IN TIIE T]MTED STATES PATENT AND TRADEiVIARK OFFICE
`
`Control No.
`Patent No.
`Filed
`Customer No.
`
`90t012,876
`7,932,923
`May 23,20L3
`06449
`
`tutUnit
`Examiner
`Conf. No.
`Atty. No.
`
`3992
`Adam L. Basehoar
`6419
`4o79-r16
`
`TitIE: VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM EMPLOYING VIDEO PRMITTVES
`
`37 C.F.R. $ 1.132 pECLARATION.OF KENIYETH A. ZEGER
`I, Kenneth A.Zngeg declare as follows:
`l.
`My name is Kenneth A.7xger. I am a Full Professor of Electrical and Computer
`Engineering at the University of Califomia, San Diego (UCSD). I understand that my
`declaration is being submitted in connection with the above-referenced reexamination
`proceeding pending in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`I.
`
`QualificationsrBackgroundrandExperience
`2.
`I have studied, taught, and practiced electrical and computer engineering for over
`thirty years.
`3.
`I attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("MIT") and earned
`Bachelors (SB) and Masters (SM) of Science Degrees in Electrical Engineering and Computer
`Science in 1984. I eamed a Masters of Arts (MA) Degree in Mathematics in 1989 from the
`University of California, Santa Barbara. I also earned my Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer
`Engineering from the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1990.
`4.
`I have held the position of Full hofessor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
`at UCSD since 1998, having been promoted from Associate hofessor after two years at UCSD.
`I teach coruses full-time at UCSD in the fields of Electrical and Computer Engineerin8, an6
`specifically in subfields including information theory and image coding, at the undergraduate
`and graduate levels. Prior to my employment at UCSD, I taught and conducted research as a
`faculty member at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaigl for four years, and at the
`University of Hawaii for two years.
`5.
`I am president of ZtndaLLC (*Z;rrrda") a California companylocated in San
`Diego, Califomia. Zunda provides expert witness and technical consulting services in the fields
`of electrical en gineering and computer hardware/software'
`
`Canon Ex. 1033 Page 1 of 50
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A. 7*ger
`trolNo, *^X:X,
`
`6. My twenty-plus years of industry experience includes consulting work for the
`United States Department of Defense as well as for private companies such as Xerox, Nokia,
`
`MITRE, ADP, and Hewlett-Packard. The topics upon which I provide consulting expertise
`include image, video, and speech coding; data compression; networks; digital communications;
`
`pattern recognition; computer software; and mathematical analyses.
`7.
`I have authored almost 70 peer-reviewed journal articles, the majority of which
`are on the topic of compression or information theory. I have also authored over 100 papers at
`various conferences and symposia over the past twenty-plus years, such as the IEEE
`International Symposium on Information Theory, the International Conference on Image
`
`Processing, and the Data Compression Conference.
`8.
`I was elected a Fellow of the IEEE in 2000, an honor bestowed upon only a small
`percentage of IEEE members. I was awarded the National Science Foundation Presidential
`Young Investigator Award in 1991, which included $500,000 in research funding. I received
`
`this award one year after receiving my Ph.D.
`9.
`I have served as an Associate Editor for the IEEE Transactions on Information
`Theory publication and have been an elected member of the IEEE krformation Theory Board of
`Governors for three, three-year terms. I organized and have been on the technical advisory
`committees of numerous workshops and symposia in the areas of image coding, information
`theory, and data compression. I regularly review submitted joumal manuscripts, govemment
`funding requests, conference proposals, student theses, and textbook proposals. I also have
`given many lectures at conferences, universities, and companies on topics in image coding, data
`
`compression, and information theory.
`10. I have extensive experience in electronics hardware and computer software, from
`academic studies, work experience, and supervising students. I personally program computers
`on an almost daily basis and have fluency in many different computer languages.
`I l. A more complete recitation of my professional experience including a list of my
`publications is set forth in my curriculum vitae, attached to my declaration as Exhibit 21.
`il.
`
`Compensation and Engagement
`12. Tsndais being compensated for my work in this matter by Rothwell, Figg, Ernst
`& Manbeck, at my current rate of $690 per hour. Neitherzrndanor I have any personal or
`
`Canon Ex. 1033 Page 2 of 50
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A.Tnger
`Control No.90/012,876
`Page 3
`
`financial stake or interest in the outcome of the above-referenced reexamination or any related
`litigation matter. Neither Zunda's nor my compensation is dependent upon my testimony or the
`outcome of this proceeding or any related litigation matter. Neither Zrndanor I have any
`relationship wittr or financial interest in the assignee of U.S. Patent No, 7,932,923 ("the'923
`
`patent"), ObjectVideo, Inc.
`UI. The Reexamination Proceeding
`13. It is my dnderstanding that, on May 23,2013, an anonymous Requestor ("the
`Requester") filed a Request for Ex Parte Reexamination (the "Request") with the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office (the "Office") requesting reexamination of the '923 patent and that,
`on June !7,2}l3,the Office issued an Order granting the Request (the "Order"). I understand
`that the Office determined that the Request established a substantial new question of
`patentability with respect to claims 1-41 of the '923 patent. Thus, it is my understanding that the
`Office is reexamining claims 1-41 of the'923 patent.
`14. It is also my understanding that, on August 30, 2013, the Office issued an Office
`Action (the "Office Action" or "OA"). ln the Office Action, claims 1-41 of the '923 patent are
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. $ 1020) as anticipated by certain of the references identified in the
`Office Action and/or under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) as being obvious in view of certain of the
`references identified in the Office Action.
`15. I have read and understand the'923 patent, its prosecution history, and the
`references cited in the '923 patent. I have read and understand the Request, the Order, the Office
`Action, and the references cited in the Office Action. I have also read and understand the
`comments filed by Bosch, ttre *rird party requester, on July I I,2Al2, in the termtnated inter
`partes reexamination (Control No. 95/001 ,912) of U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912 ("Bosch's
`
`comments").
`16. I was asked to consider and address the following rejections of claims 1-41 of the
`'923 patent raised in the Office Action:
`(i) Claims l-9, 13, 15-18,20-30, 34, and 3640 under 35 U.S.C. $ l02O) as anticipated
`by "Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Dat4" Day et cl. ("Day-f');
`(ii) Claims L-7,g-13, and 15-28 under 35 U.S.C. $ 1020) as anticipated by U.S. Patent
`No. 5,969,755 to Courtney ("Courtney'755");
`
`Canon Ex. 1033 Page 3 of 50
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A.7*ger
`conrrol No. 90/012,876
`Page 4
`
`(iii) Claims L-7,g-l3,and l5-28 under 35 U.S.C. $ l02O) as anticipated by "Object
`Tracking and Event Recognition in Biological Microscopy Videos," Shotton et al.
`("Shotton");
`(iv) Claims 14 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) as unpatentable over Day-I;
`(v) Claims 10, 19, 31, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) as unpatentable over Day-I in
`view of U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835 to Brill et aI. ("Btill");
`(vi) Claims lL,12,32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) as unpatentable over Day-I in
`view of "spatio-Temporal Modeling of Video Data for On-Line Object Oriented
`Query Processing," Day et al. ("Day-lI");
`(vii) Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) as urpatentable over Courtney '755;
`(viii) Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) as unpatentable over Shotton;
`(ix) Claims 8 and29-41under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) as unpatentable over Shotton in view
`of Brill; and
`(x) Claims 1-41 under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) as unpatentable over European Patent
`Application Publication No. EP 0967584 A2 to Courtney ("Courtney '584") in
`view of Brill.
`My opinions regarding the rejections are set forth below.
`
`rv.
`
`Applicable Laws/Rule
`A. Claim Interpretation
`I7. I understand that, during reexamination, the pending claims must be given their
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and that the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of the claims must also be consistent with the interpretation that those
`
`skilled in the art would reach.
`B. kiority
`18. I understand that claims of an application that is a continuation or continuation-in-
`part of an earlier U.S. application or intemational application which are fully supported under 35
`U.S.C. g 112 by the earlier parent application have the effective filing date of that earlier parent
`application. A claim is adequately disclosed/fully supported under 35 U.S.C. $ 112 by an earlier
`parent application if the earlier parent application satisfies the wrinen description requirement.
`To satisfy the wrinen description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed
`invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that ttre inVintor
`had possession of the claimed invention.
`
`Canon Ex. 1033 Page 4 of 50
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A.Txger
`conEol No.90/012,876
`Page 5
`
`C. Anticipation (35 U.S.C. $ 102)
`19. To support a rejection based on 35 U.S.C. $ 102, I understand that the Examiner
`bears the burden of showing that a single prior art reference discloses all of the elements of the
`claim, ananged in the same manner as required by the claim, either explicitly or inherently.
`D. Obviousness (35 U.S.C. $ 103)
`20, I also understand that a claim is not patentable if the differences between the
`subject matter of the claim and the disclosure of the prior art are such that the subject matter of
`the claim, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time of invention to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains.
`21. ln determining obviousness, I understand that it is necessary to consider the scope
`and content of the prior art; the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; the level
`of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and any objective evidence of non-obviousness related to the
`alleged merits of the claimed invention (which I understand is refened to as "objective indicia of
`non-obviousness"), such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, industry
`
`recognition, failure of others, and copying.
`22. In determining obviousness based on a combination of prior art references, I also
`understand that evidence of some reason to combine the teachings is required to make the
`combination, and thus such evidence must be considered, along with any evidence that one or
`more of the references would have taught away from the claimed invention at the time of the
`
`invention.
`23. I have been informed that the hypottretical person of ordinary skill in the art is
`presumed to know all of the teachings known in the art at the time the alleged invention was
`made. That person is presumed to have the technical competence and experience of skilled
`artisans working in the area of the subject invention and of the manner in which problems were
`solved. Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art
`include the types of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, the
`rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the
`educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`Canon Ex. 1033 Page 5 of 50
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A.7'eger
`control No. 90/012,876
`Page 6
`
`V. Priority
`A. Patent Claims 1.41
`24. I have compared U.S. Patent Application No. 09/987,707 (ttre *'707 application"),
`filed on November 15, 2001, with the specification of the '923 patent and conclude that they are
`identical (except for the cross-reference to related applications, clarifications ofthe references
`describing moving target detection, and claims in the '923 patent). Thus, the'707 application
`fully supports claims t-41 in the'923 patent. Below, citations to the specification of the '923
`patent refer to the '70? application, which is incorporated by reference in rhe'923 patent, '923
`patent at col. 1, lines 7-ll.
`B. New Claims 42-E1
`25. I have examined, in detail, new claims 42-81of Patent Owner's amendment and
`reply, the'923 patent, and the '707 application, filed on November 15, 2001. It is my opinion
`that both the'923 patent and the '707 application fully support new claims 42-8L of Patent
`
`Owner's amendment and replY.
`26. New claim 42 is similar to patent claim 20 but additionally requires "applying the
`new user rule to the combination of tbe attributes to detect the event." Support for this feature
`can be found ttgoughout the specification of the '923 patent. See, e,8.,'707 application atJ[66
`("An operator is provided with maximum flexibility in configuring the system by using event
`discriminators. 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."); 1[ 80 ("An event discriminator is described in terms of video
`primitives."); ![ I l8 ("ln block 44, eventoccutences are extracted from the video primitives
`using event discriminators. ... The event discriminators are used to filter the video primitives to
`determine if any event occrurences occured. ... The event discriminator checks all video
`primitives being generated according to FIG. 5 and determines if any video primitives exist
`which have the following properties: ... .").
`27. New claims 43-46 are similar to patent claims 1,9,20, and22, respectively, but
`explicitly require "frltering." The filtering requirement is fully supported by the specification of
`the '923 patent, which discloses that "[t]he event discriminators are used tofilter the video
`primitives to determine if any event occrurences occulreA.- '707 application at 1[ 118 (emphasis
`
`Canon Ex. 1033 Page 6 of 50
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth 4.7*ger
`Control No.90/012,876
`PageT
`
`added). See also id. at\30 ("A need exists tofilter video surveillance data to identify desired
`portions of the video surveillance data." (emphasis added)) &\32 ("An object of the invention
`is tofilter video surveillance data to identify desired portions of the video surveillance data."
`
`(emphasis added)).
`28. New claims 47-50 are similar to patent claims I,9,20, and22, respectively, but
`additionally require attribute detection "in real time." The "real time" attribute detection is fully
`supported by the specification of the '923 patent, which discloses, for example, that "video
`primitives are extracted in real time from the source video." '707 application at 1[ I18. See also
`
`id. at llJ[33, 65, 104.
`29. New claims 5l-54 are similar to patent claims I,9,20, and22, respectively, but
`additionally require a "velocity" attribute. The "velocity" attribute detection is fully supported
`by the specification of the '923 patent. See, e.g.,'707 application at 1[ 80 (disclosing "a velocity"
`as an example of a video primitive that "refers to an observable attribute of an object viewed in a
`video feed") & jl 88 (disclosing "a velocity (e.g., speed and direction) in image space" and "an
`approximate velocity (e.g., speed and direction) in a three-dimensional representation of the
`environment" as examples of a feature of a salient motion video primitive).
`30. New claims 55-58 are similar to patent claims L,9,20, and22, respectively, but
`additionally require that applying the new user rule to the plurality of detected attributes
`comprises applying the new user rule to "only'' the plurality of detected attributes. The user rule
`application to "only" the detected attributes feature is fully supported by ttre '923 patent which
`discloses that "[t]he video content can be reanalyzed with the additional embodiment in a
`relatively short time because only thevideo primitives are reviewed and because the video source
`is not reprocessed." '707 application at 11 148 (emphasis added). See also id. at\67 ("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."); 1168 ("the system of the invention uses event discriminators based on video primitives
`as the primary tasking mechanism"); 91 118 ("[n block 44, event occurrences are extracted from
`the video primitives using event discriminators. The video primitives are determined in block 42'
`and the event discriminators are determined from tasking the system in block 23. The event
`discriminatoni are used to filter the video primitives to determine if any event occunences
`
`Canon Ex. 1033 Page 7 of 50
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A.7*ger
`Control No.90/012,876
`Page 8
`
`occurred.");![ 148 ("the system analyses [sic] archived video primitives with event
`discriminators to generate additional reports, for example, without needing to review the entire
`sotuce video");![ 148 (Reviewing only t]re video primitives "provides a great efficiency
`improvement over curent state-of-the-art systems because processing video imagery data is
`extremely computationally expensive, whereas analyzing the small-sized video primitives
`abstracted from the video is extremely computationally cheap"').
`31. New claims 59-61 are similar to patent claims 8, 29, and 30, respectively, but
`additionally require that the identified event be "the first and second objects coming together."
`The identified event that is "the first and second objects coming together" is fully supported by
`the specification of the'923 patent, which discloses "two objects come together" as an example
`of "an event discriminator for multiple objects." '707 application at 1[ 99'
`32. New claims 62-64 are similar to patent claims 8, 29, and 30, respectively, but
`explicitly require "filtering" and additionally require that the identified event be "the flust and
`second objects coming together." The identified event that is "the first and second objects
`coming together"' is fully supported by *re specification of the '923 patent, which discloses "two
`objects come together" as an example of "an event discriminator for multiple objects." '707
`application at 1[ 99. The filtering requirement is also fully supported by the specification of the
`'923 patent, which discloses that "[t]he event discriminators are used tofilter the video
`primitives to determine if any event occurrences occtured'J '707 application at t[ I l8 (emphasis
`added). See also id^ at![30 ("A need exists to filter video surveillance data to identify desired
`portions of the video surveillance data." (emphasis added)) &\32 ("An object of the invention
`is to filter video surveillance data to identify desired portions of the video surveillance data."
`(emphasis added)).
`33. New claims 65-68 are similar to patent claims 1,9,20, and22, respectively, but
`additionally require that "none of the detected attributes refers to the object engaged in an
`activity." This additional feanue is fully supported by the specification of the '923 patent, which
`discloses the identification of events solely from attributes that are non-event characteristics of
`an object (i.e., non-event attributes). Sea e.g.,'707 application atllfl 100 & 118. For example,
`the '923 patent discloses, as an example, that "an event discriminator can be looking for a
`'wrong way' event as defined by a person traveling the 'wrong way' into an area between 9:00
`
`Canon Ex. 1033 Page 8 of 50
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A.7*ger
`Conrol No. 90/012,876
`Page 9
`
`a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The event discriminator checks all video primitives being generated
`according to FIG. 5 and determines if any video primitives exist which have the following
`properties: a timestamp between.g:00 a.m, and 5:00 p.[1., a classification of 'person' or 'group of
`people' , a position inside the area, and a 'wrong' direction of motion." '707 application at $ I 18.
`The anributes used to determine if the wrong way event occurred ate times, object types,
`positions, and directions, and all of these attributes are non-event attributes. In other words,
`none of these attributes used to determine if the wrong way event occurred refers to an object
`engaged in activities. Another example in the specification of the '923 patent of an event
`identified from solely non-event attributes is the "object crosses a line" event, which is disclosed
`as an example of an event discriminator for an object and a spatial attribute." '707 application at
`{ 100. A skilled person would understand from reading the specification of the '923 patent that
`detecting an object crossing a line would be accomplished by detecting purely non-event
`attributes based on time and location, namely where the object is located as a function of time
`and where the line is located.
`34. New claims 69-72 are similar to patent claims I,9,20, and22, respectively, but
`explicitly require "filtering" and additionally require that "none of the detected attributes refers
`to the object engaged in an activity." The specification of the '923 patentfully supports "none of
`the detected attributes refers to the object engaged in an activity'' and "filtering" for the reasons
`explained above in paragraphs2T &33.
`35. New claims 73 and 74 ue similar to patent claims L and22, respectively, but
`explicitly require "filtering" and additionally require attribute detection "in real time." The
`specification of the '923 patent fully supports "filtering" and "real time" attribute detection for
`the reasons explained above in 1[T 27 &28.
`36. New claim ?5 is similar to patent claim I but additionally requires attribute
`detection "in real time" and a "velocity" attribute. New claim 76 is similar to patent claim I but
`explicitly rcquires "filtering" and additionally requires a "velocity" attribute. New claim 77 is
`similar to patent claim I but explicitly requires "filtering" and additionally requires attribute
`detection "in real time" and a "velocity" attribute. The specification of the '923 patent fully
`supports each of the "filtering," "real time" attribute detection, and "velocity" attribute for the
`reasons explained above lnfffr27-29.
`
`Canon Ex. 1033 Page 9 of 50
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A.7*ger
`Control No.90/012,876
`Page 10
`
`37. New dependent claims 78-81 depend on new claims 43-46, respectively, and
`additionally require that "the filtering comprises filtering the plurality of detected attributes to
`determine if the event occuned" (claims 78,79, and 81) or that "the filtering comprises filtering
`the combination of attributes to determine if the. event occurred" (claim 80). The attribute
`filtering requirement is fully supported by the specification of the '923 patant, which discloses
`ttrat "[t]he event discdminators are used tofiIter the video primitives to determine if any event
`occurences occurred." '707 application at 1[ 118 (emphasis added). See also id. at t[ 30 ("A
`need exists to filter video surveillance data to identify desired portions of the video surveillance
`data." (emphasis added)) &\32("An object of the invention istofilter video surveillance data
`to identify desired portions of the video surveillance dala." (emphasis added)).
`VI. Claim Construction
`A. Attributes and Events
`38. Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, it is my opinion that the claim
`langUage "attributes," as used in claims 1-41 of the'923 patent, means: observable
`characteristics. My "obsenrable characteristics" definition is informed by how this phrase is
`used in the specification, including the claims, of the '923 patent. See '707 application at 1[ 80'
`Further, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term "attributes" is that they are observable
`characteristics of something. See Exhibit 22, Webster's New World Dictionary of Computer
`Terms (5th Ed. lgg4) (providing "[a] characteristic quality of a data type, data structure, element
`of a data model, or system" as a definition of "attribute"). The specification of the '923 patent
`supports this plain meaning, such as when it states that:
`A video primitive iefers to an observable attribute of an object viewed in a video
`feed. Examples of video primitives include the following: a classification; a size;
`a shape; a color; a texture; a position; a velocity; a speed; an intemal motion; a
`motion; a salient motion; a feature of a salient motion; a scene change; a feanfe
`of a scene change; and a pre-defined model.
`
`'707 application at t[ 30.
`39, Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, it is my opinion that the claim
`language,'event" means: one or more objects engaged in an activity. The specification expressly
`defines an "event" as "one or more objects engaged in an activity." See'707 application at $ 48
`("An .event' refers to one or more objecs engaged in an activity."). My "one or more objects
`engaged in an activity'' definition is informed by this express definition in the specification.
`
`Canon Ex. 1033 Page 10 of 50
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A.7.e,ger
`Control No. 90/012,876
`Page I 1
`
`40. The specification of the '923 patentrefers to the claimed "atftibutes" as
`"primitives,", and gives numerous examples of attributes/primitives, such as: "a classification; a
`
`size;ashape;acolor;atexture;aposition;avelocity;aspeed;aninternalmotion;amotion;a
`salient motion; a feature of a salient motion; a scene change; a feature of a scene change; and a
`pre-defined model." '707 application at 1[ 80. The '923 patent also gives numerous examples of
`events, such as: an object appears; a person appears; a red object moves faster than 10 m/s, two
`objects come together; a person exits a vehicle; a red object moves next to a blue object, an
`object crosses a line; an object enters an area; a person crosses a line from the left, an object
`appears at 10:00 p.m.; a person travels faster then lsicl2 m/s between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.; a
`vehicle appears on the weekend, a person crosses a line between midnight and 6:00 a.m.; a
`vehicle stops in an area for longer than l0 minutes; a person enters an'area between midnight and
`6:00 a.m.; and a security service is notified. /d. at ffi 98-103. Generally speaking, attributes are
`simpler concepts than events.
`4L. More precisely, the '923 patentteaches 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. '707 application at l[ I 18. The system described in the '923 patent is
`configured to detect anributes by analyzing a video, but ttre choice of which attributes the system
`is configured to detect is not based upon which events are later to be identified. See id at\79.
`ln fact, tasking of the system to identify one or more events from the detected attributes is not
`even necess ary. Id. at ![ 79 ("Tasking occurs after calibration in block 22 and is optional.
`Tasking the video surveillance system involves specifying one or more event discriminators.
`Without tasking, ttre video surveillance system operates by detecting and archiving video
`primitives and associated video imagery without taking any action, as in block 45 in FIG. 4.")'l
`While the specification of the'923 patent does not explicitly use the term "independence"
`(outside of the claims themselves), a person of ordinary skill in the art of the '923 patent would
`understand the '923 patent to teach that the choice of which events are to be identified (i. e. '
`tasking) is made at a time after configuration of the system to detect attributes, and ftuthermore
`
`I Tasking the system determines the event discriminators (d.e., user rules) that may be selected
`for use io iarotifying events. See '707 application at 11 118 ("event discriminators are determined
`from tasking theiystem in block 23" andi'are used to filter the video primitives to determine if
`any event occturences occurred").
`
`Canon Ex. 1033 Page 11 of 50
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A. Tnger
`Control No. 90/012,876
`Page L2
`
`that the choice of which attributes the system is configured to detect is not dictated/determined
`by which events the system might later be tasked to identify. See id. at 1[79. This indeed means
`that the attributes collected are independent of the events identified. Moreover, this
`. independence of the attributes from the events in the '923 patent means that that the selection of
`which attributes to detect is not based upon a predefined list of events to be determilned
`42. The specification of the '923 patent does not prohibit an identified event from
`being the same as a detected attribute, but such a scenario is not within the scope of the claims of
`:crre'923 patent, which require that the identified event not be one of the detected attributes.
`Claims 1, 9, and 22 ("identifying an event of the object that is not one of the detected attributes
`of the object"); claims 8 and 29 ("identifying an event that is not one of the detected attributes of
`the fust and second objects"); claim 20 ("detect an event that is not one ofthe detected
`attributes"); claim 30 ("the event notbeing one of the detected attributes").
`43. To help clarify the disiinction between the claimed "events" and the claimed
`"attributes," I will illustrate the concepts with an example based upon events such as an object
`moving, entering, or growing. The specification of the '923 patent discloses that "an 'event'
`refers to one or more objects engaged in an activity" and provides, as examples of an activity,
`"entering; exiting; stopping; moving; raising; lowering; growing; and shrinking." "10'l
`application at 1[1[46 & 48. Multitudes of attributes/characteristics of an object that is engaging in
`any one such activity may be associated with the event that refers to the activity. The
`attributes/characteristics may include, for example, one or more of the object's position, width,
`length, (linear) speed, velocity, acceleration, third order and higher derivatives of motion vs.
`time, direction of motion, momentum, rotation, angular velocity, moment of inertia, angular
`momentum, occlusions, shading, proximity to nearby objects, etc. None of these
`attributes/characteristics is itself an "activity." Instead, these attributes/characteristics are
`numerical descriptions of particular observable aspects of the object that may be engaging in an
`activity. One might be able to logically deduce, from one or more of these
`attributes/characteristics, a particular activity in which an object is engaging, but that involves
`inference, Each of these example characteristics is an attribute that does not refer to an activity
`in which the object is engaged. In contrast, a hypothetical Boolean variable such as Is-Entering,
`Is_Exiting, Is_Moving, etc., which is tnre if the object is engaging in the associated activity and
`
`Canon Ex. 1033 Page 12 of 50
`
`

`

`Declaration of Kenneth A.7*ger
`Control No.90/012,876
`Page 13
`
`false if the object is not engaging in such activity, would be an example of an attribute that refers
`
`to an activity in which the object is engaged, because, in this case, no deductive reasoning is
`
`required to determine that a particular event referring to the object engaged in the activity
`
`occurred.
`M. Infening events based on the attributes (or primitives) provides several
`advantages. First, "[a]n operator is provided with maximum flexibility in configuring the system
`by using event discriminators," '707 application at ![ 66, as opposed to t]re limitations associated
`with using prerecorded events. Second, inference analysis based on previously extracted
`
`attributes "greatly improves the analysis speed of the computer system" as the system can
`process only the attributes instead of reprocessing the video. See id. at\67 . Third, inventing a
`system for analyzing "small-sized video primitives abstracted from the video" has many
`
`corresponding size-based benefits. Id. at[1148. For example, the storage space and bandwidth
`
`necessary to manage the small-sized attributes is far less than for managing the video itself, even
`
`if the video is highly compressed. See id.
`B. User RuIe Filtering Claim Elements
`45. Claims 1-41 of the '923 patent all contain limitations that require user rule
`filtering of detected attributes. The following claim elements (the "user rule filtering elements")
`
`incorporate this requirement:
`
`Claim Element
`identifying an event of the object that is not one of the detected
`attributes of ttre object by applying the new user rule to the plurality of
`detected attributes
`
`applying the new user rule to a plural number of physical attributes
`
`applying the new user rule to a plural number of temporal a