UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`ENFORCEMENT VIDEO, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DIGITAL ALLY, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case No. Unassigned
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`______________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`ENFORCEMENT VIDEO, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DIGITAL ALLY, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case No. Unassigned
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`______________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND: THE ‘950 PATENT ....................................................... 1
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Overview of the ‘950 Patent ............................................................... 1
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History ................................................ 3
`
`The earliest priority date to which any claim is entitled is
`August 10, 2008 .................................................................................... 7
`
`III. FORMAL REQUIREMENTS...................................................................... 9
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Grounds for Standing ......................................................................... 9
`
`Payment of Fees ................................................................................... 9
`
`c. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ...................................... 9
`
`i.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest .............................................................. 9
`
`ii.
`
`Related Matters ......................................................................... 9
`
`iii. Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information .......... 10
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Proof of Service on the Patent Owner .............................................10
`
`Power of Attorney .............................................................................10
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF RELIEF REQUESTED .....................................10
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ....................................11
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................12
`
`a.
`
`Claim Terms Not Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6 (Pre-AIA) .....12
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Claim Terms Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6 (Pre-AIA) ...........13
`
`i.
`
`Claims 4 and 17 “a location determining device
`configured to determine a location of the vehicle when
`the video from the first camera is captured.” ............................ 14
`
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION FOR INVALIDITY .................................14
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 8, 12-17, 20, and 24 are
`rendered obvious by Pandey in view of Monroe and
`Sony User Guide. ..................................................................... 14
`
`Ground 2: Claims 9 and 21 are rendered obvious by
`Pandey in view of Monroe and Sony User Guide, and
`in further view of Lewellen. ................................................... 53
`
`Ground 3: Claims 10 and 22 are rendered obvious by
`Pandey in view of Monroe and Sony User Guide, and
`in further view of Vanman. .................................................... 55
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................57
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .........................................................................................12
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................13
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 .....................................................................................................10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ...................................................................................................12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 .......................................................................................................10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`EX. Description
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`1002 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0195655
`
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 6,518,881
`
`1004 Sony SNC-RZ25N/RZ25P Network Camera User's Guide
`
`1005 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0008255
`
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 8,081,214
`
`1007 Declaration of William C. Easttom II
`
`1008
`
`Plaintiff Digital Ally, Inc.'s Brief in Support of Its Claim Construction
`Proposals
`
`1009 Defendant's Responsive Claim Construction Brief
`
`1010
`
`Plaintiff Digital Ally, Inc.'s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions
`1011 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No. 60/717,602
`
`1012 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/531,955
`
`1013 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No. 60/955,129
`
`1014 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/189,192
`
`1015 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/885,230
`
`1016 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/975,844
`
`1017 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/137,207
`
`1018
`
`Redline Comparison of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/930,362 and
`U.S. Patent Publication No.2009/0195655
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Enforcement Video, LLC d/b/a WatchGuard Video (“WatchGuard” or
`
`“Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`(“the ‘950 Patent”)(EX_1001), assigned to Digital Ally, Inc. (“Digital Ally” or
`
`“Patent Owner”).
`
`II. BACKGROUND: THE ‘950 PATENT
`
`a. Overview of the ‘950 Patent
`
`The ‘950 Patent is directed to “a vehicle-mounted system for recording
`
`video and audio.” EX_1001, Abstract. According to the ‘950 Patent, prior-art
`
`vehicle-mounted video systems are deficient because they include an independent
`
`display monitor that is difficult to view while a vehicle is in operation, because
`
`they are bulky, expensive and difficult to maintain, and because it is difficult to
`
`find space for the camera, recording system, and display monitor within the
`
`vehicle. Id., 1:41-57. The ‘950 Patent further alleges that traditional vehicle-
`
`mounted video systems are bottlenecked by performing video encoding centrally at
`
`a central control unit. Id., 1:58-2:3.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`With reference to FIG. 11 of the ‘950 Patent, reproduced above, the ‘950
`
`Patent’s purported innovation with respect to the display and space-related
`
`problems of the prior art is to dispose a display monitor (1040) and/or a central
`
`control unit (1012) within a rear-view mirror housing (1020). FIG. 2 of the ‘950
`
`Patent, reproduced below, illustrates an example of a display monitor (40) that is
`
`mounted in a rear-view mirror housing (20) substantially behind a mirror (170)
`
`such that displayed video is viewable through the mirror (170).
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`With reference again to FIG. 11, the ‘950 Patent purports to eliminate the
`
`encoding-related performance bottleneck of the prior art by using particular video
`
`cameras (1140) and microphones (1142), commonly referred to as Internet
`
`Protocol (IP) cameras and microphones, respectively, that are notorious for their
`
`ability to encode audio and/or video, as applicable, on the respective device.
`
`According to the ‘950 Patent, the video cameras (1140) and microphones (1142)
`
`transmit encoded audio and/or video to the central control unit (1142) via a
`
`combination of a high-speed bus (1148), such as an Ethernet cable, and a hub
`
`(1064).
`
`b. Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`The ‘950 Patent is a member of a patent family that, as of the date of this
`
`Petition,
`
`includes
`
`two expired provisional applications,
`
`two abandoned
`
`applications, two patents, and a pending application (hereinafter, “the Family”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`The first and second-filed members of the Family are Provisional Patent
`
`Application No. 60/717,602, filed on September 16, 2005 (hereinafter, “the First
`
`Application”), and a non-provisional patent application that claims priority to the
`
`First Application, i.e., U.S. Patent Application No. 11/531,955, filed on September
`
`16, 2006 (hereinafter, “the Second Application”). See EX_1011 and EX_1012.
`
`The claims of the Second Application focused on aspects of integrating video
`
`system components, including a display, into a rear-view mirror housing of a
`
`vehicle. See EX_1012, pgs. 67-73. The Second Application became abandoned
`
`after the Applicant failed to respond to an Office Action. See id., pg. 1.
`
`The third and fourth-filed members of the Family are Provisional Patent
`
`Application No. 60/955,129, filed on August 10, 2007 (hereinafter, “the Third
`
`Application”), and U.S. Patent Application No. 12/189,192, filed on August 10,
`
`2008 (hereinafter, “the Fourth Application”). See EX_1013 and EX_1014. The
`
`Fourth Application was filed as a continuation-in-part of the Second Application
`
`and with a priority claim to the Third Application. See EX_1014, pg. 1218. The
`
`Third Application introduces for the first time that cameras and microphones can
`
`perform encoding. See EX_1013, pgs. 6-7, 13-15. The Fourth Application
`
`introduces for the first time a smartphone that is adapted for communication with
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`and manipulation of a vehicle mounted recording system and cameras that can
`
`allegedly associate or stamp encoded video with unique camera identifiers such as
`
`serial numbers. See EX_1014, pgs. 1197-98. The Fourth Application eventually
`
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,520,069. See id., pg. 10. With respect to display-
`
`related functionality, both independent claims that issued from the Fourth
`
`Application require, inter alia, a display monitor that is mounted in a rear-view
`
`mirror housing substantially behind a mirror such that displayed video is viewable
`
`through the mirror, similar to what is shown in FIG. 2 of the ‘950 Patent. See id.,
`
`pgs. 58, 60.
`
`To date, three continuations chain from the Fourth Application. First, U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 12/885,230, filed on September 17, 2010 (hereinafter, “the
`
`Fifth Application”), included claims that, like the claims of its predecessor
`
`applications, require a display monitor mounted behind a rearview mirror in a rear-
`
`view mirror housing such that displayed video is viewable. See EX_1015, pg.
`
`1092. The Fifth Application became abandoned after the Applicant failed to
`
`respond to an Office Action. See id., pg. 1. Second, the application that became
`
`the ‘950 Patent was filed on August 26, 2013 as U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`13/975,844. See EX_1016. Third, Application No. 15/137,207, filed on April 25,
`
`2016, remains pending before the USPTO. See EX_1017.
`
`The ‘950 Patent as originally filed included two independent claims, both of
`
`which recited, inter alia, a display monitor mounted in a rear-view mirror housing
`
`substantially behind a mirror such that displayed video is viewable through the
`
`mirror. See EX_1016, pgs. 121, 125. These originally-filed claims were rejected
`
`in an Office Action mailed October 6, 2015. See id., pgs. 41-52. In response,
`
`Applicant removed its purported display-related innovation, i.e., a display monitor
`
`mounted in a rear-view mirror housing, from the independent claims and added
`
`other limitations in its place. See id., pgs. 24-30. For example, in both
`
`independent claims, Applicant added a second video camera that can capture and
`
`encode video, recited that both video cameras implement pre-event recording
`
`loops, and required that the video cameras associate (or stamp) encoded video with
`
`unique camera identifiers. See id., pgs. 24-25, 27. With respect to display-related
`
`functionality, Applicant recited in both independent claims that video from the two
`
`video cameras is selectively playable on a display of a smartphone carried by a
`
`user of the video system such that the display is configured to display selected
`
`decoded video. See id. Further, in independent claim 1, Applicant added
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`requirements that the central control unit be configured to: a) be updated in the
`
`field via a wireless data link; and b) wirelessly upload captured, decoded, and
`
`timestamped video stored in memory to a remote computer. See id., pg. 24. After
`
`Applicant’s response, and without further comment on the record, the Examiner
`
`allowed the application. See id., pgs. 8-12.
`
`c. The earliest priority date to which any claim is entitled is
`August 10, 2008
`
`Both independent claims of the ‘950 Patent include numerous limitations
`
`that were first disclosed, if at all, in the Fourth Application. As noted above, the
`
`Fourth Application was filed on August 10, 2008. Therefore, the earliest priority
`
`date to which any claim of the ‘950 Patent is entitled is August 10, 2008.
`
`For example, independent claim 1 recites “a first video camera...configured
`
`to...associate the encoded video with a first unique camera identifier” and “a
`
`second video camera configured to...associate the encoded video with a second
`
`unique camera identifier.” Similarly, independent claim 13 recites “a first video
`
`camera...configured to...stamp the encoded video with a first unique camera
`
`identifier” and “a second video camera configured to...stamp the encoded video
`
`with a second unique camera identifier.” The Fourth Application is the earliest-
`
`filed application in the Family that arguably discloses or mentions using cameras
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`to associate or stamp encoded video with unique camera identifiers. See EX_1014,
`
`pgs. 1197-98. Therefore, the configuration to “associate” or “stamp” encoded
`
`video with a unique camera identifier as required by independent claims 1 and 13,
`
`respectively, was not disclosed, if at all, until the August 10, 2008 filing date of the
`
`Fourth Application.
`
`By way of further example, independent claims 1 and 13 each recite that
`
`video from two video cameras is selectively playable on a display of a smartphone
`
`carried by a user of the video system such that the display is configured to display
`
`selected decoded video. The Fourth Application is the earliest-filed application in
`
`the Family that arguably discloses or mentions a “smartphone.” See EX_1014,
`
`pgs. 1197-98. Therefore, the “selectively playable” feature of independent claims
`
`1 and 13 was not disclosed, if at all, until the August 10, 2008 filing date of the
`
`Fourth Application.
`
`Numerous other features of the pending claims were likewise not disclosed,
`
`if at all, until the August 10, 2008 filing date of the Fourth Application. However,
`
`because it has already been demonstrated that no application of the Family filed
`
`earlier than the Fourth Application can support the independent claims of the ‘950
`
`Patent, discussion of those other features is omitted herein in the interest of brevity.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`III. FORMAL REQUIREMENTS
`
`a. Grounds for Standing
`
`Petitioner certifies that the '950 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review of the
`
`'950 Patent on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`b. Payment of Fees
`
`William Allen Moon (Reg. No. 57,792), who is a signatory to this petition,
`
`authorizes the director to charge the fee specified by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15 (a) and any
`
`additional fees that might be due in connection with this Petition to Deposit
`
`Account No. 23-2426.
`
`c. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`i. Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(1), the real party-in-interest is Enforcement
`
`Video, LLC d/b/a WatchGuard Video.
`
`ii. Related Matters
`
`Digital Ally has asserted the '950 Patent against WatchGuard in Digital Ally,
`
`Inc. v. Enforcement Video, LLC d/b/a WatchGuard Video, 2:16-CV-02349-JTM
`
`(D. Ka. filed May 27, 2016) (the “co-pending litigation”). That proceeding would
`
`be affected by a decision in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`iii. Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead counsel is Adam Sanderson (Reg. No. 75,065) at Reese Gordon
`
`Marketos LLP, 750 N. St. Paul St., Suite 6210, Dallas, Texas 75201; 214-382-9810
`
`(tel); 214-501-0731 (fax). Backup counsel is William Allen Moon (Reg. No.
`
`57,792) at Winstead PC, 2728 N. Harwood St., Suite 500, Dallas, TX 75201;
`
`214-745-5641 (tel); 214-745-5390 (fax). Petitioner consents to service by email at
`
`adam.sanderson@rgmfirm.com and amoon@winstead.com.
`
`d. Proof of Service on the Patent Owner
`
`As identified in the attached Certificate of Service, a copy of this Petition in
`
`its entirety is being served pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6.
`
`e. Power of Attorney
`
`A power of attorney is being filed with designation of counsel in accordance
`
`with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 (b).
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-4, 8-10, 12-17, 20-22, and 24 of
`
`the '950 Patent based on the grounds identified below. Petitioner also provides the
`
`declaration of Mr. William C. Easttom II (EX_1007).1
`
`
`1 Mr. Easttom is an expert in the field of the alleged invention and the prior art.
`
`See, e.g., EX_1007, ¶¶4-10.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`Grounds 1-3
`
`Claims Challenged
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) 1-4, 8, 12-17, 20, and 24
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) 9 and 21
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) 10 and 22
`
`1
`
`Ground References
`Pandey, Monroe, Sony
`User Guide
`Pandey, Monroe, Sony
`User Guide, Lewellen
`Pandey, Monroe, Sony
`User Guide, Vanman
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`V. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention (the
`
`“POSITA”) would include a person, for example, with a baccalaureate degree in
`
`technology and approximately two years of working experience in a related field
`
`such as, for example, computer hardware devices, software programming or
`
`design, surveillance equipment, and/or video processing, or four years of such
`
`experience without a baccalaureate degree. See EX_1007, ¶13. This is a sliding
`
`scale. Thus, a person with no formal academic training could still qualify as a
`
`POSITA if such person had significant professional working experience in one or
`
`more of these related fields, and similarly, a person with no working experience
`
`may still qualify as a POSITA if such person has significant academic training in a
`
`related discipline. See id.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`a. Claim Terms Not Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6 (Pre-AIA)
`
`Petitioner proposes that the following constructions should be adopted here
`
`under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, notwithstanding
`
`the parties’ respective constructions in parallel litigation in the District of Kansas,
`
`where the claim construction process is presently ongoing. Unlike litigation before
`
`a federal district court, a claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specifications of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.
`
`2131, 2144 (2016). Using the broadest reasonable construction, the claim terms in
`
`the '950 Patent not governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (pre-AIA) should be construed
`
`as follows:2
`
`Terms / Claims
`Encode
`Decode
`Unique camera identifier
`
`Definition
`“To compress a video or audio file”
`“reversing the encoding”
`“data that identifies a specific camera and not
`only an input associated with a camera”3
`
`
`2 Petitioner reserves the right to argue for a narrower construction for any or all of
`these terms before the district court, given that the district court will apply a
`different, narrower legal standard.
`3 See EX_1016, pg. 32 (Response dated December 22, 2015).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`“Associate”
`
`"...to associate the encoded
`video with a first (second)
`unique camera identifier"
`"To stamp”
`
`“…to stamp the encoded
`video with a first unique
`camera
`identifier"
`Synchronized
`
`Memory for receiving and
`storing the captured,
`decoded,
`and timestamped video
`
`“to include as part of the same file”
`
`“to overlay a unique camera identifier onto the
`encode video”
`
` “a first clock has been matched with a second
`clock”
`“non-volatile storage (e.g., CF card, micro
`hard drive, laptop-type hard drive, flash
`memory card)”
`
`Copies of Plaintiff Digital Ally's Claim Construction Brief, WatchGuard's
`
`
`
`
`
`Responsive Claim Construction Brief, and Digital Ally's Infringement Contentions
`
`are attached as Exhibits 1008, 1009, and 1010, respectively.
`
`b. Claim Terms Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6 (Pre-AIA)
`
`Claims 4 and 17 recite means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112, ¶6 (pre-AIA). Accordingly, the terms addressed below should be limited to
`
`the structures or algorithms disclosed in the ‘950 Patent and equivalents thereto.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`i. Claims 4 and 17 “a location determining device configured
`to determine a location of the vehicle when the video from
`the first camera is captured.”
`
`The phrase "a location determining device" is used in claims 4 and 17. The
`
`recited function is "configured to determine a location of the vehicle when the
`
`video from the first camera is captured." The corresponding structures disclosed in
`
`the specification for this phrase are: FIG. 1 - GPS antenna 150; FIG. 11 - GPS
`
`antenna; and GPS receiver, GPS antenna 150 (EX_1001, 5:1-7).
`
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION FOR INVALIDITY
`
`a. Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 8, 12-17, 20, and 24 are rendered obvious
`by Pandey in view of Monroe and Sony User Guide.
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0195655 to Pandey (“Pandey”)(EX_1002)
`
`was filed on May 14, 2008 and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent
`
`Application No. 60/930,362 filed on May 16, 2007 ("the '362 Application"). A
`
`copy of a redline comparing the disclosure of the '362 Application to Pandey is
`
`provided as EX_1018. As shown in EX_1018, paragraphs [0026], [0057]-[0062],
`
`[0064], and [0095]-[0118] were added as of the filing of Pandey. Petitioner
`
`submits that the arguments below pertaining to Pandey rely upon paragraphs and
`
`Figures that were disclosed in the '362 Application and not the newly added
`
`paragraphs [0026], [0057]-[0062], [0064], and [0095]-[0118]. As such, for the
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`purposes of this Petition, Pandey is entitled to a priority date of May 16, 2007.
`
`Thus, Pandey predates the '950 Patent's earliest priority date by virtue of its own
`
`filing date of May 14, 2008 and the '362 Application's priority date of May 16,
`
`2007.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,518,881 to Monroe ("Monroe")(EX_1003) was filed on
`
`April 13, 2001. Monroe is disclosed in the Background of the Invention section of
`
`Pandey (EX_1002, ¶ [0004]) and is also incorporated by reference by Pandey. Id.,
`
`¶ [0121]. The Sony Network Camera User's Guide for SNC-RZ25N/RZ25P
`
`("Sony User Guide")(EX_1004) was publicly available at least as early as 2004.
`
`Pandey discloses that a Sony Model Number SNCRZ25 camera, which is the
`
`subject of the Sony User Guide, is an example of an IP camera that is suitable for
`
`use with the invention disclosed in Pandey. EX_1002, ¶ [0038].
`
`Pandey, Monroe, and the Sony User Guide are each prior art to the '950
`
`Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). For the reasons that follow, Pandey in
`
`view of Monroe and the Sony User Guide renders obvious claims 1-4, 8, 12-17, 20,
`
`and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`i. Independent Claim 1
`
`1. Preamble: “A video system for a law enforcement
`vehicle:”
`
`Even if the preamble of claim 1 is limiting, Pandey discloses its limitations.
`
`For example, FIG. 1 of Pandey is a diagrammatic view of a remote control video
`
`surveillance system that shows a remote unit 12 mounted on a vehicle 10 and a
`
`remote unit 22 mounted on a vehicle 20. Id., ¶ [0019].
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`The vehicle 10 of Pandey can be a law enforcement vehicle. For example, the
`
`system of Pandey can be used for surveillance (Id., ¶ [0011]) and the system of
`
`Pandey includes a base station 60 that can be located at a police headquarters
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`building. Id., ¶ [0028]. Thus, because the remote unit 12 of the vehicle 10 can be
`
`used for surveillance and communicate with a base station 60 that is located at a
`
`police headquarters building, a POSITA would understand that the vehicle 10
`
`could be a law enforcement vehicle.
`
`Furthermore, Monroe, which is incorporated by reference into Pandey,
`
`discloses a system for recording video that is installed in a squad car 10.
`
`EX_1003, 6:6-11 and FIG. 1. Pandey also notes that the system can be used for
`
`collection of evidence of crimes, which is a law enforcement purpose. Thus, it
`
`would be obvious to a POSITA that the vehicle 10 can be a law enforcement
`
`vehicle.
`
`Thus, Pandey discloses the limitations, if any, in the preamble of claim 1.
`
`2. Claim 1.a): “a first video camera mounted on the law
`enforcement vehicle and configured to capture and
`encode video of an event and to associate the encoded
`video with a first unique camera identifier.”
`
`As discussed above relative to the preamble of claim 1, Pandey discloses
`
`that a remote unit 12 is mounted on a vehicle 10 that can be a law enforcement
`
`vehicle. Id., ¶ [0019] and FIG. 1. Pandey also discloses that the remote unit 12
`
`includes an IP camera 200, which is a first video camera. For example, Pandey
`
`discloses "the major hardware components, and some software components, are
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`depicted [in FIG. 2] for a first embodiment remote unit that is used in the present
`
`invention. An Internet Protocol camera, generally designated by the reference
`
`numeral 200, is provided to output live video information. An example of this type
`
`of IP camera is a Sony Model Number SNCRZ25, or an Axis Model 214. Such
`
`cameras include a video sensor, and typically include a microphone. Moreover,
`
`these IP cameras also have an Ethernet™ output signal." EX_1002, ¶
`
`[0038](emphasis added).
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`The IP camera 200 is configured to capture and encode video of an event.
`
`For example, IP camera 200 includes certain software functions, such as a browser
`
`function 220, a web server function 222, and a data compression routine 224.
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`Id., ¶ [0041]. The data compression routine 224 is used to output a compressed
`
`video signal. Id. In particular, Pandey discloses that the IP camera 200 creates
`
`video information that "can be digitized and sent out through the Ethernet port
`
`using a data link input/output interface circuit 212." Id., ¶ [0039]; see also ¶
`
`[0041]. As discussed above in the claim construction section, "encode" as defined
`
`in the '950 Patent means to compress a video or audio file. See EX_1001, 1:67-2:3
`
`and 8:52-62. Pandey’s data compression routine 224 on the IP camera 200
`
`“encodes” according to this definition because it produces a compressed video
`
`signal that can be decompressed, or decoded, by the data recorder 280. See
`
`EX_1002, ¶ [0049]. Furthermore, the Sony User Guide discloses that the SNC-
`
`RZ25N camera compresses or encodes video using codecs, such as MPEG4 and
`
`JPEG. EX_1003, pg. 78.
`
`The '950 Patent describes an "event" as something that is recorded.
`
`EX_1001, 6:26-31. The video signals captured by the IP camera 200 are of an
`
`"event" because Pandey discloses "a remote control video surveillance system"
`
`(EX_1002, ¶ [0019]) that can be used to "collect evidence of crimes." Id., ¶
`
`[0048]. A crime is a type of event. Thus, when a crime is being committed and
`
`the IP camera 200 of Pandey records the crime, an event is captured by the IP
`
`camera 200. Furthermore, the Sony User Guide discloses that sensors can be used
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`to detect an alarm condition. EX_1004, pgs. 48, 50, 53, 70-71. Upon detection of
`
`an alarm condition, an "event" is recorded by the camera. Id. The Sony User
`
`Guide clarifies that “record events” are types of events used for recording. Id.,
`
`pgs. 70-71. Thus, Pandey in view of the Sony User Guide discloses that a first
`
`camera captures an event.
`
`To the extent that Pandey does not explicitly disclose associating the
`
`encoded video with a unique camera identifier, the Sony User Guide discloses this
`
`aspect. As noted above, Pandey explicitly discloses that the Sony Model Number
`
`SNCRZ25 camera is a suitable camera for the system disclosed in Pandey. The
`
`Sony User Guide is a manual that discloses information regarding the SNCRZ25
`
`camera identified in the disclosure of Pandey. The Sony User Guide discloses that
`
`the video file provided by the SNCRZ25 camera includes various metadata
`
`regarding the video captured by the camera (e.g., model name, IP address, serial
`
`number, record event, date&time, movie, audio). EX_1004, pg. 70-71. Thus, the
`
`SNCRZ25 camera associates this metadata with the encoded video, which
`
`metadata includes the camera's serial number and the date and time of the
`
`recording. Id., pg. 70 (see the example screenshot that includes date and time
`
`information stamped on the video image). For example, the Sony User Guide
`
`discloses that a user can select a video file from a camera for playback. Id., pg. 70.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950
`
`
`
`Once a video file is selected, information boxes are displayed that display
`
`information related to the selected video file. Id., pg. 71. One information box is
`
`described by the Sony User Guide as containing a "serial number of the camera
`
`with which the file is recorded." Id. The '950 Patent explicitly states that a serial
`
`number is a type of unique camera identifier. EX_1001, 10:15-19.
`
`It would have been obvious to associate the serial number of the camera as
`
`metadata to the digitized video signal of IP camera 200 of Pandey because Pandey
`
`already explicitly contemplates using the Sony Model Number SNCRZ25 camera
`
`and doing so would help establish a chain of title for evidentiary purposes. As
`
`noted above, Pandey states that the disclosed system can be used to collect
`
`evidence of crimes. EX_1002, ¶ [0048]. Thus, Pandey discloses the features of
`
`claim 1.a).
`
`3. Claim 1.b): a second video camera configured to
`capture and encode video of the event and to associate
`the encoded video with a second unique camera
`identifier.”
`
`Pandey discloses that additional sensors can be added to the remote unit 12.
`
`For example, Pandey states:
`
`In the remote unit 12, there can be multiple data sensors, and this is
`
`repr
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
