`
`
`IPR2016-00285, Paper No. 28
`March 7, 2017
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RPX CORPORATION and
`PROTECTION ONE, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`____________
`
`Held: February 15, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
` The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`February 15, 2017, commencing at 1:32 p.m., at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria,
`Virginia.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`RICHARD F. GIUNTA, ESQUIRE
`ELISABETH H. HUNT, Ph.D.
`Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2206
`
`--and--
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOSHUA A. GRISWOLD, ESQUIRE
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1717 Main Street
`Suite 5000
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`DANIEL J. WEINBERG, ESQUIRE
`Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP
`350 Marine Parkway
`Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, California 94065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE FINK: This is a hearing for Inter Partes
`Review Number IPR2016-00285. Petitioner is RPX Corporation
`and Protection One, Incorporated, and Patent Owner is MD
`Security Solutions, LLC.
`I am Administrative Patent Judge Fink and with me are
`Judge Medley and Judge Easthom.
`Let's start with appearances. Who is representing
`Petitioner?
`MR. GIUNTA: Good morning, Your Honor. Rich
`Giunta and Elizabeth Hunt from Wolf Greenfield for Petitioner
`RPX.
`MR. GRISWOLD: Josh Griswold and Bret Winterle,
`
`Protection One.
`JUDGE FINK: Okay. And Mr. Weinberg, I presume.
`MR. WEINBERG: That's right. Dan Weinberg from
`Freitas Angell & Weinberg on behalf of the Patent Owner.
`JUDGE FINK: All right. Mr. Weinberg, you'll be
`presenting for Patent Owner pursuant to lead counsel's request to
`be absent today.
`MR. WEINBERG: That's correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE FINK: All right. As set forth in the hearing
`order, each side will have -- please be seated -- each side will
`have 30 minutes to present its case. We will start with Petitioner
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`followed by Patent Owner. Petitioner is permitted to reserve time
`for rebuttal, but please let us know before you begin if you wish
`to reserve time.
`And, counsel, you may begin when you're ready.
`MR. GIUNTA: Thank you, Your Honor.
`Your Honor, before I begin I just have one
`housekeeping question. I think I understand from the trial order
`that it will be okay for us to reference the slides themselves and
`that we don't need to reference the underlying exhibits in the
`record and I just want to make sure that that was accurate before
`we started.
`JUDGE FINK: I think you can represent -- you can
`refer to the slides. And if you wish to talk about the underlying
`exhibits and refer to them for purposes of keeping the record
`clear, that's also helpful, so.
`MR. GIUNTA: All right. Thank you, Your Honor.
`And our hope would be our plan, depending upon how many
`questions Your Honors have, would be to reserve somewhere
`between 5 and 10 minutes, if that's acceptable to Your Honors.
`JUDGE FINK: Yes.
`MR. GIUNTA: So in this proceeding we have two
`instituted grounds on 20 claims. The Patent Owner Response
`challenges only two claim limitations as allegedly not being met
`by the grounds. And in the absence of questions from Your
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`Honors on other issues, our point would be to focus on those two
`limitations to demonstrate how they're met.
`I plan to address the Patent Owner's argument that
`Milinusic's CPU does not receive image data and Ms. Hunt will
`address Dependent Claims 2 and 18, which are the only ones to
`which the Patent Owner's Response raises an additional
`challenge.
`So for all the claims other than 2 and 18, Patent Owner
`Response raises the single argument that the Milinusic's CPU
`does not receive image data. Your Honors have rejected this
`argument already twice, once in the Institution Decision and then,
`again, in a decision denying a request for reconsideration.
`Your Honors should reject it again for two reasons.
`First, it's based on an unreasonably narrow claim construction
`that's unsupported by the '983 specification or the extrinsic
`evidence that the Patent Owner itself cites about the plain
`meaning of the word receive.
`Second, the Patent Owner's expert admitted at
`deposition that Milinusic's CPU, in fact, receives image data,
`even under the Patent Owner's unduly narrow interpretation. So
`if Your Honors, again, reject this argument, that's dispositive for
`every challenged claim, except for Claims 2 and 18.
`So if we take a look at slide 2, the '983 patent is directed
`to a security system with motion detectors and cameras to capture
`video or still images of a monitored area and that image data is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`transmitted to an on-site computer 14 or it can be viewed by a
`person or image processing could be performed to determine
`whether there's a threat.
`Turning to slide 3, as Your Honor summarized in the
`Institution Decision, Milinusic is similarly directed to a
`surveillance system with sensor units that include motion detector
`activated cameras to capture video or still images of a monitored
`area and as shown in Figure 2 a captured image data is
`transmitted from the sensor units over a network 250 to a
`surveillance server 210.
`As shown on slide 4, Osann is directed to the same type
`of system and it's described as being used to monitor outside a
`home to generate an alarm if an intruder is detected.
`Milinusic doesn't explicitly state that its system is used
`to protect the exterior of a home or building against to detect an
`intruder, but Osann does and the basis of the combination is that
`it would have been obvious to use Milinusic's system in that
`manner.
`
`So if we turn to slide 7, we reproduced a portion of the
`scheduling order which makes clear that the Patent Owner waives
`any argument that's not made in the Patent Owner Response.
`And the reason we just wanted to emphasize that is, again, the
`Patent Owner Response does not challenge any of the reasons for
`combining Milinusic and Osann or that the combination fails to
`meet any limitation of the independent claims except for one.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`The Patent Owner's sole argument for every claim
`except for 2 and 18 is that the CPU in Milinusic's server does not
`receive and distribute.
`So turning to slide 9, let's take a look at what Milinusic
`discloses. So Milinusic explicitly discloses that the surveillance
`data is "received" by the surveillance server and that that
`surveillance data includes video and still images.
`Now, if we turn to slide 11, Milinusic server 210
`includes a CPU 360 that's shown at Figure 3. The CPU is
`"configured to control the operation of the server 210 so that the
`surveillance data may be received" from the sensor units. Despite
`this disclosure, the Patent Owner Response argues that the CPU
`360 somehow doesn't receive the image data.
`So let's take a look at what the Patent Owner Response
`itself says is the plain meaning of the word receives. So looking
`at slide 12, the Patent Owner Response argues that received
`means a general act of setting up the conditions necessary to
`bring a video stream into memory.
`And the Patent Owner Response cites a Microsoft
`dictionary definition. It says the plain meaning of receive is to
`accept data from an external communication system such as a
`local area network and store it as a file.
`Milinusic's CPU is, again, and I quote, "configured to
`control the operation of the server 210 so that the surveillance
`data may be received." So it's CPU 360 in Milinusic's server that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`sets up the conditions to bring the image data into the server and
`to store it.
`And if we take a look at slide 13, there's no dispute that
`it's the CPU 360 that determines whether to accept the image data
`from the network in Milinusic. Patent Owner's own expert
`conceded it at deposition. So Milinusic's CPU receives the image
`data under the plain meaning of receives as established by the
`Patent Owner's own evidence.
`And if we turn to slide 18. So at his deposition, Mr.
`Parker agreed that the Microsoft dictionary definition cited in the
`Patent Owner Response establishes the plain meaning of the word
`receive to a person of skill in the art, but the Patent Owner
`Response and Mr. Parker's declaration never actually apply that
`interpretation of receive and never actually alleges that
`Milinusic's CPU 360 fails to meet it.
`Instead, the Patent Owner Response and Mr. Parker
`make a different argument that applies a different interpretation
`of receives that is unsupported.
`So if we take a look at slide 15, Patent Owner Response
`argues that the CPU 360 does not receive the image data because
`the image data is "not delivered to the CPU 360 for processing."
`If we take a look at slide 16, at his deposition Mr.
`Parker explained that the basis for his opinion that Milinusic's
`CPU does not receive image data is that a processor does not
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`receive data unless the data is actually stored in the processor's
`internal memory.
`Turning to slide 17, Mr. Parker admitted that he cited
`nothing in his declaration to support this narrow interpretation of
`the word receive. So MD Security's argument that Milinusic's
`CPU doesn't receive image data is based on an improperly narrow
`construction that's inconsistent with the interpretation that MD
`Security itself offers for the plain meaning of the word receive
`and is unsupported by anything other than Mr. Parker's naked
`conclusion. And, again, if Your Honors once again reject this
`argument, that's dispositive for every claim except for 2 and 18.
`In addition, Milinusic describes a CPU as processing
`image data and receiving it, even under the Patent Owner's
`narrow construction, and there's no dispute about this. MD
`Security's expert admitted it at his deposition multiple times.
`So if we go to slide 26, the Petition cites Milinusic's
`disclosure at column 4, lines 25 to 30, as illustrating how the
`CPU meets the processor receiving the image data limitation.
`And if we take a look at slide 27, this disclosure is the
`disclosure we looked at earlier, which describes the CPU as
`controlling the server to receive the surveillance data from the
`sensor units and stored in the database.
`Taking a look at slide 28, at his deposition Mr. Parker
`testified that one of skill in the art would have understood that in
`the process of this receiving and storing of the surveillance data,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`that data would have been processed upon receipt to encode it, for
`example, to compress it to save storage space before it was
`stored.
`
`And if we go to slide 29, in his declaration Mr. Parker
`testified that it's the graphics processor 385 that would do this
`processing. His assertion that the graphics processor would do
`this rather than the CPU is not supported by anything. But it
`doesn't matter because Milinusic discloses an embodiment where
`the CPU 360 performs the functions of the graphics processor.
`If we go to slide 30, Milinusic could not be more
`explicit in this regard. I'm just going to quote, "CPU 360 may
`also be configured to incorporate or otherwise carry out the
`functions of processor 385," and the processor 385 is the graphics
`processor.
`If we turn to slide 31, Mr. Parker conceded at deposition
`that Milinusic discloses that the functionality of the graphics
`processor can be incorporated into the CPU.
`So turning to slide 33, Mr. Parker ultimately conceded
`that in Milinusic's embodiment where the CPU implements the
`functions of the graphics processor, the CPU 360 processes the
`image data before it is stored and receives that image data even
`under Mr. Parker's narrow interpretation. These admissions are
`fatal to MD Security's challenge to all of the claims except for
`Claims 2 and 18 because, again, the only argument in the Patent
`Owner Response is that Milinusic's CPU does not receive the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`image data, and at deposition MD Security's own expert conceded
`that that's simply not true.
`Now, Mr. Parker put some qualifiers on his admissions
`during his deposition. He testified that it was impractical and too
`expensive to use one processor in Milinusic to perform the
`functions of the CPU and the graphics processor rather than using
`two. Those assertions were not credible for the reasons that we
`discussed in our Reply at pages 15 to 18. But even if they were
`true, they're legally irrelevant.
`If we turn to slide 36, Mr. Parker conceded that it's, of
`course, technically possible to implement what Milinusic
`explicitly describes because the processor is "programmable after
`all." So the assertion that it would have been more expensive,
`even if it was true, is a commercial consideration that's irrelevant
`to the question of obviousness as the Federal Circuit explained in
`the orthopedic case that's cited in our Reply at pages 14 to 15.
`There's also additional disclosure in Milinusic that
`describes the CPU 360 as receiving the image data. So if we turn
`to slide 43, Milinusic describes CPU 360 as being configured to
`predict future conditions or occurrences based upon detected
`conditions or occurrences represented by the surveillance data.
`As shown on slide 45, Mr. Parker conceded that the
`server 210 analyzes image data to make these predictions.
`At slide 46 Mr. Parker conceded that whatever the
`processor is in the server 210 that performs this analysis, it
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`necessarily receives the image data. And Mr. Parker said the
`graphics processor, not the CPU, does this image processing.
`That's directly contradicted by Milinusic's teaching at column 4,
`lines 34 to 38, that is the CPU that is configured to do this.
`But it doesn't matter whether the graphics processor or
`the CPU does this processing given Milinusic's express teaching
`that the CPU 360 can implement the functions of the graphics
`processor.
`So turning to slide 47, Mr. Parker admitted that the CPU
`receives the image data in performing image analysis in the
`embodiment where the CPU performs the functions of the
`graphics processor.
`So, in conclusion, the sole argument in the Patent
`Owner Response that Milinusic's CPU doesn't receive the image
`data is based upon an improperly narrow construction and MD
`Security's expert admits that this limitation is not met -- is met,
`excuse me, even under his narrow construction. That's
`dispositive for every claim other than Claims 2 and 18.
`And unless Your Honors have any questions, I'll turn it
`over to Ms. Hunt.
`JUDGE FINK: What are your reasons, again, for why
`the construction is narrow? If I could just go back to that part.
`MR. GIUNTA: Yes, Your Honor. So, again, if we go
`to slide 12. All right. So they cited -- they made an argument.
`So there is a section of their Response where they were focusing
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`on -- Your Honors had pointed to disclosure in Milinusic about
`retrieve and they were focusing your attention on what the
`difference is between retrieve and receive.
`In that process they explained what the plain meaning
`of the word receive is. And, again, they argued that receiving is
`the general act of setting up the conditions necessary to bring the
`video stream into memory and they cited this Microsoft
`dictionary definition that says to receive is to simply accept data
`from an external communication such as a LAN and store it in a
`file.
`
`So this -- his argument about a processor not receiving
`the image data unless it's actually stored in the internals is a much
`narrower construction than this plain meaning that they argued to
`Your Honors and that the extrinsic evidence that they provided to
`Your Honors.
`JUDGE FINK: All right. So you view their
`construction of receive as requiring storage on the processor. The
`processor receiving would require the processor to store on its
`own internal cache memory I guess.
`MR. GIUNTA: I just want to make sure I understand,
`Your Honor, which of their -- because they offered two different
`ones. In this one --
`JUDGE FINK: So I see the one with the Microsoft in
`Footnote 7.
`MR. GIUNTA: Right.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`JUDGE FINK: And then is there another one?
`MR. GIUNTA: Yes, Your Honor. So, again, if we look
`at slide 18 or actually let's go to slide 16. So at slide 16 this is
`what Mr. Parker said at his deposition, what he said is that a
`processor cannot receive data unless the processor actually takes
`it into the processor and stores the data in its internal memory,
`and that was the basis for his assertion that Milinusic's CPU
`doesn't receive the data. He said it doesn't actually take the data
`and store it in its own internal memory and that is narrower than
`the plain meaning they offered about setting up the conditions.
`I think there is no dispute from Mr. Parker that the CPU
`controls everything in Milinusic's server and there's no dispute
`that the server receives the image data and so there's no dispute
`that the CPU sets up the conditions to bring that data into the
`server and store it.
`But what he said is there is no -- Milinusic never has
`that image data actually go into the CPU and reside in an internal
`memory, and that is the unduly narrow construction that is
`inconsistent with the broader interpretation that they offered
`when they were distinguishing retrieve from receive from Your
`Honors and it's narrower certainly than the Microsoft dictionary
`definition that they cited.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: On your slide 46 you're
`contending that he also testified that data cannot be brought into a
`processor and manipulate it without being stored within the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`processer in some form, so I guess that's implicit in any processer.
`Is that the basis for the testimony that you're citing?
`MR. GIUNTA: I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the
`question.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: On the one hand it seems like the
`expert said that Milinusic did not -- the processor did not store the
`information internally in its own internal processor, but then on
`this slide it looks like -- on slide 46 it looks like Mr. Parker is
`saying that all processors have to do that to manipulate the data.
`So is that part of the argument that he's making that -- and Patent
`Owner is making that that must be performed in the other
`processor, the graphics processor? I just don't understand what --
`MR. GIUNTA: Yes, Your Honor. So what Mr. Parker
`was saying is that a processor cannot process data without storing
`it in its internal memory. We asked him questions about can a
`processor process data sort of in one clock cycle, if you would,
`and not actually stored in its internal memory and he said no.
`So he said a processor cannot process data without
`storing it in its internal memory and his assertion is that the word
`receives actually requires that. So a processor doesn't receive
`data unless it resides in the internal memory of the processor,
`which is, again, inconsistent with what the Microsoft dictionary
`definition that they provided, which simply said setting up the
`conditions to receive the data and storing it. There's no
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`requirement in that dictionary definition that the processor
`actually had the data reside in its internal memory.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: But either way in Milinusic, then,
`Patent Owner's position seems to be it's -- it has to be because all
`processors have to receive it in their internal memory to process it
`and because Milinusic does say somewhere that they process the
`data, then it has to be in one or the other of those two processors,
`the graphics processor or the one -- the 360.
`MR. GIUNTA: I mean, that's not what they said, but
`that is the logical consequence of what they said, right? So what
`the Patent Owner's position was, we pointed to the CPU 360 in
`the Petition as meeting the processor limitation. They said let's
`look at this block diagram of Milinusic and he said I don't think
`the data ever goes into the CPU.
`The CPU is kind of the quarterback, if you would,
`which tells the I/O processor take the data, pass it to the graphics
`processor and store it. So his position was the data never actually
`goes into the CPU itself. Our Response to that is twofold. One,
`the word receives does not require that, right? The CPU, by
`setting up the conditions and instructing these other processes to
`do it, that meets the plain meaning.
`But our other response to that is that the data does
`actually go into and reside in the CPU in two ways. One is that
`Milinusic describes an embodiment where there isn't a separate
`graphics processor. The CPU performs those functions. So all of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`the -- and, frankly, I don't think Mr. Parker, when he filed his
`declaration, knew that this disclosure was in Milinusic. Because
`when he was shown that at his deposition, I think he was
`surprised.
`So he acknowledged that, yeah, there's an embodiment
`where the CPU implements those functions and he clearly said
`earlier that Milinusic performs those functions and that when a
`processor in Milinusic performs them, the processor receives the
`data even under his interpretation.
`There is also the additional disclosure in Milinusic
`about doing image processing to detect conditions and Milinusic
`says that the CPU 360 is configured to do that. So there are
`multiple places in Milinusic that actually describe the data as
`residing in the internal memory of the processor and Mr. Parker
`admitted that.
`JUDGE FINK: Where was that disclosure? I guess I
`missed that in your presentation, the thing you just said about --
`let's see, you said that the processor can do some additional
`processing on the data.
`MR. GIUNTA: The image processing.
`JUDGE FINK: On the image processing of the data.
`MR. GIUNTA: Your Honor, one second. Yeah, so if
`we go to slide 43. So Milinusic's CPU is configured to predict
`future conditions or occurrences based upon detected conditions
`or occurrences represented by the surveillance data.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`And if we go to slide 45.
`JUDGE FINK: Which paragraph were you reading
`from there?
`MR. GIUNTA: Sorry. So the paragraph at the bottom
`one on the slide at column 4, lines 34 to 38. If you take a look at
`the first highlighted line, it says the CPU is preferably configured
`and then there are a number of functions that are described in that
`paragraph that the CPU is configured to perform.
`And then that last highlighted sentence, it's configured
`to predict future conditions or occurrences based upon detected
`conditions or occurrences represented by the surveillance data
`stored in the database. So the surveillance data includes the
`image and video data.
`So this paragraph and Mr. Parker admitted at his
`deposition that whatever the processor is that is performing this
`task is taking the surveillance data into its internal memory and
`analyzing it. He just said it was the graphics processor that did it,
`even though --
`Can you go back to the slide, Elisabeth?
`Even though the disclosure in Milinusic is that the CPU
`360 is configured to perform this function.
`JUDGE FINK: All right.
`MR. GIUNTA: If Your Honors don't have further
`questions, I'll turn it over to Ms. Hunt to deal with Dependent
`Claims 2 and 18. Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`MS. HUNT: Thank you. Good morning, Your Honors.
`So I'm starting at slide 51 to talk about Claims 2 and 18.
`This is an additional argument that the Patent Owner's Response
`raises in addition to the independent claims. They challenge
`Claim 2, but the Response makes no specific challenge on any
`other dependent claim. So, Your Honors, finding in the
`Institution Decision that all of the other dependent claims have
`been shown to be unpatentable remains unchallenged.
`On slide 52 we have Claim 2 which recites that
`commands can be transmitted "to activate and deactivate said at
`least one motion detector," and there is also another Dependent
`Claim 18 with a similar limitation.
`On slide 53 RPX's Petition provided two different
`reasons why it would have been obvious to activate and
`deactivate motion detectors in the Milinusic/Osann system.
`Reason 1 was to save power by deactivating a motion detector
`when it's not in use and reason 2 was to allow for a user to
`remotely activate and deactivate the system as a whole, such as
`when you're expecting people to arrive whom you don't want to
`trigger the alarm.
`On slide 54 RPX's expert, Dr. Lavian, provided the
`same two independent reasons. He noted that deactivation could
`be done to save power and additionally to remotely turn off the
`system when the user doesn't want it to be armed.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`On slide 55 the Patent Owner and their expert entirely
`ignore the second reason that RPX and Dr. Lavian gave. Their
`only argument is that the saving power reason allegedly wouldn't
`be a practical reason for deactivating the motion detectors.
`And they base this -- on slide 56 -- on this idea that
`Milinusic would likely use a particular type of detector that
`consumes very little power along with other characteristics that
`would allegedly make cutting the power impractical. But all of
`this is directed to the first potential reason that Dr. Lavian gave
`for deactivating Milinusic's motion detectors which was to save
`power.
`
`On that first reason the Patent Owner's expert, Mr.
`Parker's testimony was inconsistent. Here on slide 61 he admitted
`in his deposition that other types of detectors that are deactivated
`were "very common" and that they save power when they're
`turned off.
`Moreover, though the Patent Owner and Mr. Parker
`didn't address at all the second reason that RPX and Dr. Lavian
`gave for deactivation in Milinusic, which was for the user to
`deactivate the system for a period of time when it's not supposed
`to be armed.
`Going to slide 57, the Patent Owner's expert, Mr.
`Parker, admitted at deposition that he didn't discuss Dr. Lavian's
`testimony on this additional reason for obviousness. For instance,
`Dr. Lavian had cited a reference Lee that confirmed his own
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`testimony that remote deactivation of a motion detecting
`surveillance system was known in the art.
`Mr. Parker admitted that he never reviewed the Lee
`reference and, in fact, he'd never even seen it before being asked
`about it at his deposition.
`On slide 58 Mr. Parker said at deposition that he
`thought the idea of deactivating the motion detectors was
`invented in the '983 patent and that he wasn't aware of any prior
`art that discussed such deactivation. Of course, he hadn't looked
`at the Lee reference that Dr. Lavian had cited on this point, but on
`slide 59 he conceded that if there were an example in the prior art
`of turning off the motion detectors, it could, of course, be applied
`in Milinusic's system. So that's exactly what's provided in the
`Lee reference.
`On slide 60 Dr. Lavian cited Lee as an example that
`teaches remote deactivation of a motion detection surveillance
`system like Milinusic's. Dr. Lavian explained that this was a
`known capability that would have been an obvious improvement
`to the Milinusic/Osann system for the benefit of disarming the
`system when appropriate, such as when authorized people need to
`approach and enter the building.
`This rationale and modification is completely ignored
`and entirely unchallenged by the Patent Owner's expert and the
`Patent Owner's Response and it establishes the unpatentability of
`Claims 2 and 18 as RPX and Dr. Lavian explained. Again, these
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`are the only claims in addition to the independent claims for
`which the Patent Owner presents any arguments at all in their
`Response. All of those arguments fail for the reasons we've
`discussed and the claims should all be held unpatentable on the
`instituted grounds.
`So at this point, unless you have questions, we would
`like to reserve the remainder of our time for rebuttal.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Was Lee cited in the Petition for
`that reason or motivation?
`MS. HUNT: So Lee was a reference that was already in
`the proceeding because it was the subject of another ground. Dr.
`Lavian had cited it in his declaration, not as a secondary reference
`for the combination, but just as additional support and authority
`backing up his own testimony that this was a known capability in
`the art that the person of skill in the art would have understood
`was known. Thank you.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Thank you.
`JUDGE FINK: All right. So you'll have about just
`under five minutes for rebuttal.
`And, Mr. Weinberg, you'll have 30 minutes.
`MR. WEINBERG: Thank you, Your Honors.
`My arguments are going to focus primarily on the
`independent claims for obvious reasons perhaps. But just to
`finish off where we ended or to pick up where we just ended with
`respect to the dependent claims, Your Honor's question is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`precisely the issue we have with respect to the arguments being
`presented in the Reply and here today is that the Lee reference is
`not one of the grounds for obviousness that was instituted by the
`Board.
`
`Lee was I believe part of Grounds 1 and 2. The Board
`in the Institution Decision rejected
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
