UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`——————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`——————————
`
`Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc., and Axis Communications AB,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Avigilon Fortress Corporation,
`
`Patent Owner
`——————————
`Case: Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923
`Issue Date: April 26, 2011
`
`Title: Video Surveillance System Employing Video Primitives
`——————————
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ...................................................................... 2
`III.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES.................................................... 2
`Claims for Which Review is Requested ................................................ 2
`The Prior Art and Specific Grounds on Which the Challenge to
`the Claims is Based ............................................................................... 2
`How the Challenged Claims are Construed .......................................... 4
`How the Challenged Claims are Unpatentable ..................................... 4
`Supporting Evidence ............................................................................. 4
`IV. THE ’923 PATENT ....................................................................................... 4
`Overview ............................................................................................... 4
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 6
`1.
`Prosecution .................................................................................. 6
`2.
`Inter Partes and Ex Parte Reexaminations................................. 6
`3.
`Prior Proceedings Involving Related Patents.............................. 8
`Level of Skill ......................................................................................... 8
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS........................................................................ 9
`“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 object” (claims 20,
`21) .......................................................................................................... 9
`“new user rule” (claims 1-41) .............................................................10
`Independence-based limitations (claims 1-41) ...................................11
`1.
`Independence Argument (1) .....................................................11
`i
`
`V.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`Independence Argument (3) .....................................................12
`2.
`Independence Argument (2) .....................................................14
`3.
`“wherein the applying the new user rule to the plurality of
`detected attributes comprises applying the new user rule to only
`the plurality of detected attributes” (claims 1-19, 22-29);
`“wherein the analysis of the combination of the attributes to
`detect the event comprises analyzing only the combination of
`the attributes” (claims 20-21); “wherein the applying the
`selected new user rule to the plurality of attributes stored in
`memory comprises applying the selected new user rule to only
`the plurality of attributes stored in memory” (claims 30-41) .............19
`Means-plus-function elements (claims 9-19, 30-41) ..........................21
`1.
`“means for detecting an object in a video from a single
`camera” (claim 9); “means for detecting first and second
`objects in a video from a single camera” (claim 30) ................21
`“means for detecting a plurality of attributes of the object
`…” (claim 9); “means for detecting a plurality of
`attributes of the object…” (claim 30) .......................................22
`“means for selecting a new user rule after the plurality of
`detected attributes are stored in memory” (claim 9) .................22
`“means for identifying an event…” (claim 9); “means for
`identifying an event of the first object interacting with the
`second object…” (claim 30) .....................................................23
`VI. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART ...................................................................23
`Dimitrova .............................................................................................23
`Brill ......................................................................................................25
`Motivation to Combine .......................................................................26
`VII. THE PETITION PRESENTS NEW ISSUES OF
`PATENTABILITY AND THE BOARD SHOULD NOT
`EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO REJECT THE PETITION ...........30
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`1.
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`Dispute Regarding the Independence-Based Claim
`Elements in the Prior Proceedings ............................................30
`VIII. CLAIMS 1-41 OF THE ’923 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`OVER THE PRIOR ART ...........................................................................33
`Dimitrova in view of Brill Renders Claims 1-41 Obvious .................33
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................33
`2.
`Claims 2, 4, 7[2], 13, 16, 23, 25, 28[2], 34, and 38 ..................44
`3.
`Claims 3, 7[1], 17, 24, 28[1], and 39 ........................................45
`4.
`Claims 5, 6, 15, 21, 26, 27, and 37 ...........................................47
`5.
`Independent Claim 8 .................................................................49
`6.
`Independent Claim 9 .................................................................54
`7.
`Claims 10 and 31.......................................................................60
`8.
`Claims 11 and 32.......................................................................61
`9.
`Claims 12 and 33.......................................................................63
`10. Claims 14 and 35.......................................................................67
`11.
`Claims 18 and 40.......................................................................69
`12. Claims 19 and 41.......................................................................70
`13.
`Independent Claim 20 ...............................................................70
`14.
`Independent Claims 22 and 29 ..................................................71
`15.
`Independent Claim 30 ...............................................................71
`16. Claim 36 ....................................................................................73
`IX. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..............................73
`Real Party-in-Interest ..........................................................................73
`Related Matters ....................................................................................73
`iii
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information ........................74
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................75
`
`X.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923 (“the ’923 Patent”)
`Ex. 1002
`Prosecution History of the ’923 Patent
`Ex. 1003
`“Visual Memory” by Christopher James Kellogg (“Kellogg”)
`Ex. 1004
`“Event Recognition and Reliability Improvements for the
`Autonomous Video Surveillance System” by Frank Brill et al.
`(“Brill”)
`Ex. 1005 Declaration of John R. Grindon, D.Sc.
`Ex. 1006
`“Motion Recovery for Video Content Classification” by N. Dimitrova
`et al. (“Dimitrova”)
`Ex. 1007 Declaration of Emily R. Florio
`Ex. 1008
`February 29, 2012 Request for inter partes Reexamination of the ’923
`Patent
`Ex. 1009 May 23, 2012 Order Granting/Denying Request for inter partes
`Reexamination of the ’923 Patent
`Ex. 1010 May 23, 2012 Office Action in inter partes Reexamination of the ’923
`Patent
`Ex. 1011 August 27, 2012 Amendment and Reply in inter partes
`Reexamination of the ’923 Patent
`February 13, 2013 Decision Granting Petition to Terminate inter
`partes Reexamination Proceeding of the ’923 Patent
`Ex. 1013 May 23, 2013 Attachment to Request for ex parte Reexamination of
`the ’923 Patent
`June 17, 2013 Order Granting/Denying Request for ex parte
`Reexamination of the ’923 Patent
`Ex. 1015 August 30, 2013 Office Action in ex parte Reexamination of the ’923
`Patent
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`v
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`Ex. 1016 October 30, 2013 Amendment and Reply in ex parte Reexamination
`of the ’923 Patent
`Ex. 1017 April 4, 2014 Final Office Action in ex parte Reexamination of the
`’923 Patent
`Ex. 1018 April 16, 2014 Amendment and Reply in ex parte Reexamination of
`the ’923 Patent
`Ex. 1019 April 30, 2014 Notice of Intent to Issue ex parte Reexamination
`Certificate of the ’923 Patent
`Ex. 1020 May 21, 2014 ex parte Reexamination Certificate of the ’923 Patent
`Ex. 1021 U.S. Patent No. 5,969,755 to Courtney (“Courtney”)
`Ex. 1022
`“Object-Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data” by Young
`Francis Day et al., (“Day-I”)
`Ex. 1023 Declaration of Christopher James Bailey-Kellogg in IPR2018-00138
`and IPR2018-00140
`Ex. 1024 Applicant Response of June 11, 2012 in inter partes Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912 (“the ’912 Patent”)
`Ex. 1025 Decision Granting Petition to Terminate inter partes Reexamination
`of the ’912 Patent
`Ex. 1026 May 24, 2013 Attachment to Request for ex parte Reexamination of
`the ’912 Patent
`June 20, 2013 Order Granting/Denying Request for ex parte
`Reexamination of the ’912 Patent
`Ex. 1028 August 30, 2013 Office Action in ex parte Reexamination of the ’912
`Patent
`Ex. 1029 October 30, 2013 Amendment and Reply in ex parte Reexamination
`of the ’912 Patent
`Ex. 1030 March 27, 2014 Final Office Action in ex parte Reexamination of the
`’912 Patent
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`Ex. 1031 April 16, 2014 Amend and Reply in ex parte Reexamination of the
`’912 Patent
`Ex. 1032 Notice of Intent to Issue ex parte Reexamination Certificate of the
`’912 Patent
`Ex. 1033 Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger for the ex parte Reexamination of
`the ’923 Patent
`Ex. 1034 U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912
`Ex. 1035 U.S. Patent No. 8,564,661
`Ex. 1036 Curriculum Vitae of John R. Grindon, D.Sc.
`Ex. 1037 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
`Ex. 1038 Declaration of Dr. Alan Bovik in IPR2018-00138 and IPR2018-00140
`Ex. 1039
`The New York Times October 2, 1999, Pro Basketball; McHale and
`Thompson Enter Hall of Fame with 3 Others, by Mike Wise
`Specification of U.S. Serial No. 09/987,707
`
`Ex. 1040
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc. (“Canon”) and Axis Communications AB
`
`(“Axis”) (collectively “Petitioner”), request inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims
`
`1-41 of U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923 B2 and 7,932,923 C1 (“the ’923 patent,” Ex.
`
`1001), owned by Avigilon Fortress Corporation (“Avigilon”).
`
`The goal of the ’923 patent system is to reduce the processing required to
`
`identify and retrieve desired portions of video data. The challenge is that video
`
`data is voluminous, thus time consuming to process. The ’923 patent’s solution is
`
`to process the video once to collect information identifying objects and activities
`
`present in the video. Later, a user may define scenarios of interest, which are used
`
`to search the collected data and identify relevant video.
`
`The ’923 patent describes its solution in generally functional terms. For
`
`example, the patent assumes that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`knows how to detect objects, identify object attributes, and search those attributes
`
`to identify the desired portions of the video, i.e., events. Accordingly, these
`
`features are not disclosed in any technical detail. Rather than relying on technical
`
`distinctions, Avigilon distinguished its invention over the prior art by arguing that
`
`it processes video to detect objects and activities (attribute detection)
`
`“independently” from defining and searching for scenarios of interest (event
`
`detection).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`The prior art relied on in this Petition discloses the so-called “independence”
`
`that Avigilon touts as the hallmark of its invention. Indeed, the Board has already
`
`affirmed this in the IPR Institution Decision of a related patent. IPR2018-00140,
`
`Paper No. 8, 16-17 (June 1, 2018).
`
`As described in detail below, Petitioner has demonstrated by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that each of the challenged claims is unpatentable.
`
`Therefore, the Board should also institute trial here.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies the ’923 patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the ’923 patent and challenging claims
`
`1-41 on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES
`Claims for Which Review is Requested
`Petitioner requests IPR under 35 U.S.C. § 311 of claims 1-41 of the
`
`’923 patent.
`
`The Prior Art and Specific Grounds on Which the Challenge to
`the Claims is Based
`The specific statutory grounds, claims challenged and the prior art relied
`
`upon for each ground are:
`
`2
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`Grounds for Challenged Claims 1-41
`
`Claims 1-41 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over “Motion Recovery for Video Content
`Classification” by N. Dimitrova et al. (“Dimitrova,”
`Ex. 1006) in view of “Event Recognition and
`Reliability Improvements for the Autonomous Video
`Surveillance System” by Frank Brill et al. (“Brill,” Ex.
`1004)
`
`Ground 1
`
`The ’923 patent issued on April 26, 2011, based on U.S. Application No.
`
`12/569,116, filed September 29, 2009. Ex. 1001, 1. The ’923 patent claims
`
`priority through a series of continuation-in-part applications to U.S. Application
`
`No. 09/694,712, filed October 24, 2000. Id. Therefore, the earliest possible
`
`priority date for the ’923 patent is October 24, 2000.1
`
`Dimitrova was published in the ACM Transactions on Information Systems,
`
`Vol. 13, No. 4, in October 1995. Ex. 1006, 1; Ex. 1007, ¶¶34-39. Dimitrova is
`
`prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Brill was published in the Proceedings of Image Understanding Workshop,
`
`Vol. 1. Ex. 1004, 1. The Workshop occurred in November 1998; the Proceedings
`
`1 Petitioner does not concede that October 24, 2000 is the effective filing date of
`
`the ’923 patent and reserves the right to challenge the priority claim.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`published in December 1998. Ex. 1007, ¶¶30-33. Brill is prior art under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`How the Challenged Claims are Construed
`Section V provides the construction of the challenged claims 1-41.
`
`How the Challenged Claims are Unpatentable
` Section VIII describes how the challenged claims 1-41 are unpatentable in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`Supporting Evidence
`Exhibits supporting this Petition are attached. Ex. 1005 is a Declaration of
`
`John R. Grindon, D.Sc. under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68. Section VIII describes the
`
`relevance of the evidence to the challenged claims, including an identification of
`
`the specific portions of the evidence supporting the challenges.
`
`IV. THE ’923 PATENT
`Overview
`The ’923 patent relates to a video surveillance system that extracts video
`
`“primitives” or “attributes” and determines the occurrence of an “event” based on
`
`the attributes. Ex. 1001, Abstract. The ’923 patent states that its detection and
`
`storage of attributes is advantageous over prior systems that searched raw video
`
`because reduces the amount of data to be stored or processed. Id., 2:29-33.
`
`Examples of attributes include a classification, a size, a shape, a color, a texture, a
`
`4
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`position, a velocity, a speed, an internal motion, a motion, a salient motion, a scene
`
`change, etc. Id., 7:8-12.
`
`Event discriminators can be defined using objects, spatial and temporal
`
`attributes. Id., 4:64-5:1. For example, a “loitering event” is defined as: (1) a
`
`“person” object, (2) in the “ATM” video space, (3) for “longer than 15 minutes,”
`
`and (4) “between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.” Id., 5:1-5.
`
`The ’923 patent does not describe the technical aspects of its system. Ex.
`
`1005, ¶¶50-51. While it states that objects are detected (id. 9:30-44) and then
`
`attributes of the objects are detected (id. 10:49-52), it simply describes using “any”
`
`motion detection algorithm to detect objects. Id., 9:33-35, 9:39-41. And it
`
`assumes that such detecting techniques are known in the art. Id., 10:11-22, 10:27-
`
`30, 10:39-41, 10:44-47.
`
`Similarly, the patent merely lists examples of attributes without describing
`
`how to identify those attributes. Id. 7:8-8:15, 10:49-51. Because all attributes are
`
`exemplary, the patent does not specify any particular set of attributes that are
`
`necessary to practice the invention. Ex. 1005, ¶¶53-57. As a result, the patent
`
`does not teach how to select attributes to identify any arbitrary set of events. Id.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`
`Prosecution History
`1.
`Prosecution
`During prosecution, the claims were found obvious over US 7,653,635 and
`
`US 6,721,454. Ex. 1002, 160-163. In response, the patentee amended the claims
`
`to recite selecting of a new user rule after detecting the plurality of attributes (or
`
`storing the detected attributes). Id., 118-129.
`
`After a first examiner interview, the claims were further narrowed to recite
`
`that the plurality of attributes include at least one of a physical attribute and a
`
`temporal attribute. Id., 98-110. After a second interview, the claims were further
`
`narrowed to require video “from a single camera” to distinguish U.S.
`
`2003/0023612. Id., 78-93. The amended claims were allowed and matured into
`
`claims 1-41. Id., 65-71.
`
`Inter Partes and Ex Parte Reexaminations
`2.
`The ’923 patent was challenged in an inter partes reexamination, Control
`
`No. 95/001,914, by Bosch Security Systems, Inc. Ex. 1008, 1. The Patent Office
`
`instituted the reexamination on six grounds. Ex. 1009, ¶5; Ex. 1010, ¶¶3-10.
`
`Before any action by the examiner, the patentee and Bosch settled their dispute,
`
`and the reexamination was terminated. Ex. 1012, 4-5.
`
`Later, the ’923 patent was challenged in an ex parte reexamination, Control
`
`No. 90/012,876. Ex. 1013, 1. The Patent Office instituted the reexamination on
`
`6
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`multiple grounds. Ex. 1015, ¶¶10-21. The patentee filed an amendment replacing
`
`claims 1-41 with new claims 42-81. Ex. 1016, 2-21.
`
`Specifically, claims 55-58 included a new limitation requiring that the step
`
`of applying the “new user rule” comprised applying the rule to only the plurality of
`
`detected attributes. Id., 8-10. And the patentee distinguished claims 55-58 from
`
`the prior art reference Day-I (Ex. 1022), arguing that “the queries of Day-I are not
`
`applied to the attributes stored in the VSDG alone but are applied to object-
`
`oriented abstractions.” Ex. 1016, 78-79. But the patentee’s interpretation of the
`
`new limitation lacks support from its citation to the patent. Ex. 1033, ¶30 (citing
`
`’707 application (Ex. 1040), ¶148 (“[t]he video content can be reanalyzed with the
`
`additional embodiment in a relatively short time because only the video primitives
`
`are reviewed and because the video source is not reprocessed.”)(emphasis in
`
`original); see also Ex. 1018, 7. In that context, the word “only” is used for
`
`excluding reprocessing source video as opposed to excluding something other than
`
`video primitives, such as abstractions. Ex. 1005, ¶69.
`
`A final rejection issued on all claims, except claims 55-58. Ex. 1017, 37-38.
`
`The patentee narrowed each originally issued independent claim to include the new
`
`limitation found in allowable claims 55-58 and canceled claims 42-81. Ex. 1018,
`
`2-6, 9. Amended claims 1-41 were found patentable (Ex. 1019, ¶3). A
`
`reexamination certificate issued on May 21, 2014 (Ex. 1020)
`
`7
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`Prior Proceedings Involving Related Patents
`3.
`The ’923 patent is part of a family of patents that ultimately claim priority to
`
`U.S. Application No. 09/694,712. Related U.S. Patent Nos. 7,868,912 (“the ’912
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1034) and 8,564,661 (“the ’661 patent”) (Ex. 1035) are in the family.
`
`The ’912 patent was also challenged in an inter partes reexamination by
`
`Bosch. Ex. 1024. Like the ’923 patent Bosch reexamination, the parties settled
`
`before any action by the examiner. Ex. 1025. The ’912 patent was also challenged
`
`in an ex parte reexamination. Ex. 1026. The Patent Office instituted the
`
`reexamination on all claims on multiple grounds. Ex. 1027; Ex. 1028. After back
`
`and forth with the Patent Office (Ex. 1029; Ex. 1030; Ex. 1031), a reexamination
`
`certificate issued (Ex. 1032).
`
`The ’661 patent was not challenged in any reexaminations; but it was
`
`challenged in two IPRs brought by Petitioners, IPR2018-00138 and IPR2018-
`
`00140 (“the Related IPRs”). The Related IPRs were filed on October 31, 2017,
`
`instituted on June 1, 2018, and are currently pending.
`
`Level of Skill
`A POSITA would have (i) a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical
`
`engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, with approximately two
`
`years of experience or research related to video processing and/or surveillance
`
`8
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`systems, or (ii) equivalent training and work experience in computer engineering
`
`and video processing and/or surveillance systems. Ex. 1005, ¶¶76-80.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`Claims are to be given their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification” (“BRI”). 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Terms not discussed here should
`
`be given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a POSITA in
`
`light of the BRI standard and need not be further construed.
`
`This Petition adopts the definitions provided in the Definitions section of the
`
`patent (Ex. 1001, 3:21-4:17) for any claim terms listed there, except as expressly
`
`explained below.
`
`“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 object” (claims 20, 21)
`The ’923 patent describes “attributes” or “primitives” (which the patent uses
`
`interchangeably) as “observable” characteristics of an object. Ex. 1001, 7:6-7.
`
`Such characteristics include physical characteristics, e.g., “a classification; a size; a
`
`shape; a color; a texture; a position.” Id., 7:8-12. Attributes can also represent
`
`actions or activities of the object, such as “a speed, an internal motion, a motion…”
`
`Id. Examples include: “appearance of an object, disappearance of an object, a
`
`vertical movement of an object, a horizontal movement of an object….” Id., 7:37-
`
`40.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`Accordingly, “attributes” as used in the claims should be construed as
`
`“characteristics associated with an object.” Ex. 1005, ¶88-91.
`
`“new user rule” (claims 1-41)
`Each independent claim recites a “new user rule.” Claim 1 recites
`
`“identifying an event of the object … by applying the new user rule to the plurality
`
`of detected attributes.” The term is not defined in the claims. But dependent
`
`claims 2 and 23 provide that “selecting a new user rule” is “selecting a subset of
`
`the plurality of attributes for analysis.”
`
`The specification does not use the term “new user rule.” But it does refer to
`
`“event discriminators.” Ex. 1001, 4:63-64 (“an operator is provided with
`
`maximum flexibility in configuring the system by using event discriminators.”);
`
`Ex. 1005, ¶93. Attributes/primitives are detected and archived, and then “event
`
`occurrences are extracted from the video primitives using event discriminators.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:58-64; see also Fig. 4, 10:66-11:1. Event discriminators refer to one
`
`or more objects interacting with one or more spatial and/or temporal attributes. Id.
`
`at 7:1-12. Thus, the event discriminators in the patent perform the same function
`
`of allowing the user to identify events from attributes as the claimed “new user
`
`rule.” Ex. 1005, ¶94.
`
` Accordingly, “new user rule” should be construed to mean “a specified
`
`combination of a set of attributes for identifying an event.” Id., ¶95.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`Independence-based limitations (claims 1-41)
`During the ’923 patent’s reexamination and in the Related IPRs, Avigilon
`
`argued that the claimed “independence-based” limitations distinguish its invention
`
`over the prior art. And Avigilon argued that the limitations have the following
`
`three requirements (1) identifying an event that refers to one or more objects
`
`engaged in an activity by analyzing the detected attributes; (2) the detected
`
`attributes are independent of the event identified; and (3) the identified event is not
`
`one of the detected attributes. IPR2018-00140, Paper No. 11, 26 (September 4,
`
`2018); Ex. 1016, 37-39.
`
`Petitioner addresses each of these concepts below using Avigilon’s
`
`numbering scheme. However, point (2) is addressed last for ease of analysis.
`
`Independence Argument (1)
`1.
`Avigilon asserts that these limitations require identifying an event by
`
`analyzing the detected attributes. IPR2018-00140, Paper No. 11, 17-18
`
`(September 4, 2018); Ex. 1016, 37-38. The claims of the ’923 patent articulate this
`
`concept rather generically, merely reciting that the event is identified “by applying
`
`the new user rule to the plurality of detected attributes.” Ex. 1001, Reexamination
`
`Certificate 1:45-47 (emphasis added). The ’923 patent does not use
`
`“apply/applying” in this context. See, e.g., id., 4:64-5:1, 6:63-64, 7:2-6, 10:63-64,
`
`10:66-7:1. Instead, the claims use the claim term in a purely functional sense
`
`11
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`according to its ordinary meaning. Thus, a POSITA would understand that the
`
`claimed “applying” would encompass any mechanism for analyzing the detected
`
`attributes to determine if they satisfy the user rule criteria, e.g., querying a
`
`database. Ex. 1005, ¶¶100-103.
`
`Independence Argument (3)
`2.
`Argument (3) corresponds to claim language that the identified event is not
`
`one of the detected attributes. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Reexamination Certificate 1:44-
`
`45. This argument traces from Avigilon’s efforts to distinguish the claims over the
`
`prior art (Ex. 1005, ¶¶106-107), and results in a departure from the basic definition
`
`of “event” in the “Definitions” section of the ’923 patent (Ex. 1001, 3:44-46).
`
`Specifically, Avigilon admitted that the ’923 patent specification considers
`
`single activity attributes to be events by explaining in the reexamination that:
`
`the specification of the ’923 patent discloses some identified
`events that are the same as a detected attribute. See ’707
`application at ¶ 98 (“an object appears”).
`
`Ex. 1016, 38 (emphasis added). This example—“an object appears”—identifies
`
`any object that “appears.” As such, the event “an object appears” merely identifies
`
`every occurrence of the “appear” attribute. Ex. 1005, ¶¶107-108.
`
`But to distinguish the claims over prior art like Courtney, which was applied
`
`in the reexaminations, patentee argued that the claim language requires that the
`
`claimed event is more than a single attribute:
`
`12
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`the specification of the ’923 patent also discloses events that are
`not detected attributes. See, e.g., id at ¶ 98 (“a person appears; a
`red object moves faster than 10 m/s”); & ¶ 99 (“two objects
`come together; a person exits a vehicle; a red object moves next
`to a blue object”). The claims of the ’923 patent require
`identification of an event that is not a detected attribute and are
`silent regarding identification of an event that is a detected
`attribute. See Zeger Dec., ¶ 56.
`
`Ex. 1016 at 39. Here, the patentee identified “a person appears” as an event that is
`
`within the scope of the claim because it is not merely a single event attribute.
`
`Instead, this event requires two attributes, the “appear” activity attribute plus a
`
`“person” object classification attribute. Ex. 1005, ¶109. Thus, patentee admits that
`
`single activity attributes are not events within the scope of the claim—although
`
`they would be events in the context of the patent disclosure—and two attribute
`
`events are events within the scope of the claim. Id.
`
`In the Related IPRs, Avigilon has attempted to distinguish the prior art of
`
`this Petition by conflating single activity attributes with events by arguing that
`
`activities like appear, enter or exit, when recorded by the prior art are merely pre-
`
`determined events. IPR2018-00140, Paper No. 11, 7-11, 40-41, 53-54 (September
`
`4, 2018). That argument is completely inconsistent with the disclosure of the ’923
`
`patent, which records those same activities. Ex. 1001, 3:31-33, 7:6-10, 7:37-41.
`
`Thus, the fact that a prior art system records activity attributes does not provide an
`
`adequate basis to distinguish that art from this limitation. Ex. 1005, ¶¶110-111.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`Moreover, Avigilon’s argument is inconsistent with the language of the ’923
`
`patent claims reciting “identifying an event of the object that is not one of the
`
`detected attributes of the object.” This limitation clarifies that the claimed event
`
`specified by applying the user rule cannot be a single activity attribute. Id., ¶112.
`
`Thus, the ’923 patent limitation associated with Argument (3) requires that
`
`the claimed user defined “event” comprises a minimum of two attributes. Id.,
`
`¶113.
`
`Independence Argument (2)
`3.
`Argument (2) asserts that the detected attributes are “independent” of the
`
`event that is identified. As an initial matter, it is important to understand that the
`
`“event identified” is the event specified by the user rule and therefore the
`
`requirements of Argument (3) above must apply to this event and it cannot not
`
`merely be one of the detected attributes. Ex. 1005, ¶114.
`
`The claim language corresponding to this argument requires:
`
` “the plurality of attributes that are detected are independent of which
`event is identified” (claims 1, 8, 22, 29)
` “the attributes to be detected are independent of the event to be
`detected” (claim 20)
` “for identifying the event independent of when the attributes are
`stored in memory” (claim 9, 30)
`
`14
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,932,923
`The key here is that the claimed independence is between the detected attributes
`
`and the event that is defined by the user rule and identified. Id., ¶116. For
`
`example, claim 1 requires:
`
`[1.3] selecting a new user rule after detecting the plurality of
`attributes
`[1.4] 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 user rule to the plurality of detected attributes
`…
`[1.5] wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are
`independent of which event is identified,
`As stated in [1.5], the claimed attributes are required to be independent of
`
`“which event is identified.” Id., ¶117. That identified event has antecedent basis
`
`in [1.4] where it is specified as the event defined by the claimed new user rule.
`
`This claim language should, therefore, be understood to require that the detection
`
`of attributes is independent from, i.e., not affected by, the user rule that tasks the
`
`system. Id.; see also Ex. 1001, 6:64-67.
`
`If a user rule can define an event that is an arbitrary mix of detected
`
`attributes and the definition of the event by the user rule is not used to alter the
`
`selection of attributes that are collected, the limitation is met. Ex. 1005, ¶118.
`
`Accordingly, the proper const