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. 10,965,910
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U. S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Summary Of The ’910 Patent .................................................................. 2
`B.
`Patent Family And Relevant File Histories ............................................. 4
`1.
`’034 Patent File History ................................................................ 6
`2.
`’910 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
`C.
`IV. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................ 10
`A. Ground 1a: Claims 1-10 And 14-20 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Yerazunis ...................................................................................... 10
`1.
`Summary Of Yerazunis ............................................................... 10
`2.
`Claim 1 ........................................................................................ 13
`3.
`Claims 2-4 ................................................................................... 36
`4.
`Claim 5 ........................................................................................ 38
`5.
`Claim 6 ........................................................................................ 39
`6.
`Claim 7 ........................................................................................ 39
`7.
`Claim 8 ........................................................................................ 40
`8.
`Claims 9 and 10 ........................................................................... 40
`9.
`Claim 14 ...................................................................................... 42
`10. Claims 15 and 16 ......................................................................... 43
`11. Claim 17 ...................................................................................... 44
`12. Claim 18 ...................................................................................... 45
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`
`13. Claim 19 ...................................................................................... 45
`14. Claim 20 ...................................................................................... 46
`B. Ground 1b: Claims 11 And 12 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`Yerazunis In View Of Lewellen ............................................................ 47
`C. Ground 1c: Claim 13 Would Have Been Obvious Over Yerazunis
`In View Of Fiore ................................................................................... 51
`D. Ground 2a: Claims 1-4, 6-10, And 14-20 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Ely .................................................................................. 55
`1.
`Summary Of Ely ......................................................................... 55
`2.
`Claim 1 ........................................................................................ 56
`3.
`Claims 2-4 ................................................................................... 73
`4.
`Claim 6 ........................................................................................ 75
`5.
`Claim 7 ........................................................................................ 75
`6.
`Claim 8 ........................................................................................ 75
`7.
`Claim 9 and 10 ............................................................................ 75
`8.
`Claim 14 ...................................................................................... 76
`9.
`Claims 15 and 16 ......................................................................... 77
`10. Claim 17 ...................................................................................... 78
`11. Claim 18 ...................................................................................... 79
`12. Claim 19 ...................................................................................... 79
`13. Claim 20 ...................................................................................... 80
`Ground 2b: Claims 5, 11 And 12 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Ely In View Of Lewellen ............................................................. 80
`Ground 2c: Claim 13 Would Have Been Obvious Over Ely In
`View Of Fiore ........................................................................................ 83
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 85
`V.
`VI. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ............ 85
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest .................................... 85
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ............................................... 85
`-ii-
`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), (4): Lead And Back-Up Counsel And
`Service Information ............................................................................... 85
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Motorola Solutions, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Motorola”) requests inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 10,965,910. The ’910 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 ’910
`
`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 ’910 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 ’910 patent conceded this
`
`in prosecuting a related patent. EX1013, 95, 101, 107-08. In fact, the Applicant
`
`admitted that many of the features claimed in the ’910 patent were known in the art.
`
`Id., 89-112; EX1062, ¶¶34-49. And the few ’910 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 1-20.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`Summary Of The ’910 Patent
`The ’910 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.” EX1060, 2:21-25; see also EX1062, ¶¶109-114. Figure 1 of the ’910
`
`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. EX1060, 4:2-5.
`
`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. 10,965,910
`
`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., 5:1-6.
`
`“In preferred embodiments, image data received by recorder 160 is stored in a
`
`circular buffer 167 on memory 166.” Id., 6:6-8. Figure 3 of the ’910 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., 7:48-50. “The recording facility 163 continuously records [a] data
`
`stream 310 [from the recorder 160] into circular buffer 167.” Id., 7:52-53. “The
`
`recording facility 163 records over unprotected segment 320 of circular buffer 167,
`
`while skipping over protected segments 330 of circular buffer 167.” Id., 7:53-56. “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., 7:56-59.
`
`“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.” Id., Abstract, 2:36-38, 2:50-53. An example of a
`
`circular buffer with write-protected segment 330 is shown in Figure 3 of the ’910 patent:
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 3. The write-protected segment includes video data from both before and after
`
`the record signal. Id., 2: 50-53.
`
`As detailed in the declaration of Dr. Nabil Sarhan, all of these features were
`
`widely known and before the claimed priority date of the ’910 patent, including in real-
`
`world situations (e.g., video recording systems in police cars). EX1062, ¶¶34-112;
`
`EX1007, 2; EX1024.
`
`B.
`Patent Family And Relevant File Histories
`The ’910 patent is one of several patents in a family of related patents:
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO.10,965,910
`
`
`60/824,097
`Filed: 8/31/2006
`
`60/824,095
`
`U.S. 8,310,540
`US. 8,928,752
`Issued: 11/13/2012
`Issued: 1/6/2015
`
`11/770,920
`11/846,217
`Filed: 6/29/2007
`Filed: 8/28/2007
`
`Filed: 8/31/2006
`
`
`
`US.7,593,034
`Issued: 9/22/2009
`12/268,286
`Filed: 11/10/2008
`
`CON
`
`
`US. 8,692,882
`Issued: 4/8/2014
`12/560,584
`Filed: 9/16/2009
`
`CON
`
`US. 9,485,471
`Issued: 11/1/2016
`13/790,553
`Filed: 3/8/2013
`
`CON
`
`US. 9,912,914
`Issued: 3/6/2018
`15/279,155
`Filed: 9/28/2016
`
`
`
`
`|
`
`CON
`
`US. 10,523,901
`Issued: 12/31/2019
`15/875,828
`Filed: 1/19/2018
`
`US. 11,937,017
`Issued: 3/19/2024
`17/210,319
`Filed: 3/23/2021
`US. 2021/0211611
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PENDING
`
`18/202,594
`
`Filed: 5/26/2023
`
`US. 2024/0195942
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`
`As seen above, the ’910 patent claims priority back to USP 7,593,034 (the ’034
`
`patent, EX1010), filed November 10, 2008, as a continuation application. EX1060,
`
`1:4-29. 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 ’910 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 ’910 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 ’910 patent.
`
`Id.; EX1062, ¶¶34-49. 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. 10,965,910
`
`
`2.
`’910 Patent File History
`Application No. 16/724,829, which eventually issued as the ’910 patent, was
`
`filed on December 23, 2019 with 20 claims. EX1061, 1-41. The Office rejected
`
`claims 1 and 20 on the basis of non-statutory double patenting over related patent
`
`U.S. 10,523,901 (EX1048) in view of U.S. 6,351,798 to Aono (EX1064). EX1061, 48-
`
`54. Applicant submitted a terminal disclaimer and amended claims 1 and 20 to recite
`
`“upon reaching at least one of the first portion and the second portion while continuing
`
`to record the sensor data in the at least one memory, excluding from overwriting the at
`
`least one of the first portion and second portion” (EX1061, 387-392, 397-404), after
`
`which the claims were allowed (id., 405-413).
`
`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 ’910 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. EX1062, ¶¶26-30. 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. 10,965,910
`
`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 ’910 patent is available for IPR and that the
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of the
`
`’910 patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`B.
`
`Identification Of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) And
`Relief Requested
`Ground 1a: Claims 1-10 and 14-20 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 over U.S. 7,158,167 to Yerazunis (“Yerazunis”) (EX1017).
`
`Ground 1b: Claims 11 and 12 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over Yerazunis in view of U.S. 2004/008255 to Lewellen (“Lewellen”) (EX1019).
`
`Ground 1c: Claim 13 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Yerazunis in view of U.S. 2002/191952 to Fiore (“Fiore”) (EX1009).
`
`Ground 2a: Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 14-20 would have been obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 over U.S. 5,982,418 to Ely (“Ely”) (EX1020).
`
`Ground 2b: Claims 5, 11, and 12 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 over Ely in view of Lewellen.
`
`Ground 2c: Claim 13 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ely
`
`in view Fiore.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`
`C. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`In this Petition, all of the claim terms are given their plain meaning, as
`
`understood by a POSITA, unless otherwise noted below.
`
`“a computer processor configured to”
`
`Claim 1 recites “a computer processor configured to” perform certain recited
`
`functions. EX1060, 12:19-47. In the related litigation, Patent Owner’s position is that
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6 is inapplicable to claim 1, and there are no means-plus-function
`
`limitations in this claim. EX1056, 008-019.1 If, however, the “computer processor
`
`configured to” limitations invoke Section 112, ¶6, Patent Owner and Petitioner (the
`
`“Parties”) in the related litigation have identified the claimed functions and
`
`corresponding structures. EX1057, 014-020.
`
`For purposes of this petition, Petitioner has applied the constructions (MPF and
`
`non-MPF) urged by Patent Owner in the related litigation, as well as Petitioner’s
`
`constructions.
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
` Citations to EX1056 and EX1057 herein refer to page numbers added by Petitioner.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`IV. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Ground 1a: Claims 1-10 And 14-20 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over Yerazunis
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`
`
`
`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. For a gun-mounted application, Yerazunis discloses that a “gun firing signal
`
`may be 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., 3:20-
`
`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.,
`
`3:54-55), and Figure 14 illustrates “a video recording device in accordance with the
`
`present invention for use with a gun” (id., 4:28-30).
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`EX1062, ¶¶129-135.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`
`Yerazunis was neither cited nor applied during prosecution. While the ’910
`
`patent lists on its face U.S. Patent Pub. 2002/0005895 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.
`
`Claim 1
`
`a)
`
`Preamble: A recording system for saving a sequence of
`clips comprising:
`To the extent limiting, Yerazunis discloses the preamble of claim 1. EX1062,
`
`¶345. Yerazunis discloses “a video recording device” that “is contained within a
`
`compactly sized housing” and captures video images for, e.g., security purposes.
`
`EX1017, 2:12-14; see also id., 1:17-43. Yerazunis’s video recording device saves
`
`sequences of clips. Id., 14:45-64; 15:9-13.
`
`b)
`
`Element 1: at least one memory communicatively
`coupled with a sensor; and
`Yerazunis discloses this element. EX1062, ¶¶346-350. Yerazunis discloses a
`
`sensor that captures sensor data. Yerazunis’s video recording device includes camera
`
`40 that discloses the “sensor that captures sensor data”:
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1017, Figs. 3, 14 (color added); see also id., 2:33-41.
`
`The camera 40 is “comprised of a lens 44 which is disposed a predetermined
`
`distance d from the surface of an image sensor 46.” Id., 5:43-45. “The image sensor 46,
`
`as described above, may comprise a [CCD] array, an artificial retina, or any other
`
`suitable image sensor operative to provide an output signal representative of a video
`
`image which impinges upon the sensor.” Id., 5:45-49. The output signal is “an analog
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`signal which is coupled to one or more A/D converters” that “generate a digital
`
`representation of the video image.” Id., 2:37-41. The camera 40 thus discloses the
`
`“sensor” because it has an image sensor 46 that captures video images impinging on
`
`it (“sensor data”).
`
`Yerazunis’s camera 40 also discloses the “sensor that captures sensor data”
`
`because its disclosure is similar to that of the ’910 patent referring to cameras as being
`
`sensing devices. EX1060, 4:19-46.
`
`Yerazunis further discloses at least one memory communicatively coupled with
`
`camera 40 (i.e., the “sensor”). Yerazunis’s video recording device includes video
`
`electronics 42 with semiconductor memory comprising DRAMs 58, 60 that disclose
`
`the “at least one memory communicatively coupled with a sensor” (EX1017, 5:40-43,
`
`6:24-36):
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`
`
`
`Id., Figs. 3, 14 (color added).
`
`As seen above, DRAMs 58, 60 are coupled to camera 40. Microprocessor 54
`
`and DRAM 58 “may be obtained as a single integrated circuit [IC]” (id., 6:24-29),
`
`meaning their connection would be via physical connectors on the IC (e.g., conductive
`
`lines and/or vias, etc.). DRAM 60 is “coupled to the microprocessor 54 via a bus 62.”
`
`Id., 6:30-36. Microprocessor 54, in turn, is coupled to analog-to-digital converter
`
`(ADC) 48 “via signal path 56 which comprises a parallel signal bus.” Id., 6:14-23.
`
`Finally, ADC 48 is coupled to camera 40 “via signal path 50” to enable ADC 48 to
`
`sample the output of image sensor 46 at predetermined intervals. Id., 5:40-67.
`
`Accordingly, DRAMs 58, 60 are “communicatively coupled with the sensor.”
`
`Applicant also admitted a nearly identical limitation is known in the art.
`
`EX1013, 101, 107.
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`
`c)
`
`Element 2: a computer processor configured to: record
`sensor data obtained by the sensor in the at least one
`memory;
`Patent Owner’s Constructions: Patent Owner’s position is that the claimed
`
`“computer processor configured to” claim limitations do not invoke Section 112, ¶ 6
`
`(EX1056, 008-019), and the claims broadly cover any “computer processor”
`
`configured to perform the claimed functions. Yerazunis discloses microprocessor 54
`
`(a computer processor) that records sensor data obtained from the camera 40 in the
`
`DRAM 58 (at least one memory). EX1062, ¶¶351-354. Specifically, Yerazunis’s
`
`video recording device under control of microprocessor 54 “records video frames
`
`successively in at least one circular buffer memory organized as a continuous loop.”
`
`EX1017, 2:19-23, 17:9-20, 17:50-59. Camera 40 captures video, and one or more
`
`ADCs 48 convert the captured video into a digital signal. Id., 5:40-67. The digital
`
`signal is provided to microprocessor 54, which “compresses the digitized frame data
`
`and stores the compressed frame data in the next sequential location of [a] circular
`
`buffer” formed in DRAM 58. Id., 2:45-47, 6:24-26, 6:52-7:6, 10:55-67, 11:50-14:44,
`
`17:50-59, and Figs. 3, 4a, 4b, 6-8, 14.
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`
`Id., Figs. 4a, 4b.
`
`Figure 5 illustrates aspects of Yerazunis’s process for “record[ing] sensor data
`
`obtained by the sensor in the at least one memory” at least at steps 122, 124, 126,
`
`
`
`and 130.
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`Id., Fig. 5 (color added); see also id., 10:55-11:7.
`
`Yerazunis thus describes a “computer processor” (microprocessor 54) that is
`
`“configured to: record sensor data obtained by the sensor in the at least one memory,”
`
`disclosing element 2 under Patent Owner’s position that Section 112, ¶6 is
`
`inapplicable (referred to herein as Patent Owner’s “non-MPF position”). EX1062,
`
`¶¶351-354.
`
`Yerazunis also discloses element 2 under Patent Owner’s alternative position
`
`should Section 112, ¶6 apply. Id., ¶355. While Patent Owner cites wide swaths of
`
`the ’910 patent as allegedly disclosing corresponding structure for this element, Patent
`
`Owner also contends that the corresponding structure broadly encompasses any
`
`“component of a recording device including software or hardware that accomplishes
`
`the functions described” (referred to herein as Patent Owner’s “MPF position”).
`
`EX1057, 014-020. As explained above for Patent Owner’s non-MPF position,
`
`Yerazunis’s microprocessor 54 (computer processor) runs software to accomplish the
`
`claimed function of “record sensor data obtained by the sensor in the at least one
`
`memory.” See also EX1017, 6:17-23, 6:37-51.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Corresponding Structure: Yerazunis discloses the corresponding
`
`structure identified by Petitioner, i.e., “hardware and/or software programmed to
`
`perform the circular buffer algorithm disclosed at 2:36-42, 5:3-5, 5:40-52, Fig. 3,
`
`7:48-59, Fig. 4A, 7:60-65.” EX1062, ¶¶356-360.
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`
`Yerazunis discloses a recorder with a memory that runs software to accomplish
`
`functions, consistent with the ’910 patent’s disclosure at 5:3-5. Specifically,
`
`Yerazunis discloses video electronics 42 (a recorder) having microcontroller 54 that
`
`runs software for performing instructions. EX1017, 6:17-23, 6:37-51. The video
`
`electronics 42 include DRAM 58, 60 (memory), and microprocessor 54 records sensor
`
`data from the camera 40 in the circular buffer formed in the memory, consistent with
`
`the ’910 patent’s disclosure at 2:36-42, Fig. 3, 7:48-59, 7:60-65, and Figure 4A:
`
`’910 Patent
`In Figure 4A, a recording facility
`
`In
`
`Yerazunis
`Yerazunis’s
`
`gun-camera
`
`records data stream “A” into circular
`
`embodiment, microprocessor 54 stores
`
`buffer 400. EX1060, 7:60-65.
`
`a first digital data stream generated by
`
`
`
`one or more ADCs 48 in a circular
`
`buffer formed
`
`in DRAM 58, 60
`
`(memory). EX1017, 2:19-23, 2:45-47,
`
`6:24-26, 6:52-7:6, 10:55-67, 11:50-
`
`14:44, 17:9-20, 17:50-59, and Figs. 3, 5
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`
`(e.g., steps 122, 124, 126, 130), 6-8, 14.
`
`EX1062, ¶¶357-359.
`
`Additionally, in recording the sensor data in the circular buffer formed in the
`
`memory, Yerazunis’s microcontroller 54 skips over write-protected matter, consistent
`
`with the ’910 patent’s disclosure at 2:36-42. EX1017, 3:28-33, 17:45-61. Further,
`
`Yerazunis’s recorder (video electronics 42) records the sensor data “in digital [or
`
`analog] format,” consistent with the ’910 patent’s disclosure at 5:40-52. EX1017,
`
`2:37-47, 5:49-67, 6:14-16, 6:52-57. EX1062, ¶360.
`
`d)
`
`Element 3: in response to a first trigger signal, designate
`for write-protecting a first portion of the sensor data
`that was captured prior to occurrence of the first trigger
`signal, wherein the first portion of the sensor data
`occupies a portion of the at least one memory that is less
`than the entirety of the at least one memory and
`corresponds to a length of time prior to the first trigger
`signal;
`Patent Owner’s Constructions: Yerazunis’s microprocessor 54 is a “computer
`
`processor” that performs the function of element 3, under Patent Owner’s non-MPF
`
`position. EX1056, 008-019. In embodiments, Yerazunis’s microprocessor 54
`
`comprises “a number of inputs 68 which permit activation of the video recording device
`
`and control of the device by a user.” EX1017, 6:40-42, Figs. 3, 14. Inputs include still
`
`button 74, the activation of which causes a video frame to be “stored within a frame
`
`location within the circular buffer,” with the “frame [being] protected from overwriting
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`while video capture within the circular buffer continues.” Id., 9:27-31, 9:34-42.
`
`EX1062, ¶361-362.
`
`In Yerazunis’s gun-camera embodiment, event sensor 70 generates a “gun firing
`
`signal” “upon discharge of the gun.” EX1017, 3:20-33, 8:8-25, 14:55-61. Upon
`
`detecting the gun-firing signal, microprocessor 54 causes “specified frame data
`
`associated with [the] firing event both before and after the event” to be “preserved,”
`
`such that it “cannot be overwritten as a result of further use of the gun or subsequent
`
`firing events.” Id., 3:25-38, 8:26-30, 15:9-13. With the specified frame data write-
`
`protected, “[f]rame data associated with each subsequent firing event[] is stored within
`
`an unused portion of the circular buffer memory.” Id., 3:31-33. Thus, Yerazunis’s
`
`microprocessor 54 performs the claimed function “in response to a first trigger signal,
`
`designate for write-protecting a first portion of the sensor data that was captured prior
`
`to occurrence of the first trigger signal.” EX1062, ¶363.
`
`Yerazunis also discloses “wherein the first portion of the sensor data occupies a
`
`portion of the at least one memory that is less than the entirety of the at least one
`
`memory.” Yerazunis discloses its “circular buffer memory may be subdivided evenly
`
`to accommodate a predetermined number of firings of the gun,” such that the first firing
`
`event occupies less than the full buffer. EX1017, 17:9-20. For these reasons, Yerazunis
`
`discloses element 3 under Patent Owner’s non-MPF position. EX1062, ¶364.
`
`
`
`-22-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`
`Yerazunis also discloses element 3 under Patent Owner’s MPF position.
`
`EX1057, 014-020. As explained for Patent Owner’s non-MPF position, Yerazunis’s
`
`microprocessor 54 runs software to accomplish the function of element 3. See also
`
`EX1017, 6:17-23, 6:37-51; EX1062, ¶365.
`
`Petitioner’s Corresponding Structure: Yerazunis discloses the corresponding
`
`structure identified by Petitioner, i.e., “hardware and/or software programmed to
`
`perform the circular buffer algorithm disclosed at 2:36-42, 2:49-67, 5:3-5, 5:40-52,
`
`Fig. 4B, 8:10-40, Fig. 4C, 8:55-9:3, 9:65-10:8.” EX1062, ¶¶366-373.
`
`As explained for Petitioner’s corresponding structure for element 2 of claim 1,
`
`Yerazunis discloses a recorder (video electronics 42) with memory and
`
`microcontroller 54 that runs software to accomplish functions consistent with the ’910
`
`patent’s disclosure at 2:36-42, 5:3-5, 5:40-52, 7:48-59, and Fig. 3. The operation of
`
`Yerazunis’s microprocessor 54 is also consistent with the ’910 patent’s disclosure at
`
`2:49-67, Fig. 4B (described at 8:10-40), and Fig. 4C (described at 8:55-66):
`
`
`
`-23-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,965,910
`
`
`’910 Patent
`In Figure 4B, the protecting facility has
`
`In
`
`Yerazunis
`Yerazunis’s
`
`gun-camera
`
`protected a recent period of data stream
`
`embodiment, microprocessor
`
`54
`
`“A” as a function of a “start” signal. In
`
`protects a recent period of the first data
`
`protecting recent data, the system can
`
`stream recorded in the circular buffer
`
`protect
`
`a