al. While no agreement was reached
`regarding the differences of the invention, the interview was
`still helpful to help focus the remaining issues with respect to
`the pending claims. (Amendment and Interview Summary filed
`October 13, 2010, page 14.)
`
`According to the prosecution history of the ’ 1 16 application, the applicants conducted
`
`a third interview with the Examiner on November 17, 2010, where “[t]he applicants
`
`discussed the independent claims.” (Interview Summary mailed November 23, 2010, page
`
`1.) On December 2, 2010, the applicants filed a “Supplemental Amendment and Interview
`
`Summary,” which included a purported summary of the November 17, 2010 interview,
`
`reproduced below:
`
`The Applicant thanks Examiner V0 for his time during the
`personal interview of November 17,2010 with Patrick Muir and
`Peter Venetianer. During the interview, the Examiner requested
`certain amendments to the claims for formal purposes. Claims
`27, 35, 36, 41, 43, 48, 58, 59, 64—66 have been amended to
`address
`formal
`issues consistent with this discussion.
`In
`
`addition, 27, 36, 48, and 50 have been amended to add further
`
`recitations regarding the recited attributes as suggested by
`Examiner Vo during the interview. (Supplemental Amendment
`and Interview Summary, filed December 2, 2010, page 14.)
`
`Independent claims 27, 35, 36, 48, 50, 58, and 59 as set forth in the Supplemental
`
`Amendment and Interview Summary, filed December 2, 2010 are reproduced below:
`
`27. A method comprising:
`
`detecting an object in a video;
`
`detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by
`analyzing the video, 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;
`
`selecting a new user rule after detecting the plurality of
`attributes; and
`
`after detecting the plurality of attributes and after
`selecting of the new user rule,
`
`10
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 15 of 97
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 15 of 97
`
`

`

`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 plurality of attributes that are detected are
`independent of which event is identified, and
`
`wherein the step of identifying the event of the object
`identifies the event without reprocessing the video.
`
`35. A method comprising:
`
`detecting first and second objects in a video;
`
`detecting a plurality of attributes of each of the detected
`first and second objects by analyzing the video, each attribute
`representing a characteristic of the respective detected object;
`
`selecting a new user rule; and
`
`after detecting the plurality of attributes, identifying an
`event that is not one of the detected attributes of the first and
`
`second objects by applying the new user rule to the plurality of
`detected attributes;
`
`wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are
`independent of which event is identified,
`
`wherein the step of identifying an event of the object
`
`comprises identifying an a first event of the first object
`interacting with the second object by analyzing the detected
`attributes of the first and second objects, the M event not
`being one of the detected attributes.
`
`36. A video device comprising:
`
`means for detecting an object in a video;
`
`means for detecting a plurality of attributes of the object
`by analyzing the video= the plurality of attributes including at
`least a physical attribute and a temporal attribute; each attribute
`representing a characteristic of the detected object;
`
`a memory storing the plurality of detected attributes;
`
`means for selecting a new user mlerthe—means—fer
`
`after the plurality of detected attributes are stored in memory;
`and
`
`11
`
`Canon EX. 1008 Page 16 of 97
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 16 of 97
`
`

`

`means for identifying an event of the object that is not
`one of the detected attributes of the object by applying a
`selected new user rule to the plurality of attributes stored in
`memory, wheretn—tlemeans—fer—tdentrfyrng—arkevent—rs—eapable
`of @ identifying the event independent of when the attributes
`are stored in memory and i—s—eapableoffl identifying the event
`without reprocessing the video.
`
`48. A method comprising:
`
`providing a video device which detects an object upon
`analyzing a video and which detects plural attributes of the
`detected object upon analyzing the video,
`the plurality of
`attributes including at least a physical attribute and a temporal
`attribute; and
`
`then, selecting a rule, which is not a rule used to detect
`any individual attribute, as a new user rule, 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,
`
`wherein the attributes to be detected are independent of
`the event to be detected.
`
`50. 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 comprising:
`
`detecting an object in a video;
`
`detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by
`analyzing the video, 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;
`
`selecting a new user rule after detecting the plurality of
`attributes; and
`
`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,
`the event of the object being identified without
`reprocessing the Video;
`
`wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are
`independent of which event is identified.
`
`12
`
`Canon EX. 1008 Page 17 of 97
`
`Canon Ex. 1008 Page 17 of 97
`
`

`

`58. 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 comprising:
`
`detecting first and second objects in a video;
`
`detecting a plurality of attributes of each of the detect