Trials@uspto.gov Paper 29
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: June 1, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2016-002851
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FINK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Protection One, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2016-01235, has been
`joined as a party to the petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`On December 4, 2015, RPX Corporation (collectively with Protection
`
`One, Inc., “Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of
`claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’983 patent”).
`Paper 1 (“Pet.”). On March 14, 2016, MD Security Solutions LLC (“Patent
`Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On June
`6, 2016, we instituted trial as to claims 1–20 of the ’983 patent. Paper 9
`(“Decision to Institute” or “Inst. Dec.”).
`
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Request for Rehearing, which
`we denied. Paper 11; Paper 12 (“Decision on Rehearing” or “Dec. Reh’g”).
`Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response. Paper 13 (“PO Resp.”).
`Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner Response. Paper 18 (“Pet.
`Reply”). An oral hearing was held on February 15, 2017. A transcript of
`the hearing has been entered into the record. Paper 28 (“Tr.”).
`
`This Final Written Decision (“Decision”) is issued pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons that follow, we conclude Petitioner has
`demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–20 of the
`’983 patent are unpatentable.
`
`A. Related Matters
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify the following pending judicial
`matters as relating to the ’983 patent: MD Security Solutions, LLC v. Bright
`House Networks, LLC, No. 6:15-cv-00777 (M.D. Fl.), MD Security
`Solutions LLC v. CenturyLink, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-01967 (M.D. Fl.), and MD
`Security Solutions LLC v. Protection 1, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-01968 (M.D. Fl.).
`Pet. 2–3; Paper 7, 1.
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`
`B. The ’983 Patent
`The ’983 patent relates to a “[s]ecurity alarm system for protecting a
`structure [that] includes motion detectors connected to cameras.” Ex. 1001,
`Abstract. At least one of the motion detectors has an external field of view
`of the protected structure in order to detect an approaching intruder, and a
`camera arranged such that the camera has a field of view encompassing at
`least part of the field of view of the associated motion detector. Id. at 2:31–
`35, 6:66–7:1. The system also includes a handheld telecommunications unit
`that allows a user to activate, deactivate, and make adjustments to the alarm
`system. Id. at 11:31–34. Figure 1 of the ’983 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a schematic embodiment of an alarm system in
`accordance with the invention. Id. at 6:36–37. The schematic of Figure 1
`includes motion detector 10, camera 12, on-site computer 14, and hand-held
`telecommunications unit 42. Id. at 6:48–53, 11:1–3. “[E]ach camera 12 is
`triggered to obtain an image only when its associated motion detector 10
`detects motion in the field of view of the motion detector 10.” Id. at 7:37–
`40. On-site computer 14 will receive these images from these cameras 12.
`Id. at 8:51–58. A processor sends these images via a telecommunications
`module to hand-held telecommunication unit 42. Id. at 2:40–45.
`Additionally, hand-held telecommunications unit 42 may send a command
`causing the cameras 12 to obtain and transmit images to the
`telecommunications unit. Id. at 2:46–50.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claims 2–10 depend directly
`or indirectly from claim 1, and claims 12–20 depend directly or indirectly
`from claim 11. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
`1. An alarm system for protecting a structure, comprising:
`at least one motion detector arranged to have a field of
`view external of the structure and including an area proximate
`the structure;
`at least one camera associated with and coupled to each
`of said at least one motion detector, each of said at least one
`camera being arranged relative to the associated one of said at
`least one motion detector such that said camera has a field of
`view encompassing at least part of the field of view of the
`associated one of said at least one motion detector, each of said
`at least one camera having a dormant state in which images are
`not obtained and an active state in which images are obtained
`and being activated into the active state when the associated one
`of said at least one motion detector detects motion;
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`
`a processor coupled to said at least one camera and
`arranged to control said at least one camera and receive the
`image obtained by said at least one camera;
`a telecommunications module coupled to said processor,
`telecommunications module
`being
`capable
`of
`said
`communications over a telecommunications network; and
`a handheld telecommunications unit for transmitting
`commands for said processor via said telecommunications
`module to cause said processor to provide images to said
`telecommunications module
`to be
`transmitted
`to
`the
`telecommunications unit.
`
`Ex. 1001, 13:53–14:11.
`
`D. Pending Grounds of Unpatentability
`The first pending ground of unpatentability challenges independent
`claims 1 and 11 and dependent claims 2–8 and 18–20, as directed to obvious
`subject matter, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), over the teachings of Milinusic2
`and Osann.3 The second pending ground of unpatentability challenges
`dependent claims 9, 10, and 12–17 as directed to obvious subject matter,
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), over the teachings of Milinusic, Osann, and Ozer.4
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Citing its declarant, Dr. Lavian, Petitioner opines that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would “have had at least a B.S. in Electrical
`Engineering, Computer Engineering or Computer Science or the equivalent,
`along with 2 years of working experience in image processing and/or
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 7,106,333 B1, issued September 12, 2006 (Ex. 1003)
`(“Milinusic”)
`3 U.S. Patent No. 7,253,732 B2, issued August 7, 2007 (Ex. 1004) (“Osann”)
`4 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0120581 A1, published June
`24, 2004 (Ex. 1005) (“Ozer”)
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`developing telecommunications systems such as networked computer
`systems.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 13–14).
`Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Parker, “generally agree[s] with [Dr.
`Lavian’s] opinion about the level of ordinary skill in the art,” except that, in
`this field, “professional experience is more valuable than education.” Ex.
`2001 ¶ 13. In Mr. Parker’s opinion, therefore, “a person of ordinary skill in
`the art in the timeframe of 2006 would have had a Bachelor of Science
`degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering or Computer
`Science or the equivalent, along with 2 years of working experience in
`image processing and/or developing telecommunications systems such as
`networked computer systems, or less education and 5-10 years of industry
`experience in electronic security systems.” Id.
`We agree with Mr. Parker’s proposed definition, which is the same as
`Dr. Lavian’s, but also includes artisans with more industry experience and
`less educational experience. We note that our analysis would be the same
`under either definition.
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under the broadest
`reasonable construction standard, claim terms are generally given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`1. “receive the image”
`Neither party proposes an explicit construction for this term.
`However, in the context of its arguments regarding Milinusic, Patent Owner
`contends “[t]o a person having ordinary skill in the art, ‘receive’ describes a
`general act of setting up the conditions necessary to bring a video stream
`into memory.” PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner bases this definition on Mr.
`Parker’s declaration that “[r]eceive . . . describes a general capability of
`accepting data and writing into memory.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 20. Patent Owner also
`cites the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, which defines “receive” as “[t]o
`accept data from an external communications system . . . and store the data
`as a file.” Ex. 2004, 376. We determine that this interpretation is not
`supported by the evidence.
`In the first place, according to the ’983 specification, the processor
`“receives the image,” “derive[s] a silhouette of any objects in the image,
`[and] compare[s] the silhouette[] to a library of stored silhouettes.” Ex.
`1001, 3:52–56, 5:8–11. In other words, the processor receives an image,
`performs image processing (i.e., derives a silhouette) and compares to a
`library of stored silhouettes. Patent Owner does not direct us to specification
`evidence that the image data must be stored, on the processor or anywhere
`else. Thus, while receiving an image suggests that the processor “accepts
`data”—as the first part of Mr. Parker’s definition and the dictionary require,
`the second part of the definition requiring the data to be stored in memory is
`not supported.
`Mr. Parker ultimately conceded as much in his deposition. There, Mr.
`Parker acknowledged that his declaration testimony requiring received data
`to be stored in processor memory is not supported. See Ex. 1013, 36:11–16.
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`Moreover, Mr. Parker stated that he did not agree with that aspect of the
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary definition:
`I would have stopped [the definition] after “to accept data
`from an external communications system, such as a local area
`network or telephone line.”
`I do not consider “and store the data as filed -- as a file”
`to be necessary to meet the definition of receive, in my opinion,
`or the opinion of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`Ex. 1013, 40:4–40:13 (emphasis added). Thus, consistent with the intrinsic
`evidence, Mr. Parker’s view is that receiving means “accepting data,” but
`not necessarily storing it. Accordingly, we determine that the broadest
`reasonable construction of “receive the image,” in light of the specification,
`is “accept the image.”
`
`D. Unpatentability of Claims 1–8, 11, and 18–20
`over Milinusic and Osann
`Petitioner contends claims 1–8, 11, and 18–20 are unpatentable over
`the combination of Milinusic and Osann. Pet. 37–55. We have reviewed the
`arguments in the Petition, Patent Owner’s Response, Petitioner’s Reply, as
`well as the relevant evidence discussed in those papers and other record
`papers. We are persuaded Petitioner sufficiently establishes that the subject
`matter of claims 1–8, 11, and 18–20 of the ’983 patent would have been
`obvious over the combination of Milinusic and Osann.
`1. Milinusic (Ex. 1003)
`Milinusic relates to “a surveillance system . . . for collection, analysis,
`and distribution of surveillance data.” Ex. 1003, 1:16–19. The surveillance
`system includes sensors to detect movement in a predefined area and
`cameras configured to capture an image of the area. Id. at 5:52–59. Figure
`4 of Milinusic is reproduced below:
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 depicts an embodiment of the surveillance system. Id. at 2:12–14.
`The system includes sensors (250 and 260), cameras (451, 452, and 461),
`surveillance server 210, and surveillance client 240. Id. at 5:23–30, 2:61–
`65.
`
`The cameras are configured to capture an image of an area upon the
`occurrence of predetermined events, such as the detection of movement
`within the area being monitored by the sensor units. Id. at 5:55–59. The
`surveillance server 210 receives surveillance data from the various sensor
`units and incorporates the data into the surveillance database 220. Id. at
`4:14–15, 4:25–29. The surveillance system also includes a surveillance
`client that may be implemented as a personal digital assistance (PDA) that is
`configured to control or adjust specified sensor units. Id. at 3:33–39.
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`2. Osann (Ex. 1004)
`Osann relates to a “home security/surveillance system.” Ex. 1004,
`1:21–24. The surveillance system includes Energy Monitoring and Control
`(EMAC) points to enable communication with an exterior camera and
`motion sensor. Id. at 9:22–30. Figure 28 of Osann is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 28 depicts a video camera and motion detector. Id. at 8:51–54.
`Motion detector 85 and video camera 86 are “mounted on the exterior wall
`84 of a home or building.” Id. at 25:55–60. Using these elements, the
`detection of a possible intruder can set off an alarm. Id. at 14:4–12. When
`motion is detected, the video information from that area of the home or
`building can be recorded and buffered. Id. at 14:24–26.
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Independent Claims 1 and 11
`Petitioner presents a proposed mapping of Milinusic and Osann to the
`limitations of claims 1 and 11. Pet. 37–55. Patent Owner disputes
`Petitioner’s contentions with respect to the “processor” limitation of claims
`1 and 11. PO Resp. 11–21. Before turning to the disputed limitation, we
`address the limitations not in dispute.
`a. Undisputed limitations
`With respect to the preamble of claim 1, Petitioner contends
`surveillance system 100 of Milinusic discloses the recited “alarm system for
`protecting a structure,” such as a warehouse. Id. at 43–44 (citing, e.g., Ex.
`1003, 6:59–67). Petitioner relies on both Milinusic and Osann as disclosing
`the recited “at least one motion detector arranged to have a field of view
`external to the structure and including an area proximate the structure.” Id.
`at 44. Specifically, Petitioner relies on Milinusic as teaching motion
`detectors (e.g., Ex. 1003, 3:51–55 (“sensor units 250, 260, and 270 may also
`be configured as position sensing devices, such as . . . [a] motion detector”))
`and Osann as teaching motion detectors that monitor the exterior of a
`structure (e.g., Ex. 1004, Ex. 1004, 25:55–60, Fig. 28 (reproduced above)
`(depicting motion sensor 85 and video camera 86 attached to exterior wall
`84)).
`Claim 1 further recites “at least one camera associated with and
`coupled to each of said at least one motion detector . . . .” Ex. 1001, 13:57–
`58. Petitioner contends Milinusic’s system teaches sensor units 250 and 260
`that include cameras 451, 452, and 461 coupled to motion detectors. Pet. 44
`(citing Ex. 1003, 3:47–51, 5:24–43, 5:51–59, Figs. 2 and 4).
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1 requires each camera to be “arranged relative to the
`associated one of said at least one motion detector such that said camera has
`a field of view encompassing at least part of the field of view of the
`associated one of said at least one motion detector . . . .” Ex. 1001, 13:59–
`63. Petitioner contends “Milinusic’s sensor units 250 and 260 are arranged
`to monitor a predetermined area, with cameras 451, 452, and 461 being
`arranged to capture an image of the area upon detection of movement within
`the area being monitored.” Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:51–59).
`Claim 1 also requires each camera to “hav[e] a dormant state in which
`images are not obtained and an active state in which images are obtained and
`being activated into the active state when the associated one of said at least
`one motion detector detects motion.” Ex. 1001, 13:63–67. Petitioner
`contends Milinusic’s description of setting image capture to occur upon the
`detection of movement in an area being monitored teaches an “active state”
`in which images are obtained upon the detection of motion by an associated
`motion sensor and a “dormant state” in which images are not obtained. Pet.
`45 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:51–59).
`Claim 1 recites “a telecommunications module coupled to said
`processor, said telecommunications module being capable of
`communications over a telecommunications network.” Ex. 1001, 14:4–7.
`Petitioner contends Milinusic’s I/O processor 375 is coupled to CPU 360
`and provides an interface to a network such as the Internet. Pet. 45 (citing
`Ex. 1003, 3:18–19, 4:16–23, Fig. 3).
`Finally, claim 1 recites “a handheld telecommunications unit for
`transmitting commands for said processor via said telecommunications
`module to cause said processor to provide images to said
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`telecommunications module to be transmitted to the telecommunications
`unit.” Ex. 1001, 14:7–11. Petitioner contends the telecommunications unit
`is taught by Milinusic’s surveillance client 240, which may be a PDA,
`configured to request surveillance data, which includes image data, from
`surveillance server 210. Pet 46 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:31–37). Petitioner
`further contends CPU 360 controls the server so that image data may be
`received from the camera. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 3:12–15, 4:25–30); Ex. 1010
`¶ 131.
`As noted above, Patent Owner does not address these limitations or
`the foregoing contentions. Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations
`with minor differences. See Ex. 1001, 15:21–42. Petitioner addresses these
`differences (e.g., a plurality of motion detectors as opposed to at least one
`motion detector) and relies on substantially the same mapping to that
`discussed above for claim 1. See Pet. 52–54. We determine the record
`supports Petitioner’s contentions with respect to the undisputed limitations
`of claims 1 and 11 and, therefore, adopt them as our findings and
`conclusions.
`b. The disputed “processor” limitation
`Claim 1 recites “a processor coupled to said at least one camera and
`arranged to control said at least one camera and receive the image obtained
`by said at least one camera” (the “processor limitation”). Ex. 1001, 14:1–3.
`Claim 11 recites a similar processor limitation. Petitioner contends that the
`processor limitation is taught or suggested by Milinusic’s description of a
`central processing unit, CPU 360, configured to control the operation of
`server 210 so that images may be received from a camera. Pet. 42, 45
`(citing Ex. 1003, 3:12–15, 4:14–16, 4:25–30); Ex. 1010 ¶ 128. For purposes
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`of the Decision to Institute and Decision on Rehearing, we agreed that
`Milinusic teaches a processor receiving image data, because Milinusic
`specifically states that CPU 360 “retrieves and distributes surveillance data
`to a requesting surveillance client 240.” See Dec. Reh’g 3–4 (quoting Ex.
`1003, 4:30–32).
`Patent Owner contends Milinusic does not disclose a “processor that
`receives the image” as recited by claim 1 and a similar limitation of claim
`11. PO Resp. 12 (emphasis added). Patent Owner concedes that CPU 360
`retrieves the image and distributes the data to a surveillance client, but
`contends that a person of ordinary skill would not understand this to mean
`that CPU 360 receives the image because “‘retrieve’ and ‘receive’ have
`different meanings.” Id. at 13, 17–21. According to Patent Owner,
`Milinusic uses the term “receive” to bring a video stream into memory,
`while “retrieve” is used in the context of “getting a specific video clip from
`memory.” Id. at 19 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003, 3:58–59 (retrieving), 5:39–40
`(receiving), 8:49, 8:55). In other words, according to Patent Owner and its
`declarant, Mr. Parker, when the CPU in Milinusic retrieves the image data, it
`does not receive the data, but directs the sensors to store the data in database
`368. Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 19).
`We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s arguments are based on
`its construction of “receive the image,” which requires storing a video clip or
`image in memory. See supra § II.B.1. Instead, for the reasons discussed
`above, we determined that the requirement that the processor “receive the
`image” merely requires the processor to “accept the image” for any reason
`including further processing. Id. The question before us, therefore, is not
`whether “retrieve” and “receive” necessarily have the same meaning, as
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner contends, but whether Milinusic’s description of CPU 360
`retrieving the image teaches or suggests accepting the image, as the claim
`term “receive the image” requires. See PO Resp. 13 (“‘retrieve’ and
`‘receive’ have different meanings”).
`As Patent Owner notes, one common definition of retrieve, in the
`context of computers generally, is to “obtain a specific requested item.” Id.
`at 19 n. 7 (citing Ex. 2004, 376). This is consistent with how Milinusic
`generally uses the term. For example, “[s]urveillance client 240 is
`preferably configured to allow a user to retrieve surveillance data or
`specified reports.” Ex. 1003, 3:34–37. “[Surveillance server 210] is also
`preferably configured to retrieve and distribute surveillance data to a
`requesting surveillance client.” Id. at 3:64–66. In both cases, the retrieving
`device obtains or accepts the data, and, in the server case, distributes it
`further. Similarly, the fact that Milinusic provides that CPU retrieves the
`image data and distributes it to the client (see Ex. 1003, 4:29–32)
`sufficiently suggests that CPU 360 obtains or accepts the image data even if
`not storing that data locally.
`In any event, in its Reply, Petitioner cites evidence of a combined
`CPU and graphics processor in Milinusic that conclusively teaches the
`required processor that receives the image.5 According to Petitioner, Mr.
`Parker testified that, within the server, CPU 360 directs I/O processor 375 to
`pass the image to graphics processor 385 for further processing of the image.
`Pet. Reply 10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 18). Thus, Petitioner contends, at least
`
`
`5 In view of Patent Owner’s hearing argument that these contentions are
`unsupported by expert testimony and, therefore, lack evidence of motivation
`to combine (e.g., Tr. 33:2–12), we address this reply-argument separately.
`15
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`graphics processor 385 receives the image. Id. at 10–11. In addition,
`Petitioner contends that Milinusic discloses that CPU 360 may perform the
`functions of the graphics processor 385. Pet. Reply 10–11 (Ex. 1003, 4:57–
`60; Ex. 1013, 157:11–13). Consequently, Petitioner contends, CPU 360
`receives the image because it may perform the functions of the graphics
`processor 385, which receives the image. Id. at 10–11. Petitioner contends
`Mr. Parker conceded as much in his deposition. Id. at 11 (Ex. 1013, 155:15–
`158:14, 105:11–15). We agree.
`As Mr. Parker and Patent Owner conceded, the graphics processor
`“has received the data.” Ex. 1013, 104:23–105:9 (“The graphics processor
`has received data from the I/O – ultimately the source of the data was the
`data store memory, the database.”); Tr. 28:1–7 (“[T]here is a graphics
`processor . . . that receives the data.”); Ex. 2001 ¶ 18 (“CPU 360 would
`instruct the I/O Processor 375 to receive the video data from the network and
`pass it off to the Graphics Processor 385.”). Furthermore, when asked
`whether because “CPU 360 implements the functionality of the graphics
`processor 385, you would agree that the CPU 360 receives image data,” Mr.
`Parker admitted it would. Ex. 1013, 105:11–15 (emphasis added). This is
`consistent with the cited portions of Milinusic, which state that a “graphics
`processor 385 is provided for processing graphical data,” Ex. 1003, 4:20–21,
`and that “CPU 360 may also be configured to incorporate or otherwise carry
`out the functions of [graphics] processor 385,” id. at 4:58–60. Accordingly,
`we determine these disclosures confirm the determination above that
`Milinusic teaches a processor (i.e., CPU 360 carrying out functions of
`graphics processor 385) receiving the image data, as claim 1 requires.
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`In the hearing, Patent Owner argued that the embodiment where CPU
`360 and graphics processor 385 were the same was not raised until
`Petitioner’s Reply, and there is no testimony from Dr. Lavian that a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have combined this embodiment with the
`embodiment relied upon for the rest of claim 1. Tr. 28:15–22, 29:15–19,
`31:4–14, 33:2–12. Patent Owner cites the Board’s decision in Jackel Int’l
`Ltd. v. Admar Int’l Ltd., Case IPR2015-00979 (PTAB May 20, 2016) (Paper
`21), as supporting this argument.
`Petitioner responded in the hearing that it is not relying on separate
`embodiments, but, essentially, on different “species” of the same
`embodiment of server 210, based on two different ways of implementing the
`graphics processor. Tr. 35:24–36:13. We agree with Petitioner.
`It is true that “it can be important to identify a reason that would have
`prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the
`elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
`Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). However, motivation may be
`expressly taught by the references themselves. Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v.
`Great Lakes Plastics, 75 F.3d 1568, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`Here, Petitioner relies generally on server 210 in its Petition and, as an
`initial matter, contends CPU 360 receives the data (which we agree with for
`the reasons discussed above). See Pet. 43–46 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003, 4:14–
`16, 4:25–30). Moreover, in response to Patent Owner’s arguments and its
`cross-examination of Mr. Parker, Petitioner also relies on the fact that server
`210 is expressly described in terms of at least two species—one with
`separate CPU and graphics processor and one in which the graphics
`
`17
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`processor function is combined with the CPU.6 See Ex. 1003, 4:58–60
`(“CPU 360 may also be configured to incorporate or otherwise carry out the
`functions of [graphics] processor 385.”). As such, it is unlike the situation in
`Jackel, where the petitioner relied on a separate embodiment (i.e., Fig. 6) for
`teaching dependent claim 2, without explaining why the embodiment would
`have been combined with the embodiment relied upon for claim 1 (i.e., Figs.
`1–5). Jackel, slip op. 4–5. Because the single-processor (i.e., combined
`CPU and graphics processor) embodiment is expressly disclosed within the
`context of server 210, we determine that the teaching is provided by the
`reference itself. Accordingly, for these additional reasons, we find that
`Petitioner has demonstrated that the combination of Milinusic and Osann
`teaches or suggests the disputed processor limitation of claims 1 and 11.
`c. Motivation to combine Milinusic and Osann
`As explained above, Petitoner relies on Osann as teaching an
`externally mounted video camera and motion sensor. See Pet. 39–40.
`Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood a primary use of Milinusic’s system was to protect a home or
`building against an intruder. Id. at 38–39 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:37–44; Ex.
`1010 ¶ 118). Petitioner further contends that “Osann explicitly teaches
`generating an alarm upon the occurrence of an event such as detecting an
`
`
`6 Although not argued as such by Patent Owner, we also do not find that
`Patent Owner lacked notice and opportunity to respond. Once Patent Owner
`was aware of Mr. Parker’s deposition testimony, which Petitioner relied on
`in its Reply, Patent Owner did not make an effort to “avail[] itself of the
`procedures for filing a sur-reply, a motion to strike, or a conference call to
`challenge” the propriety of Petitioner’s Reply argument. Securus Techs.,
`Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp., No. 2016-1992, -1993, 2017 WL 1458867, at
`*4 (Fed. Cir. April 25, 2017).
`
`18
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`intruder.” Id. at 39 (citing Ex. 1004, 14:4–20; Ex. 1010 ¶ 119). Thus,
`Petitioner contends, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
`Milinusic to notify its surveillance client 240 of a condition such as
`detection of an intruder outside of a structure by arranging the motion
`sensors external to the structure’s access points (i.e., doors and windows), as
`taught by Osann. Id. at 39–40 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 119–121).
`We agree with these contentions, which are not disputed. See
`generally PO Resp. The cited portion of Osann teaches detecting an
`intruder, including allowing the police to view inside of or around a home
`or building, using elements of its invention (see Ex. 1004, 14:4–14 (“could
`allow a Security Company or even the Police to view inside and around the
`home or building in the case of an alarm being set off”)), which includes an
`externally mounted security camera and motion sensor (id. at 25:54–56).
`Milinusic’s objective is to identify intruders in a monitored area. See Ex.
`1003, 1:39–43. Given these explicit teachings and suggestions, relied upon
`by Petitioner and Dr. Lavian, the conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have been motivated to combine Milinusic’s security system
`with Osann’s externally mounted security camera and motion sensor to
`protect against intruders is supported by the record. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
`418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`established by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of
`claims 1 and 11 would have been obvious over the combination of Milinusic
`and Osann.
`
`19
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`4. Dependent Claims 2 and 18
`Claim 2 recites “said processor is coupled to said at least one motion
`detector and said telecommunications unit is also arranged to transmit
`commands for said processor to activate and deactivate said at least one
`motion detector.” Ex. 1001, 14:12–16. Claim 18 recites a similar limitation.
`Petitioner contends CPU 360 in Milinusic is coupled to motion detectors in
`sensor units 250, 260, or 270 and that surveillance client 240 can be used to
`control or adjust sensor units. Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1003, 2:61–67, 3:37–40,
`3:51–55). Although Milinusic does not explicitly describe commands used
`to activate or deactivate a motion detector, Petitioner contends that Milinusic
`teaches that the sensor units can be set to capture images either at
`predetermined number of times or upon detecting movement in a monitored
`area. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 5:55–60).
`Petitioner contends it would have been obvious to modify Milinusic to
`provide a way for surveillance client 240 (i.e., the “telecommunications
`unit”) to send a command to deactivate the motion detector monitoring an
`area when the associated camera is set to capture images at predetermined
`times rather than upon motion detection to save power. Id. at 46–47 (citing
`Ex. 1010 ¶ 133). Petitioner also contends it was well known to provide the
`ability to remotely turn on or off a security system and, therefore, would
`have been obvious to modify the combined system to allow a user to
`remotely disable the system by sending commands from surveillance client
`240 to server 210. Id. at 47 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 133).
`Patent Owner responds a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that deactivating motion detectors to save power is not p