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. 8,692,882
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U. S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`C.
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Summary Of The ’882 Patent .................................................................. 2
`B.
`Patent Family And Relevant File Histories ............................................. 4
`1.
`’034 Patent File History ................................................................ 6
`2.
`’882 Patent File History ................................................................ 6
`Level Of Skill In The Art ........................................................................ 7
`C.
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104 ............................................................................................................. 7
`A. Grounds For Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .............................. 7
`Identification Of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) And
`B.
`Relief Requested ...................................................................................... 7
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................. 8
`1.
`“a local memory functionally coupled to the camera” ................. 9
`2.
`“file” .............................................................................................. 9
`IV. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................ 12
`A. Ground 1a: Claims 1-6, 9, 11-18, 21, And 22 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Yerazunis Alone Or As Combined With Fiore ............. 12
`1.
`Summary Of Yerazunis ............................................................... 12
`2.
`Summary Of Fiore ...................................................................... 16
`3. Motivation To Combine .............................................................. 18
`Independent Claims 1 and 12 ...................................................... 19
`4.
`5.
`Claims 2 and 21 ........................................................................... 34
`6.
`Claims 3 and 22 ........................................................................... 35
`7.
`Claim 4 ........................................................................................ 36
`8.
`Claim 5 ........................................................................................ 36
`9.
`Claims 6 and 17 ........................................................................... 37
`10. Claim 9 ........................................................................................ 38
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`11. Claim 11 ...................................................................................... 38
`12. Claim 13 ...................................................................................... 39
`13. Claim 14 ...................................................................................... 40
`14. Claim 15 ...................................................................................... 40
`15. Claim 16 ...................................................................................... 41
`16. Claim 18 ...................................................................................... 41
`B. Ground 1b: Claims 7 And 8 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 7 ........................................................................................ 47
`4.
`Claim 8 ........................................................................................ 47
`C. Ground 1c: Claim 10 Would Have Been Obvious Over Yerazunis
`Alone Or As Combined With Fiore, In Further View Of Mann ........... 48
`D. Ground 1d: Claims 19 And 20 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`Yerazunis Alone Or As Combined With Fiore, In Further View
`Of Fiedler ............................................................................................... 49
`1.
`Summary Of Fiedler .................................................................... 49
`2. Motivation To Combine .............................................................. 50
`3.
`Claims 19 and 20 ......................................................................... 51
`Ground 2a: Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 11-18, And 21 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Ely Alone Or As Combined With Fiore ........................ 53
`1.
`Summary Of Ely ......................................................................... 53
`2. Motivation To Combine .............................................................. 55
`3.
`Independent Claims 1 and 12 ...................................................... 56
`4.
`Claims 2 and 21 ........................................................................... 67
`5.
`Claim 4 ........................................................................................ 67
`6.
`Claim 5 ........................................................................................ 68
`
`E.
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`
`F.
`
`Claims 6 and 17 ........................................................................... 68
`7.
`Claim 9 ........................................................................................ 69
`8.
`Claim 11 ...................................................................................... 70
`9.
`10. Claim 13 ...................................................................................... 71
`11. Claim 14 ...................................................................................... 71
`12. Claim 15 ...................................................................................... 72
`13. Claim 16 ...................................................................................... 72
`14. Claim 18 ...................................................................................... 72
`Ground 2b: Claims 3, 7, 8, And 22 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Ely Alone Or As Combined With Fiore, In Further View Of
`Lewellen ................................................................................................ 74
`1. Motivation To Combine .............................................................. 74
`2.
`Claims 3 and 22 ........................................................................... 75
`3.
`Claim 7 ........................................................................................ 76
`4.
`Claim 8 ........................................................................................ 77
`G. Ground 2c: Claim 10 Would Have Been Obvious Over Ely Alone
`Or As Combined With Fiore, In Further View Of Mann ...................... 77
`H. Ground 2d: Claims 19 And 20 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`Ely Alone Or As Combined With Fiore, In Further View Of
`Fiedler .................................................................................................... 79
`1. Motivation To Combine .............................................................. 79
`2.
`Claims 19 and 20 ......................................................................... 79
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 80
`V.
`VI. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ............ 81
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest .................................... 81
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ............................................... 81
`C.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), (4): Lead And Back-Up Counsel And
`Service Information ............................................................................... 81
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Motorola Solutions, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Motorola”) requests inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 8,692,882. The ’882 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 ’882 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 ’882 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 ’882 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 ’882 patent were known in the
`
`art. Id., 89-112; EX1003, ¶¶30-44. And the few ’882 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 1-22.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`Summary Of The ’882 Patent
`The ’882 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.” EX1033, 2:8-17. In Figure 1, 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., 3:52-63.
`
`
`
`Recorder 160 is described as “any recording device that records video and/or
`
`audio/video data, including conventional recorders,” and “preferably includes a
`
`processor 162 with software or hardware that accomplishes the functions described
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`herein, or one or more physical memories that are collectively referred to herein as
`
`memory 166.” Id., 4:50-55.
`
`“In preferred embodiments, image data received by recorder 160 is stored in a
`
`circular buffer 167 on memory 166.” Id., 5:52-55. Figure 3 depicts this circular buffer
`
`with unprotected segment 320 and write-protected segment 330. Id., 7:23-25. “The
`
`recording facility 163 continuously records [a] data stream 310 [from the recorder 160]
`
`into circular buffer 167.” Id., 7:26-28. “The recording facility 163 records over
`
`unprotected segment 320 of circular buffer 167, while skipping over protected segments
`
`330 of circular buffer 167.” Id., 7:28-8:31.
`
`“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.” EX1033, Abstract, 2:23-26, 4:36-39.
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`Id., Fig. 3. The write-protected segment includes video data from both before and after
`
`the record signal. Id., 2:40-43.
`
`As detailed in Dr. Nabil Sarhan’s declaration, all of these features were widely
`
`known and used before Applicant’s claimed priority date for the ’882 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 ’882 patent is one of several patents in a family of related patents:
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`
`
`
`As seen above, the ’882 patent claims priority back to U.S. Patent No. 7,593,034
`
`(the ’034 patent, EX1010), filed November 10, 2008, as a continuation application.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`EX1033 at 1:3-17. 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 ’882 patent are entitled to claim priority to the June 29, 2007 filing
`
`date of the ’920 application. EX1006 at 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 ’882 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 ’882 patent. Id.; EX1003,
`
`¶¶30-44. Applicant’s document also included a “Statement of the Utility” of the
`
`purported invention. EX1013, 112.
`
`2.
`’882 Patent File History
`Application No. US 12/560,584, which eventually issued as the ’882 patent, was
`
`filed on September 16, 2009, with 22 claims. EX1039, 1-36. The Office’s examination
`
`was not rigorous: It rejected all claims on the basis of nonstatutory double patenting
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`over the ’034 patent and other commonly-owned patents but never applied any prior art
`
`against the claims. Id., 182-190. Applicant submitted terminal disclaimers (id., 195-
`
`200, 208-11), and the Office then allowed claims 1-22. Id., 215-21.
`
`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 ’882 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 at ¶¶24-25. Additional
`
`graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work
`
`experience could substitute for formal education. Id.
`
`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 ’882 patent is available for IPR and that the Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of the ’882 patent
`
`on the grounds identified herein.
`
`B.
`
`Identification Of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) And
`Relief Requested
`Ground 1a: Claims 1-6, 9, 11-18, 21, and 22 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. Patent Pub. 2002/191952 to Fiore (“Fiore”) (EX1009).
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`Ground 1b: Claims 7 and 8 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over Yerazunis alone or as combined with Fiore, in further view of U.S. Patent Pub.
`
`2004/008255 to Lewellen (“Lewellen”) (EX1019).
`
`Ground 1c: Claim 10 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 1d: Claims 19 and 20 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over Yerazunis alone or as combined with Fiore, in further view of USP 6,804,638 to
`
`Fiedler (“Fiedler”) (EX1037).
`
`Ground 2a: Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 11-18, and 21 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, 7, 8, and 22 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 over Ely alone or as combined with Fiore, in further view of Lewellen.
`
`Ground 2c: Claim 10 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ely
`
`alone or as combined with Fiore, in further view of Mann.
`
`Ground 2d: Claims 19 and 20 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over Ely alone or as combined with Fiore, in further view of Fiedler.
`
`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,
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`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 camera”
`The term “a local memory functionally coupled to the camera” appears in
`
`claim 1. The 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.).” EX1033, 2:16-21.
`
`Petitioner proposes the 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 the district court will adopt this construction.
`
`2.
`“file”
`Independent claim 1 recites “a recording facility that records the image data
`
`into available portions of a circular buffer in the local memory as a first file” and
`
`“indexing the write-protected portion as a second file in the circular buffer.”1 EX1033,
`
`
`
` All emphasis is added herein unless otherwise noted.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`11:47-64. Independent claim 12 includes similar recitations of the term “file.” Id.,
`
`12:26-39. For all claims of the ’882 patent, 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 ’882 patent describes its purported invention as
`
`utilizing a file-based approach for the circular buffer. The patent states the entire
`
`circular buffer can be treated as a file. EX1033, 5:66-6:7. The patent further states
`
`write-protected portions of the circular buffer can be stored as files within the circular
`
`buffer. Id., 2:29-51, 9:18-26. Thus, in Figure 3, the entire circular buffer 167
`
`(mislabeled with reference numeral 169) is treated as a file, and write-protected
`
`segment 330 is also treated as a file stored in the circular buffer:
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`Id., Fig. 3. In this example, 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 depicts a “C data stream … saved as a physically dis-contiguous file”
`
`(id., 9:20-28):
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 4H (color added). The file shown collects together the physically dis-
`
`contiguous “C” portions to form an identifiable collection of data. Once 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., 9:29-39.
`
`In sum, the ’882 patent uses “file” in a manner consistent with its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning as of June 2007, i.e., “an identifiable collection of data.” The patent
`
`does not suggest any particular type of file is required and thus provides no basis for
`
`departing from this plain and ordinary meaning. EX1003, ¶125.
`
`The prosecution histories of the patent family likewise do not compel a narrower
`
`construction. During prosecution, Applicant reiterated what was recited in the various
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`pending claims but did not otherwise limit the claimed “files” to any particular types of
`
`files. EX1011, 77; EX1013, 285-86.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence: General-purpose and technical dictionaries confirm the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning of “file” as “an identifiable collection of data.” 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.
`
`IV. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Ground 1a: Claims 1-6, 9, 11-18, 21, And 22 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 September 9, 1998 and issued January 2, 2007. Yerazunis is prior
`
`art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e).
`
`Yerazunis discloses a “compact video image recording device” for different
`
`applications. EX1017, Abstract, 1:21-31, 3:5-10, 9:8-16. In one application, it is
`
`“mounted to a targetable weapon, such as a gun,” for “recording video images before
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`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.
`
`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.,
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`2:19-23. For a gun-mounted application, Yerazunis discloses that a “gun firing signal
`
`is generated upon discharge of the gun,” and “specified frame 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 depicts an “electrical block diagram of a video recording device” (id.,
`
`3:55-56), and Figure 14 illustrates “a video recording device in accordance with the
`
`present invention for use with a gun” (id., 4:28-30).
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., Figs. 3, 14; id., 16:4-8, 17:34-38. These figures and other relevant disclosure of
`
`Yerazunis are described in further detail below and in Dr. Sarhan’s declaration.
`
`EX1003, ¶¶129-135.
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`Yerazunis was neither cited nor applied during prosecution. While certain
`
`patents related to the ’882 patent list on their face U.S. Patent Pub. 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.
`
`2.
`
`Summary Of Fiore
`
`Fiore, EX1009, entitled “Data Recording and Playback System and Method,”
`
`was filed April 9, 2002 and published 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 prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a),
`
`(b), (e).
`
`Fiore discloses “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 circular storage buffer 15 stores data frames of an
`
`input signal from monitoring device 6 (which may be a video camera, id., [0040]):
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`
`Id., Fig. 2 (color added); id., [0048]. 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].
`
`Circular storage buffer 15 is implemented as a memory-mapped file. Id.,
`
`[0047], [0068]; EX1003, ¶143. Fiore teaches indexing data frames associated with
`
`events as files within 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, Fiore describes indexing identifiable
`
`collections of data (i.e., files) for respective events in circular storage buffer 15. Id.,
`
`[0022]-[0023], [0051], [0059]-[0060]. Fiore’s indexing of data as files in the
`
`buffer 15 is described in further detail below and in the Dr. Sarhan’s declaration.
`
`EX1003, ¶¶141-150.
`
`Fiore was neither cited nor applied during prosecution.
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`3. Motivation To Combine
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Yerazunis and Fiore for
`
`multiple reasons. EX1003, ¶¶168-72, 328.
`
`As one example, because Yerazunis and Fiore disclose data recording systems
`
`that store data in a circular buffer and preserve data associated with an event—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 describes in detail its file-based
`
`approach, which includes (i) implementing 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 that it “combines the
`
`access speed of the RAM memory with large storage capacity of a disk file” (id.,
`
`[0065]), “mak[es] the indexing of data in the memory mapped file 110 transparent to
`
`the circular storage buffer’s 15 access objects” (id., [0067]), and “avoid[s] issues of
`
`switching between Random Access Memory (RAM) and disk files” (id., [0068]; id.,
`
`[0072] (describing approach as providing “significant performance gains” and
`
`allowing “playback from the circular storage buffer without interrupting recording
`
`into the circular storage buffer”)).
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`In view of these exemplary benefits, and other reasons herein, a POSITA
`
`implementing Yerazunis would have been motivated to utilize Fiore’s teachings
`
`regarding (i) the circular storage buffer implemented as a memory mapped file, and
`
`(ii) indexing of event data as files within the circular storage buffer. EX1003, ¶168-
`
`172. A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Fiore
`
`provides a detailed disclosure of its file-based approach, and applying those
`
`techniques to Yerazunis would have been routine and well within a POSITA’s skill.
`
`Id.
`
`4.
`
`Independent Claims 1 and 12
`
`Independent claim 1 is directed to a surveillance apparatus, and independent
`
`claim 12 is a method claim with similar limitations. EX1040 (chart numbering each
`
`element of claims 1 and 12 and comparing similar elements side-by-side). In view of
`
`these similarities, claims 1 and 12 are addressed together.2
`
`a)
`Preamble: A surveillance apparatus comprising:
`To the extent limiting, Yerazunis discloses the preambles of claims 1 and 12.
`
`EX1003, ¶330; EX1040. For claim 1, Yerazunis discloses “a video recording device”
`
`that “is contained within a compactly sized housing” and captures video images for,
`
`
`
` 2
`
` In the headings that follow, the elements of claim 1 are reproduced. Differences
`between the language of claims 1 and 12 are addressed in the discussion for each
`element.
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`e.g., security purposes. EX1017, 2:12-14; see also id., 1:17-43. Yerazunis therefore
`
`discloses a “surveillance apparatus,” and Applicant admitted this limitation is known in
`
`the art. EX1013, 94, 100, 106-107.
`
`For claim 12, Yerazunis discloses a “method of operation of the video recording
`
`device” illustrated in Figure 5 below (EX1017, 10:55-11:30):
`
`
`
`The steps illustrated constitute “processing imaged data.” EX1003, ¶332; see
`
`also EX1017, 16:4-8, 17:45-61. Yerazunis thus discloses “[a] method of processing
`
`imaged data from a camera.”
`
`b)
`
`Element 1: a camera having an image capturing
`component that captures image data;
`Yerazunis discloses element 1 for each of claims 1 and 12. EX1003, ¶333;
`
`EX1040. For claim 1, Yerazunis’s image sensor 46 in camera 40 is “operative to
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`provide an output signal representative of a video image which impinges upon the
`
`sensor.” EX1017, 5:45-49. The output signal is “an analog signal which is coupled to
`
`one or more A/D converters” (“ADC 48”) that “generate a digital representation of the
`
`video image.” Id., 2:37-41.
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., Figs. 3, 14 (color added).
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,692,882
`Camera 40 and video electronics 42 disclose the claimed “camera” because they
`
`collectively include an image sensor 46 (i.e., an “image capturing component”) that
`
`captures image data and one or more ADCs 48 that generate a digital representation
`
`of the image data. EX1003, ¶334.
`
`For element 1 of claim 12, the image data output by the one or more ADCs 48
`
`is “video data” because it contains video frames in digital form. EX1017, 5:60-67,
`
`6:52-55, 7:26-32; EX1003, ¶335. The digital video data is received at least by
`
`microprocessor 54. EX1017, 10:55-63, Fig. 3.
`
`c)
`
`Element 2: a local memory functionally coupled to the
`camera;
`Yerazunis discloses element 2 of claim 1. EX1003, ¶336; EX1040. As explained
`
`in Section III.C.1, the term “a local memory functionally coupled to the camera”
`
`should 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.” Yerazunis’s
`
`video recording device includes video electronics 42 with DRAMs 58, 60, i.e., the
`
`“local memory” (EX1017, 5:40