UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`
`MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`STELLAR, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`Case No. – Not Yet Assigned
`U.S. Patent No. 9,485,471
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U. S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Summary Of The ’471 Patent .................................................................. 2
`B.
`Patent Family And Relevant File Histories ............................................. 4
`1.
`’034 Patent File History ................................................................ 6
`2.
`’471 Patent File History ................................................................ 7
`Level Of Skill In The Art ........................................................................ 7
`C.
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104 ............................................................................................................. 8
`A. Grounds For Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .............................. 8
`Identification Of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) And
`B.
`Relief Requested ...................................................................................... 8
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................. 9
`1.
`“a local memory functionally coupled to the sensor” ................... 9
`2.
`“file” ............................................................................................ 10
`IV. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................ 13
`A. Ground 1a: Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 12, And 13 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Yerazunis Alone Or As Combined With Fiore ............. 13
`1.
`Summary Of Yerazunis ............................................................... 13
`2.
`Summary Of Fiore ...................................................................... 19
`3. Motivation To Combine .............................................................. 23
`Claim 1 ........................................................................................ 24
`4.
`5.
`Claim 2 ........................................................................................ 35
`6.
`Claim 4 ........................................................................................ 36
`7.
`Claim 5 ........................................................................................ 38
`8.
`Claim 6 ........................................................................................ 39
`9.
`Claim 7 ........................................................................................ 40
`10. Claim 10 ...................................................................................... 41
`-i-
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`11. Claim 12 ...................................................................................... 42
`12. Claim 13 ...................................................................................... 43
`B. Ground 1b: Claims 3, 8, And 9 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`Yerazunis Alone Or As Combined With Fiore, In Further View
`of Lewellen ............................................................................................ 43
`1.
`Summary Of Lewellen ................................................................ 43
`2. Motivation To Combine .............................................................. 45
`3.
`Claim 3 ........................................................................................ 48
`4.
`Claim 8 ........................................................................................ 48
`5.
`Claim 9 ........................................................................................ 49
`C. Ground 1c: Claim 11 Would Have Been Obvious Over Yerazunis
`Alone Or As Combined With Fiore, In Further View Of Mann ........... 50
`1.
`Summary Of Mann ...................................................................... 50
`2. Motivation To Combine .............................................................. 52
`3.
`Claim 11 ...................................................................................... 53
`D. Ground 2a: Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 12, And 13 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Ely Alone Or As Combined With Fiore ........................ 53
`1.
`Summary Of Ely ......................................................................... 53
`2. Motivation To Combine .............................................................. 57
`3.
`Claim 1 ........................................................................................ 58
`4.
`Claim 2 ........................................................................................ 64
`5.
`Claim 4 ........................................................................................ 66
`6.
`Claim 5 ........................................................................................ 67
`Claim 6 ........................................................................................ 67
`7.
`8.
`Claim 7 ........................................................................................ 68
`9.
`Claim 10 ...................................................................................... 69
`10. Claim 12 ...................................................................................... 70
`11. Claim 13 ...................................................................................... 71
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Ground 2b: Claims 3, 8, And 9 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`Ely Alone Or As Combined With Fiore, In Further View Of
`Lewellen ................................................................................................ 72
`1. Motivation To Combine .............................................................. 72
`2.
`Claim 3 ........................................................................................ 74
`3.
`Claim 8 ........................................................................................ 74
`4.
`Claim 9 ........................................................................................ 75
`Ground 2c: Claim 11 Would Have Been Obvious Over Ely Alone
`Or As Combined With Fiore, In Further View Of Mann ...................... 75
`1. Motivation To Combine .............................................................. 75
`2.
`Claim 11 ...................................................................................... 76
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 77
`V.
`VI. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ............ 77
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest .................................... 77
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ............................................... 77
`C.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), (4): Lead And Back-Up Counsel And
`Service Information ............................................................................... 77
`
`F.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Motorola Solutions, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Motorola”) requests inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 9,485,471. The ’471 patent is directed to surveillance devices
`
`that use loop recording to constantly record video data to a buffer in memory. In such
`
`devices, when the end of the buffer is reached, data is then recorded to the beginning of
`
`the buffer—hence the term “loop” recording—erasing the earliest-recorded data. Loop
`
`recording techniques were well-known years before the ’471 patent, including in
`
`patents and literature, consumer devices (e.g., TiVo DVRs of the late 1990s), and law
`
`enforcement applications (e.g., mounted in police cruisers).
`
`The ’471 patent also describes write protecting a portion of the buffer in response
`
`to an event occurrence, with the write-protected portion including data from before and
`
`after the event. Protecting both pre- and post-event data helps to ensure that unexpected
`
`moments—e.g., a speeder going through a redlight and a police officer’s subsequent
`
`pursuit—are preserved and not overwritten in the next recording loop. But this
`
`technique was likewise well-known, and the Applicant of the ’471 patent conceded this
`
`in prosecuting a related patent. EX1013, 95, 101, 107-08. In fact, the Applicant
`
`admitted that the majority of the features claimed in the ’471 patent were known in the
`
`art. Id., 89-112; EX1003, ¶¶30-44. And the few ’471 patent features that Applicant did
`
`not concede as conventional were also known in the art, as detailed herein.
`
`Motorola requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-13.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`Summary Of The ’471 Patent
`The ’471 patent is directed to an “apparatus, systems, and methods in which a
`
`surveillance apparatus processes images by (1) continuously recording a stream of
`
`imaged data, (2) write protecting segments of the recorded stream, and (3) sending write
`
`protected segments from a local memory to a remote memory using a wireless
`
`transmitter.” EX1001, 2:12-17. Figure 1 of the ’471 patent, reproduced below,
`
`illustrates one such system in which a camera 120 is coupled to a belt-worn recorder
`
`160 via a data and power cord 140. Also depicted is a remote memory 170 and a ring-
`
`shaped signaling device 150, both of which “cooperate” with the recorder 160. Id.,
`
`3:61-64.
`
`
`Recorder 160 is described as “any recording device that records video and/or
`
`audio/video data, including conventional recorders,” and “preferably includes a
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`processor 162 with software or hardware that accomplishes the functions described
`
`herein, or one or more physical memories that are collectively referred to herein as
`
`memory 166.” Id., 4:59-64. .
`
`“In preferred embodiments, image data received by recorder 160 is stored in a
`
`circular buffer 167 on memory 166.” Id., 5:64-67. Figure 3 of the ’471 patent shows a
`
`“diagram representation of circular buffer 167 [mislabeled in Figure 3 with reference
`
`numeral 169] in memory 166, with unprotected segment 320 and write-protected
`
`segment 330.” Id., 7:39-41. “The recording facility 163 continuously records [a] data
`
`stream 310 [from the recorder 160] into circular buffer 167.” Id., 7:43-44. “The
`
`recording facility 163 records over unprotected segment 320 of circular buffer 167,
`
`while skipping over protected segments 330 of circular buffer 167.” Id., 7:44-47. “It
`
`is contemplated that the portion of the circular buffer that is marked as write-protected
`
`data cannot be overwritten once the recorder loops back to the beginning of the media.”
`
`Id., 7:47-50.
`
`“The circular buffer is preferably organized into a series of memory segments
`
`that loops back on itself,” and receipt of a “record signal” causes “a segment of the
`
`circular buffer to be write-protected to prevent that segment from being overwritten
`
`during the next recording loop.” EX1001, Abstract, 2:27-30, 2:41-44. An example of
`
`a circular buffer with write-protected segment 330 is shown in Figure 3:
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 3. The write-protected segment includes video data from both before and after
`
`the record signal. Id., 2:40-48.
`
`As detailed in the declaration of Dr. Nabil Sarhan, all of these features were
`
`widely known and used at the time of the ’471 patent, including in real-world situations
`
`(e.g., video recording systems in police cars). EX1003, ¶¶45-112; EX1007, 2; EX1024.
`
`B.
`Patent Family And Relevant File Histories
`The ’471 patent is one of several patents in a family of related patents:
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OFU.S. PATENT NO.9,485,471
`
`
`Issued: 9/22/2009
`12/268,286
`
`
`
`Filed: 11/10/2008 U.S. 8,692,882
`
`60/824,097
`Filed: 8/31/2006
`
`Filed: 6/29/2007
`
`US. 8,310,540
`Issued: 11/13/2012
`11/770,920
`
`
`
`
`
` US. 7,593,034
`
`
`
`
`USS. 2021/0211611
`
`Issued: 4/8/2014
`12/560,584
`Filed: 9/16/2009
`
`
`
`U.S. 9,912,914
`Issued: 3/6/2018
`15/279,155
`Filed: 9/28/2016
`
`CON
`
`U.S. 10,523,901
`Issued: 12/31/2019
`15/875,828
`Filed: 1/19/2018
`
`U.S. 10,965,910
`Issued: 3/30/2021
`16/724,829
`Filed: 12/23/2019
`
`U.S. 11,937,017
`17/210,319
`Issued: 3/19/2024
`Filed: 3/23/2021
`
`-5-
`
`60/824,095
`Filed: 8/31/2006
`
`U.S. 8,928,752
`Issued: 1/6/2015
`11/846,217
`Filed: 8/28/2007
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`
`As seen above, the ’471 patent claims priority back to USP 7,593,034 (the ’034
`
`patent, EX1010), filed November 10, 2008, as a continuation application. EX1001,
`
`1:3-20. The ’034 patent, in turn, claims priority as a continuation-in-part to U.S. App.
`
`No. 11/770,920 (the ’920 application, EX1011), filed on June 29, 2007, and U.S. App.
`
`No. 11/846,217 (the ’217 application, EX1012), filed August 28, 2007.
`
`In the district court litigation, Patent Owner Stellar, LLC (“Stellar”) asserts that
`
`the claims of the ’471 patent are entitled to claim priority to the June 29, 2007 filing
`
`date of the ’920 application. EX1006, 4. Without conceding its propriety, Petitioner
`
`applies June 29, 2007 as the priority date of the challenged claims in this petition.
`
`Petitioner reserves its right to challenge priority in this or other proceedings.
`
`1.
`’034 Patent File History
`The file history of the ’034 patent contains admissions relevant to the
`
`unpatentability of the ’471 patent claims. Specifically, Applicant filed a document
`
`(i) identifying the prior art allegedly most relevant to the claimed subject matter, and
`
`(ii) conceding that many claim limitations were disclosed in these references. EX1013,
`
`89-112. As relevant to this proceeding, many of the features conceded by Applicant as
`
`being known in the prior art are recited in the claims of the ’471 patent. Id.; EX1003,
`
`¶¶30-44. Applicant’s document also included a “Statement of the Utility” of the
`
`purported invention. EX1013, 112.
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`
`2.
`’471 Patent File History
`Application No. 13/790,553, which eventually issued as the ’471 patent, was
`
`filed on March 8, 2013 with 25 claims. EX1002, 236-260. The Office’s examination
`
`was not rigorous: It rejected all claims on the basis of non-statutory double patenting
`
`over the ’034 patent and other commonly-owned patents but never applied any prior art
`
`against the claims. Id., 310-16. Claims 14-25 were rejected “as being a substantial
`
`duplicate of claims 1-13.” Id., 332.
`
`After a response and a subsequent final rejection, the applicant submitted a
`
`terminal disclaimer and canceled claims 14-25. Id., 328-334, 375-384, 396-402. The
`
`examiner then allowed claims 1-13. Id., 406-418.
`
`C. Level Of Skill In The Art
`For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner maintains a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the ’471 patent would have been a person having
`
`at least a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or computer
`
`engineering, or undergraduate training in an equivalent field and at least two years of
`
`relevant experience in electronics technology. EX1003, ¶¶24-25. Additional graduate
`
`education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience
`
`could substitute for formal education. Id.
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds For Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’471 patent is available for IPR and that the Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of the ’471 patent
`
`on the grounds identified herein.
`
`B.
`
`Identification Of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) And
`Relief Requested
`Ground 1a: Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 12, and 13 would have been obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 over USP 7,158,167 to Yerazunis (“Yerazunis”) (EX1017) alone or as
`
`combined with U.S. 2002/191952 to Fiore (“Fiore”) (EX1009).
`
`Ground 1b: Claims 3, 8, and 9 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over Yerazunis alone or as combined with Fiore, in further view of U.S. 2004/008255
`
`to Lewellen (“Lewellen”) (EX1019).
`
`Ground 1c: Claim 11 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Yerazunis alone or as combined with Fiore, in further view of European Patent No.
`
`1,064,783 to Mann (“Mann”) (EX1015).
`
`Ground 2a: Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10 and 12-13 would have been obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 over USP 5,982,418 to Ely (“Ely”) (EX1020) alone or as combined with
`
`Fiore.
`
`Ground 2b: Claims 3, 8 and 9 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over Ely alone or as combined with Fiore, in further view of Lewellen.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`
`Ground 2c: Claim 11 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ely
`
`alone or as combined with Fiore, in further view of Mann.
`
`C. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`In this proceeding, claims are interpreted under the same standard applied by
`
`Article III courts. Under this standard, words in a claim are given their plain meaning,
`
`which is the meaning understood by a POSITA in view of the patent and file history.
`
`In this Petition, all of the claim terms are given their plain meaning, as understood by
`
`a POSITA, unless otherwise noted below.
`
`1.
`“a local memory functionally coupled to the sensor”
`The term “a local memory functionally coupled to the sensor” appears in
`
`independent claim 1 of the ’471 patent. The ’471 patent specification expressly
`
`defines this term: “As used herein, the term ‘a local memory functionally coupled to
`
`the camera’ means that the memory that is distanced less than 20 cm from the camera,
`
`and is coupled to the camera using entirely physical connectors (e.g., wires, pins,
`
`conductive paths, etc.).” EX1001, 2:18-27.
`
`Petitioner thus proposes the claim term “a local memory functionally coupled
`
`to the sensor” be construed to mean “a memory that is distanced less than 20 cm from
`
`the camera and is coupled to the camera using entirely physical connectors.” In the
`
`corresponding district court litigation, the parties have agreed to this construction,
`
`EX1021, 1, and it is expected that the district court will adopt this construction.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`
`2.
`“file”
`Independent claim 1 of the ’471 patent recites “indexing the write-protected
`
`segment as a file in the buffer.”1 EX1001, 12:13-27. The term “file” should be given
`
`its plain and ordinary meaning as of June 2007, which was “an identifiable collection
`
`of data.” EX1003, ¶122-128.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: The ’471 patent describes its purported invention as
`
`utilizing a file-based approach for the circular buffer. The patent states that the entire
`
`circular buffer can be treated as a file. EX1001, 6:14-22. The patent further states that
`
`write-protected portions of the circular buffer can be stored as files within the circular
`
`buffer. Id., 2:35-58, 9:45-53. Thus, in Figure 3, for example, the entire circular buffer
`
`167 (mislabeled with reference numeral 169) is treated as a file, and the write-protected
`
`segment 330 is also treated as a file stored in the circular buffer:
`
`
`
` All emphasis is added herein unless otherwise noted.
`
`-10-
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 3. In this example, the circular buffer 167 and write-protected portion 330 are
`
`“files” inasmuch as they comprise identifiable collections of data, although the patent
`
`does not describe any particular file type or structure for these files.
`
`Figure 4H of the ’471 patent depicts a “C data stream … saved as a physically
`
`dis-contiguous file” (id., 9:45-53):
`
`Id., Fig. 4H (color added). The file shown in this figure collects together the physically
`
`dis-contiguous “C” portions to form an identifiable collection of data. After being
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`identified as such, the data making up the file can be used in various ways (e.g., the file
`
`can be offloaded to a remote memory or played back). Id., 9:54-64.
`
`In sum, the ’471 patent uses the term “file” in a manner consistent with its plain
`
`and ordinary meaning as of June 2007, i.e., “an identifiable collection of data.”
`
`EX1003, ¶122. The patent does not suggest that any particular type of file is required
`
`and thus provides no basis for departing from this plain and ordinary meaning. Id.
`
`The prosecution histories of the patent family likewise do not compel a narrower
`
`construction. During prosecution, Applicant reiterated what was recited in the various
`
`pending claims but did not otherwise limit the claimed “files” to any particular types of
`
`files. EX1011, 77; EX1013, 285-86.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence: Both general-purpose and technical dictionaries confirm
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning of “file” as “an identifiable collection of data.”
`
`EX1003, ¶127. The American Heritage Dictionary defined “file” as “[a] collection of
`
`related data or program records stored as a unit with a single name” (EX1025, 518),
`
`and Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defined it as “a collection of related
`
`data records (as for a computer)” (EX1026, 467). A technical dictionary, the Wiley
`
`Electrical and Electronics Engineering Dictionary, defined “file” as “[a] collection of
`
`information which is stored as a unit.” EX1027, 283.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`IV. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Ground 1a: Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 12, And 13 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Yerazunis Alone Or As Combined With Fiore
`1.
`Summary Of Yerazunis
`
`Yerazunis, EX1017, entitled “Video Recording Device for a Targetable
`
`Weapon,” was filed on September 9, 1998, and issued on January 2, 2007. Yerazunis
`
`is therefore prior art to the ’471 patent under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and
`
`(e).
`
`Yerazunis discloses a “compact video image recording device” that can be
`
`utilized in a number of different applications. EX1017, Abstract, 1:21-31, 3:5-10, 9:8-
`
`16. “In one application, a video recording device as described above is mounted to a
`
`targetable weapon, such as a gun,” and used “for recording video images before and
`
`after the firing of the gun.” Id., Abstract, 3:9-10, 4:28-30, 8:8-25, 9:60-10:11, 16:4-
`
`8, 16:43-17:38.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 9.
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., Figs. 10a, 10b.
`
`Yerazunis’s video recording device “records video frames successively in at
`
`least one circular buffer memory organized as a continuous loop overwriting the oldest
`
`frame within the respective buffer memory with a more recently received frame.” Id.,
`
`2:19-23. When the video recording device is used with a gun, Yerazunis discloses
`
`that a “gun firing signal is generated upon discharge of the gun,” and “specified frame
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`data associated with that firing event both before and after the event is preserved and
`
`cannot be overwritten as a result of further use of the gun or subsequent firing events.”
`
`Id., 3:19-31. “Frame data associated with each subsequent firing event[] is stored
`
`within an unused portion of the circular buffer memory.” Id., 3:31-33.
`
`Figure 3 of Yerazunis depicts an “electrical block diagram of a video recording
`
`device” (id., 3:55-56), and Figure 14 likewise illustrates “a video recording device in
`
`accordance with the present invention for use with a gun” (id., 4:28-30).
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., Figs. 3, 14; id. at 16:4-8 (“[t]he operation of the [Figure 14] recording device is
`
`generally in accord with the description provided with respect to FIG. 3”), 17:34-38.
`
`Figure 4a of Yerazunis depicts a circular memory buffer formed in
`
`DRAM memory of the device (id., 7:9-11), and Figure 4b shows “a representation of
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`a semiconductor memory buffer employed in the video recording device of FIG. 3 to
`
`implement a circular memory buffer and associated head and tail pointers” (id., 3:60-
`
`63).
`
`
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Figures 3 and 14, the recording device includes a camera 40
`
`and video electronics 42. Id., 5:41-43; id., 16:4-8. The device further includes local
`
`memory (DRAMs 58, 60) coupled to the camera 40 via a microprocessor 54. Id.,
`
`6:24-26. The microcontroller 54 has “a number of inputs 68 which permit activation
`
`of the video recording device and control of the device by a user.” Id., 6:40-42. The
`
`inputs include a capture button 72 that causes video data in the local memory’s circular
`
`buffer to be write protected. Id., 6:43-44, 7:11-22, 8:8-61, 9:17-26.
`
`The microcontroller’s inputs further include an event sensor 70 configured to
`
`detect gun firings and other events. Id., 8:8-61, 16:43-17:61. Upon detection of an
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`event, the microprocessor 54 preserves video data for the event by write protecting it
`
`in the circular buffer. Id.; see also id., 9:34-42. In embodiments of Yerazunis’s video
`
`recording devices, a microprocessor “tag[s] protected frame locations containing
`
`captured still frames and check[s] to determine whether a frame location is protected
`
`prior to writing to the frame location.” Id., 9:39-42. In Yerazunis’s gun-camera
`
`embodiment, illustrated in Figures 9-14, “recording of data continues [after a gun-
`
`firing event] since a subsequent firing event may occur,” and this is accomplished by
`
`storing pointers “defining the area(s) of the circular buffer memory” to be write
`
`protected in a table. Id., 17:45-61. The storing of such pointers “allow[s] later
`
`retrieval of the video data pertaining to each firing of the gun.” Id.; see also id., 17:9-
`
`12.
`
`Yerazunis was neither cited nor applied during prosecution of the ’471 patent.
`
`While the ’471 patent lists on its face U.S. 2002/005895 to Freeman (EX1028), an
`
`application to which Yerazunis is a continuation-in-part, Yerazunis includes
`
`significant additional disclosures not included in Freeman. For example, Yerazunis
`
`discloses the above-described gun-camera embodiment that is not described in
`
`Freeman. This petition relies on these additional disclosures of Yerazunis that are not
`
`present in Freeman.
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Summary Of Fiore
`
`Fiore, EX1009, entitled “Data Recording and Playback System and Method,”
`
`was filed on April 9, 2002, and published on December 19, 2002. Fiore incorporates
`
`by reference and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/282,162, filed
`
`April 9, 2001 (EX1030). Fiore is therefore prior art to the ’471 patent under at least
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), and (e).
`
`Fiore relates generally to “data recording and playback systems for monitoring
`
`processes or occurrences of events which allows the replay and/or analysis of a time
`
`sampled signal.” EX1009, [0003]. Fiore’s data recording and playback system uses
`
`a circular storage buffer 15 to store data frames of an input signal from a monitoring
`
`device 6 (which may be a video camera, id., [0040]):
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 2 (color added); id., [0048]. The circular storage buffer 15 “may be
`
`implemented as a reserved area in memory, a disk file, or as a storage in a looped
`
`media.” Id., [0065].
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`
`Fiore discloses that the circular storage buffer 15 is implemented as a memory-
`
`mapped file. Id., [0047], [0068]. In the context of Fiore, a memory-mapped file is a
`
`file “having the same address space as the memory device for storing the input signal
`
`data” to allow “the input signal data” to be “swapped between the RAM” and “the file
`
`system,” “as needed.” Id., Abstract, [0047]; EX1003, ¶143. POSITAs at the time of
`
`the ’471 patent recognized the advantages provided by memory-mapped files,
`
`including increased input/output (I/O) performance. EX1009, [0065]. Figure 9 of
`
`Fiore “shows details of a file format in a table 107 suitable for implementing the
`
`circular storage buffer 15” (EX1009, [0064]), noting the file size and other details of
`
`the file:
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 9.
`
`Fiore further discloses indexing data frames associated with events as files
`
`within the circular storage buffer 15. Fiore’s Background section describes
`
`conventional approaches that do not differentiate event data as files in the circular
`
`buffer. EX1009, [0005]-[0006]. In contrast to these prior-art approaches, Fiore
`
`describes indexing identifiable collections of data (i.e., files) for respective events in
`
`its circular storage buffer 15. Id., [0022]-[0023], [0051], [0059]-[0060].
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`
`Specifically, when an external event occurs (as indicated via an event signal
`
`generated by a sensor, id., [0041]), time stamps associated with the event are stored
`
`in an event database 23, and “the input signal data being stored in the circular storage
`
`buffer 15 [is marked] … to thereby flag the location of an occurrence of an external
`
`event in the circular storage buffer.” Id., [0048], [0050]-[0051]. Further, an event
`
`processor copies data frames associated with the event—including “frames before,
`
`during, and after the event”—to a file system 17. Id., [0048], [0051]. Thus, the use
`
`of files in the circular storage buffer 15 for indexing event data enables such data to
`
`be offloaded to the file system 17 for permanent preservation. Id., [0022], [0051].
`
`Fiore’s use of files in the circular storage buffer 15 also enables data for an
`
`event to be played back directly from the circular storage buffer 15 “without
`
`interrupting simultaneous recording of new input signal data into the circular storage
`
`buffer.” Id., Abstract, [0023], [0057]-[0060], [0065], [0068], [0072], Fig. 6; EX1003,
`
`¶148. Fiore’s disclosure (in December 2002) of a file-based approach for enabling
`
`playback and offloading of data from the circular buffer without interrupting
`
`recording of new data to the circular buffer predates by many years the similar
`
`description in the ’471 patent. EX1001, 9:54-64.
`
`Fiore was neither cited nor applied during prosecution of the ’471 patent.
`
`
`
`-22-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,485,471
`
`
`
`3. Motivation To Combine
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Yerazunis and Fiore for
`
`multiple reasons. EX1003, ¶¶168-172.
`
`As one example, because Yerazunis and Fiore both disclose data recording
`
`systems that store data in a circular buffer and preserve data associated with an event—
`
`both before and after an event trigger—a POSITA would have been aware of and
`
`motivated to combine the two references.
`
`As another example, a POSITA would have been motivated to implement
`
`Yerazunis’s video recording device with Fiore’s file-based approach for the circular
`
`storage buffer and event data stored therein. Fiore provides a fulsome description of its
`
`file-based approach, which includes (i) implementing the circular storage buffer 15 as
`
`a memory-mapped file, and (ii) indexing event data for events as respective files within
`
`the memory-mapped file. EX1009, [0022]-[0023], [0051], [0059]-[0060]. Fiore also
`
`describes numerous benefits of its file-based approach, including th