UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`
`ENFORCEMENT VIDEO, LLC
`
`(d/b/a WatchGuard Video)
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DIGITAL ALLY, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01401
`
`Patent 9,325,950
`
`____________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`
`ENFORCEMENT VIDEO, LLC
`
`(d/b/a WatchGuard Video)
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DIGITAL ALLY, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01401
`
`Patent 9,325,950
`
`____________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
`
`A. Related Matters ................................................................................................. 1
`
`B. Summary of the ’950 Patent ............................................................................. 1
`
`C. Summary of the Cited Prior Art ........................................................................ 2
`
`1. Pandey (Ex. 1002) ......................................................................................... 2
`
`2. Monroe (Ex. 1003) ........................................................................................ 3
`
`3. Sony User’s Guide (Ex. 1004) ...................................................................... 4
`
`D. Summary of the Arguments for Patentability ................................................... 5
`
`E. Level of POSITA .............................................................................................. 7
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................. 8
`
`A. “Encode” and “Decode” ................................................................................... 8
`
`B. Other Claim Terms for Which WatchGuard Proposes a Construction ........... 10
`
`C. Claim Terms Allegedly Governed By 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ........................... 11
`
`III. GROUND 1: PANDEY IN VIEW OF MONROE AND THE SONY USER’S
`
`GUIDE DOES NOT RENDER CLAIMS 1-3, 13, AND 15-16 OBVIOUS .............. 13
`
`A. Ground 1, Claims 1 and 13: The Cited Prior Art Does Not Teach the Claimed
`
`“a first video camera configured…to associate the encoded video with a first
`
`ii
`
`
`
`unique camera identifier” or “a first video camera…configured to…stamp the
`
`encoded video with a first unique camera identifier” ............................................. 13
`
`B. Ground 1, Claims 1 and 13: The Cited Prior Art Does Not Teach the Claimed
`
`“second video camera configured to capture and encode video of the event” ....... 28
`
`1. Pandey Does Not Teach a Second Video Camera ...................................... 30
`
`2.
`
`It Would Not Have Been Obvious to Include a Second Video Camera ..... 34
`
`3. The Proposed Combination of Pandey and Monroe Would Not Have
`
`Rendered the Second Video Camera Obvious .................................................... 42
`
`C. Ground 1, Claim 1: The Cited Prior Art Does Not Teach a “central control
`
`unit configured to…timestamp” ............................................................................. 47
`
`D. Ground 1, Claims 2 and 15: Pandey Does Not Teach the Claimed
`
` “high speed bus” .................................................................................................... 50
`
`E. Ground 1, Claims 3 and 16: The Cited Prior Art Does Not Teach a “hub” .... 53
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Advanced Display Systems, Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................... 44
`
`Apple Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR2015-00445, Paper 9 (PTAB Jul. 9,
`
`2015) ....................................................................................................................... 48
`
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................. 35
`
`Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp, Inc., 249 F.3d
`
`1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................................. 12
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .................................................... 9
`
`InfoBionic, Inc. v. Braemer Manuf., LLC., IPR2015-01704, Paper 11 (PTAB Feb. 16,
`
`2016) ....................................................................................................................... 34
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........ 35
`
`Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device Alliance, Inc., 244 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...... 12
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................... 9
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................ 10
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 729 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................... 13
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) ....................................................................................................... 12
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) ....................................................................................................... 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 ............................................................................................................. 1
`35 U.S.C. § 313 ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`Regulations
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.5 ........................................................................................................... 61
`37 C.F.R § 42.5 ........................................................................................................... 61
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ........................................................................................................ 60
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ........................................................................................................ 60
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R § 42.107, Patent Owner, Digital
`
`Ally, Inc. (“Digital Ally”) submits this Preliminary Response for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,325,950 (“the ’950 Patent”) by Petitioner,
`
`Enforcement Video, LLC d/b/a WatchGuard Video (“WatchGuard”).
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`Digital Ally, Inc. is the Patent Owner of the ’950 Patent.
`
`The ’950 Patent is the subject of Digital Ally, Inc. v. Enforcement Video,
`
`LLC d/b/a/ WatchGuard Video, Case No. 2:16-cv-02349-JTM-JPO, pending in the
`
`U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 15/137,207, which is pending, is a
`
`continuation of the ’950 Patent.
`
`Summary of the ’950 Patent
`
`B.
`
`The ’950 Patent is broadly directed to a vehicle-mounted video and audio
`
`recording system, such as for a law enforcement vehicle. Ex. 1001, 2:7-9. The
`
`system uses distributed processing to encode video from two different video
`
`cameras at their sources, e.g., at the video cameras, and a high-speed bus to
`
`connect the various system components together. Id. at 2:9-12.
`
`Prior art systems that processed video data from two different video cameras
`
`at a centralized processor presented technical problems solved by the invention of
`
`1
`
`
`
`the ’950 Patent. The first problem is the ability of a central control unit to process
`
`the large volume of data from video and audio sources. Id. at 1:58-67. To solve this
`
`problem, the ’950 Patent utilizes video cameras and microphones with encoding
`
`abilities so that encoded video and audio data are received by the central control
`
`unit. Id. at 7:20-23, 8:52-55. Existing video cameras at the time of the ’950 Patent
`
`were “unsuitable for use” because existing cameras could not perform the needed
`
`encoding without “substantial modification.” Id. at 7:35-49.
`
`A second technical problem solved by the ’950 Patent is tracking and
`
`verifying which of the two cameras recorded any particular video data. Id. at
`
`10:11-14. To solve this problem, the ’950 Patent utilizes video cameras that
`
`associate or stamp the video data with a unique camera identifier. Id. at 10:14-21.
`
`Summary of the Cited Prior Art
`
`C.
`
`
`1.
`
`Pandey (Ex. 1002)
`
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0195655 to Pandey is broadly
`
`directed to surveillance equipment. Ex. 1002, ¶ 002. A remote unit 12 includes an
`
`IP camera 200, a CPU 202, and memory elements 204, 206. Id. at ¶¶ 0025, 0039. A
`
`digitized video data signal from IP camera is transmitted to data recorder 280 via
`
`cellular router 240. Id. at ¶¶ 0039, 0045, 0048. The IP camera 200 includes a data
`
`compression routine 224, which “allow[s] the IP camera 200 to output a
`
`compressed video signal that will use the rather limited amount of bandwidth that
`
`2
`
`
`
`will be made available to the IP camera (via the cellular network), yet will
`
`nevertheless contain a great amount of video information.” Id. at ¶ 0041.
`
`The video signal is transmitted from the camera via input/output interface
`
`circuit 212, which is connected to PORT A of the cellular router. Id. at ¶¶ 0039,
`
`0045. The video signal is then transmitted to the data recorder 280 via PORT B of
`
`the cellular router. Id. at ¶¶ 0046, 0048. The data recorder includes processing
`
`circuit 282, along with “an important software component 292, which would be a
`
`video encoder/decoder routine.” Id. at ¶¶ 0048-0049. Pandey describes that the
`
`encoder/decoder routine encodes the video data into “various different formats.”
`
`Id. at ¶ 0049.
`
`Pandey discloses that the surveillance system includes only a single video
`
`camera but further includes multiple data sensors 300. See id. at ¶ 0011 (“the
`
`remote units have a video camera that can output live video data, and also have
`
`other types of sensors that can transmit live sensor data”). Pandey lists several
`
`types of data sensors, such as motion, radiation, and acoustic energy data sensors.
`
`Id. at ¶ 0050.
`
`
`
`2. Monroe (Ex. 1003)
`
`Monroe is generally directed to a digital communications system for law
`
`enforcement, generally referred to as a “control module 14.” Ex. 1003, 1:9-13, 6:6-
`
`11. The control module includes a CPU 16, display screen 20, and a transceiver for
`
`3
`
`
`
`wireless equipment. Id. at 6:11-15. As shown in Fig. 2, the control module 14
`
`includes a video camera 54 and audio sensor 52 for capturing video and audio data
`
`and transmitting such data to the base station. Id. at 7:3-12, Fig. 2.
`
`Monroe discloses “tracking” recorded information with location and time of
`
`event using a GPS: “In its preferred form, the GPS system includes a time signal
`
`component as well. This permits the recorder 32 to track any recorded information
`
`with location and time of event, as indicated by input line 38.” Id. at 7:53-56.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Sony User’s Guide (Ex. 1004)
`
`The Sony User’s Guide is related to Sony camera SNC-RZ25N/RZ25P (the
`
`“Sony camera”). Interactions with the Sony camera are made through an external
`
`computer: “This User’s Guide explains how to operate the SNC-RZ25N and SNC-
`
`RZ25P Network Camera from a computer.” Ex. 1004-007 (emphasis added).
`
`Accessing the camera is performed using a web browser, which runs a viewing
`
`program including a main viewer and an SNC video player. Id. at 011, 070.
`
`Each Sony camera is assigned an IP address so that the viewing program can
`
`access the video data from the camera across a network. Id. at 006, 009, 011. Each
`
`camera also includes a serial number. Id. at 009, Step 5. As detailed in Section
`
`III(B), the viewing program knows the serial number for the camera based on the
`
`IP address for the camera. As such, the camera does not associate or stamp the
`
`video with the camera’s serial number.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Summary of the Arguments for Patentability
`
`Regarding Ground 1 and claims 1 and 13, the proposed combination of
`
`Pandey, Monroe, and the Sony User’s Guide does not teach or suggest associating
`
`a unique camera identifier with the video (claim 1) or stamping the video with the
`
`unique camera identifier (claim 13). WatchGuard cites to the Sony User’s Guide
`
`for this limitation. Pet. 22-23. The Sony User’s Guide does teach that the camera
`
`has a serial number, but the Guide does not teach, either expressly or implicitly,
`
`that the camera associates or stamps the camera serial number on video captured
`
`by the camera. Instead, a web-enabled program for controlling the functionality of
`
`the camera knows the camera’s serial number. Ex. 1004-009-011.
`
`In particular, the camera functionality is accessed and controlled via the
`
`web-enabled program that enables receiving, storing, and viewing the video. Id.
`
`During an initial “preparation” and setup or configuration stage, the program
`
`detects the camera on the network, learns the camera’s serial number, and allows
`
`the user to assign or select an IP address for the camera. Id. Thereafter, the user
`
`interacts with the camera via the program and by identifying the IP address
`
`assigned to the camera (note that the IP address can be changed by the user at any
`
`time). Id. at 015. After the initial preparation stage, the program knows the
`
`camera’s serial number, negating any need for the camera to associate or stamp the
`
`video with the serial number.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Regarding Ground 1 and claims 1 and 13, the combination also does not
`
`teach or suggest a second camera configured to encode video. WatchGuard
`
`presents a trio of arguments for why the combination teaches the claimed second
`
`camera or why such is allegedly obvious. First is that Pandey teaches a data sensor,
`
`and a skilled person would know that the data sensor could be a second camera.
`
`Pet. 23-24. WatchGuard’s second argument is that modifying Pandey to include a
`
`second camera would be obvious. Pet. 25. Third, Monroe teaches multiple
`
`cameras. Pet. 25-26. Notably, none of the arguments addresses the ’950 Patent’s
`
`repeated discussion of the problems solved by the claimed invention that
`
`accompany increased data from multiple video cameras. As demonstrated below,
`
`none of the cited art, either alone or in combination, teaches two video cameras
`
`that encode their video, nor does WatchGuard provide a reasonable, articulated
`
`rationale for why adding a second camera that encodes its video to Pandey’s
`
`system would be obvious.
`
`Regarding Ground 1 and claim 1, the proposed combination does not teach
`
`or suggest a central control unit configured to timestamp the encoded video from
`
`the first and second cameras. WatchGuard cites Monroe for teaching such. Pet. 28-
`
`29. Monroe discloses a GPS that includes a time signal component and that
`
`“permits the recorder 32 to track any recorded information with location and time
`
`of event ….” Ex. 1003, 7:53-56. Tracking recorded information with a time of an
`
`6
`
`
`
`event as determined by a GPS is not a teaching that the recorder timestamps the
`
`video.
`
`As established below, WatchGuard has not met its burden of proof that at
`
`least one Challenged Claim is unpatentable, even viewed in the light most
`
`favorable to WatchGuard in this pre-institution stage. Accordingly, the Board
`
`should not institute the IPR.
`
`Level of POSITA
`
`E.
`
`For purposes of this preliminary response, Digital Ally does not dispute that
`
`the priority date for the ’950 Patent is August 10, 2008, as submitted by
`
`WatchGuard. Pet. 7-8.
`
`Digital Ally submits that a POSITA as of the August 10, 2008, priority date
`
`of the ’950 Patent would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, or an equivalent science or engineering field; (2) a working
`
`knowledge of computing devices and their associated hardware (including video
`
`cameras and systems for communicatively coupling a central control unit with
`
`video cameras) and software; and (3) at least two years of experience designing
`
`digital data recording systems. Additional industry experience or technical training
`
`may offset less formal education, while advanced degrees or additional formal
`
`education may offset lesser levels of industry experience.
`
`7
`
`
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`For purposes of inter partes review of an unexpired patent, a claim is to be
`
`given its “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee,
`
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2135 (2016). While the Board should apply the broadest
`
`reasonable construction, caution should be taken “to not read ‘reasonable’ out of
`
`the standard. This is to say that ‘[e]ven under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, the Board’s construction cannot be divorced from the specification
`
`and the record evidence, and must be consistent with the one that those skilled in
`
`the art would reach.’” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal citations omitted). The construction must be “consistent
`
`with the specification … and [the] claim language should be read in light of the
`
`specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
`
`Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotations
`
`omitted). Claim terms are “given their ordinary and customary meaning … that the
`
`term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`A.
`
`“Encode” and “Decode”
`
`WatchGuard proposes that “encode” be construed as “to compress a video or
`
`audio file” and “decode” to be construed as “reversing the encoding.” Pet. 12.
`
`8
`
`
`
`WatchGuard provides no explanation or supporting evidence for this construction.
`
`Id. Patent Owner notes that the word “compress” or variants thereof does not
`
`appear anywhere in the ’950 Patent. Therefore, it is unclear how WatchGuard
`
`comes to its proposed construction.
`
`There is no discussion as to why WatchGuard alleges that “encode” should
`
`be construed as “compression,” and no expert testimony is provided to support this
`
`construction. In fact, WatchGuard’s supporting Declaration (Ex. 1007) states “I
`
`have been instructed to use to [sic] following interpretations of certain phrases
`
`present in the claims of the ’950 Patent. The following table, which was provided
`
`to me by counsel, contains constructions I have used when comparing the
`
`following claim terms to the prior art.” Ex. 1007, ¶ 27. The Declaration thus
`
`provides no support for the proposed claim construction.
`
`Digital Ally disputes WatchGuard’s proposed construction that “encode”
`
`means “to compress a video or audio file” and instead submits that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of “encode” includes, at the least, translation of the video
`
`or audio from a first format or file type to a different, second format or file type.
`
`Ex. 2001, ¶ 32. “Decode” similarly includes, at the least, translation of the video or
`
`audio from the second format back to the first format or to a third format. Id.
`
`
`
`In support of its claim construction, Digital Ally submits the opinions of its
`
`expert, Dr. Madisetti, who opines that encoding a video or audio file is commonly
`
`9
`
`
`
`understood to a skilled person as translating the video or audio from one format to
`
`another. Id. For example, Pandey describes that its encoder/decoder routine at data
`
`recorder 280 allows the video “to be stored in various different formats” and
`
`identifies processing to a DVD-R format or DVD+R format. Ex. 1002, ¶ 0049. Per
`
`Dr. Madisetti, DVD-R and DVD+R are well known video data formats for storage
`
`on a DVD. Ex. 2001, ¶ 35. The ’950 Patent describes various encoding formats or
`
`protocols, such as MPEG-4, H.263, or H.264. Ex. 1001, 9:9-26. Per Dr. Madisetti,
`
`MPEG-4, H.263, and H.264 are well known encoding formats for video and audio
`
`data. Ex. 2001, ¶ 36. Dr. Madisetti further notes that encoding protocols can,
`
`although not necessarily, compress the video/audio data. Id. at ¶ 33. For support,
`
`he provides an example of NRZ encoding that would not compress data. Id. at
`
`¶ 34. Per Dr. Madisetti, compression of the data does not imply or require that the
`
`data is encoded. Id. at ¶ 33. In fact, a POSITA would not understand compression
`
`as encoding the data. Id. As such, an encoder may (but does not have to) compress
`
`the data. Id. Therefore, per Dr. Madisetti, a POSITA would not understand
`
`“encode” as used in the Challenged Claims to mean “compression.” Id. at ¶¶ 32-
`
`35.
`
`B. Other Claim Terms for Which WatchGuard Proposes a
`Construction
`
`WatchGuard proposes claim constructions for the following terms: unique
`
`camera identifier, associate, to stamp, synchronized, and memory. Digital Ally
`10
`
`
`
`contends that, with the exception of “encode” and “decode” as discussed above,
`
`these claim terms require no special construction, as a POSITA would understand
`
`their meaning
`
`in
`
`the context of
`
`the
`
`’950 Patent. Biotec Biologische
`
`Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp, Inc., 249 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2001) (finding no error in the district court’s refusal to construe a term that did
`
`not depart from its ordinary meaning); Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device Alliance,
`
`Inc., 244 F.3d 1365, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (same). As such, Digital Ally proposes
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning be applied and WatchGuard’s construction
`
`rejected.
`
`C. Claim Terms Allegedly Governed By 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`WatchGuard proposes that the claim element “a location determining
`
`device” recited in claims 4 and 17 be construed as a mean-plus-function claim
`
`under Section 112, ¶ 6. Digital Ally disagrees with this construction and requests
`
`that the claim term not be construed as a means-plus-function limitation. The
`
`claimed “location determining device” does not use the term “means” and thus, is
`
`presumed to not be a means-plus-function limitation. Claims 4 and 17 each recites
`
`that the location determining device is configured to determine a location of the
`
`vehicle when the video from the first camera is captured. The claims also recite
`
`that the memory records the determined location and the captured video. The
`
`claims therefore describe a specific configuration of the location determining
`
`11
`
`
`
`device. In contrast, WatchGuard does not even state why the claims, which do not
`
`recite a “means” for performing a function, should be construed under Section 112,
`
`¶ 6.
`
`The Federal Circuit’s opinion in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 729 F.3d
`
`1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) favors not construing “location determining device” as a
`
`means-plus-function limitation. Under Williamson, a claim that does not use the
`
`term “means” is presumed to not be a means-plus-function limitation, although this
`
`presumption is rebuttable by a challenger. Id. “When a claim term lacks the word
`
`‘means,’ the presumption can be overcome and § 112, para. 6 will apply if the
`
`challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite
`
`structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for
`
`performing that function.’” Id. WatchGuard does not demonstrate—or even
`
`attempt to demonstrate—that the claimed limitation fails to recite sufficiently
`
`definite structure. See Pet. 13-14. Instead, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`readily understand a “location determining device” that determines the location of
`
`the vehicle as having a sufficiently definite meaning or particular structural. For
`
`example, the ’950 Patent discusses that the location of the vehicle can be
`
`determined via a GPS or dead reckoning. Ex. 1001, 5:1-7. WatchGuard provides
`
`no explanation why the disclosure in the ’950 Patent is not sufficiently definite to a
`
`POSITA.
`
`12
`
`
`
`For the above reasons, Digital Ally submits that “location determining
`
`device” as used in dependent claims 4 and 17 should not be construed under
`
`§ 112(f) as a means-plus-function limitation.
`
`III. GROUND 1: PANDEY IN VIEW OF MONROE AND THE SONY
`USER’S GUIDE DOES NOT RENDER CLAIMS 1-3, 13, AND 15-16
`OBVIOUS
`
`
`
`The proposed three-way combination of references fails to render obvious, at
`
`the least, claims 1-3, 13, and 15-16. Regarding the independent claims (claims 1
`
`and 13), the cited art, and specifically the Sony User’s Guide, does not teach the
`
`claimed “first video camera configured to…associate the encoded video with a first
`
`unique camera identifier” (claim 1) and “…stamp the encoded video with a second
`
`unique camera identifier” (claim 13). The combination also does not render
`
`obvious the claimed “second video camera” in claims 1 and 13. Finally, the cited
`
`art, and specifically Monroe, does not teach timestamping the video, as recited in
`
`claim 1.
`
`A. Ground 1, Claims 1 and 13: The Cited Prior Art Does Not Teach
`the Claimed “a first video camera configured…to associate the
`encoded video with a first unique camera identifier” or “a first
`video camera…configured to…stamp the encoded video with a
`first unique camera identifier”
`
`Each of the challenged independent claims recites the first and second
`
`cameras associating (claim 1) or stamping (claim 13) the encoded video with a
`
`respective first or second unique camera identifier:
`
`13
`
`
`
`Limitation 1[a]: a first video camera configured to capture and
`
`encode video of the event and to associate the encoded video with a
`
`first unique camera identifier.
`
`Limitation 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.
`
`Limitation 13[a]: a first video camera mounted on the vehicle and
`
`configured to capture and encode video and to stamp the encoded
`
`video with a first unique camera identifier.
`
`Limitation 13[b]: a second video camera mounted on the vehicle and
`
`configured to capture and encode video and to stamp the encoded
`
`video with a second unique camera identifier.
`
`WatchGuard fails to cite art that teaches a video camera associating or
`
`stamping the video with a unique camera identifier, as claimed. WatchGuard cites
`
`the Sony User’s Guide for teaching this claimed feature. Pet. 22-23. Although the
`
`Sony User’s Guide discloses that the camera has a serial number, there is no
`
`teaching that the camera associates or stamps the video with the camera serial
`
`number. Instead, a web-accessible configuration and viewing program associates
`
`the video with a particular camera’s serial number. Moreover, for claim 13, there is
`
`no teaching that the Sony User’s Guide stamps the video with the camera serial
`
`14
`
`
`
`number. Instead, the Sony User’s Guide teaches an SNC video player displays the
`
`camera serial number in the same display window as the camera serial number. Ex.
`
`1004-018, 070.
`
`WatchGuard assumes the camera associates the serial number with the video
`
`without any teaching, evidence, or supporting expert testimony. As detailed below,
`
`the Sony User’s Guide explains that the program for use in configuring the camera
`
`assigns an IP address to the camera and associates the assigned IP address with the
`
`camera’s serial number. Upon uploading video from a camera based on the
`
`assigned IP address, the program automatically knows the camera serial number
`
`from the initial configuration.
`
`
`
`The Sony User’s Guide describes Sony camera SNC-RZ25N/RZ25P,
`
`including various functionality a user can perform relative to the camera via a
`
`configuration and viewing program accessible via a web browser. Ex. 1004-007,
`
`011, 017; Ex. 2001, ¶ 37. Under the title “How to Use This User’s Guide,” the
`
`Sony User’s Guide states “This User’s Guide explains how to operate the SNC-
`
`RZ25N and SNC-RZ25P Network Camera from a computer.” Ex. 1004-007
`
`(emphasis added); Ex. 2001, ¶ 37.
`
`
`
`The video captured by the Sony camera is accessible via the viewing
`
`program, which includes a “main viewer” and an “SNC video player,” as further
`
`detailed below. Ex. 1004-015, 070. Video captured by the camera is uploaded to
`
`15
`
`
`
`the web-accessible viewing program via a network connection. Ex. 1004-006, 009,
`
`011. To configure the camera to prepare for viewing of video via the web-
`
`accessible viewing program, an IP address must first be assigned to the camera:
`
`“To connect the camera to a network, you need to assign a new IP address to the
`
`camera when you install the camera for the first time.” Id. at 009; see also id. at
`
`010, Step 12 (under “Tip,” note that the camera includes a factory-assigned IP
`
`address that is subsequently changed through the procedure described at page 009,
`
`Step 5); Ex. 2001, ¶ 38. The Guide further explains at Step 5 on page 009 the start
`
`of the IP Setup Program, which detects the Sony cameras “connected to the local
`
`network and lists them on the Network tab window.” Id.; Ex. 2001, ¶ 38. As can be
`
`seen in the below screen capture from Step 5 at page 009, a particular camera is
`
`listed along with the camera’s serial number and IP address (along with additional
`
`information, such as model number).
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Upon the Setup Program completing the initial preparation and setup of the
`
`camera, the program knows the serial number for the camera based on the assigned
`
`IP address, as shown in the above screen capture. Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 38-39. In particular,
`
`the Setup Program performs the setup by detecting Sony cameras connected to the
`
`network, as discussed above. Ex. 1004-009. Once a camera is detected, an IP
`
`address is assigned. Id.; Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 38-40. Because the Guide shows the Setup
`
`Program as listing both the assigned IP address and the serial number for a
`
`particular camera during the setup stage, the Setup Program learns the detected
`
`cameras on the network and a serial number for each camera and assigns an IP
`
`17
`
`
`
`address, which is then listed in the above-illustrated screen capture from the Setup
`
`Program. Id.; Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 38-41.
`
`The program’s association of the IP address for a particular camera with the
`
`camera’s serial number is further evidenced by the Guide’s explanation of the
`
`system configuration. Ex. 1004-031. The Sony User’s Guide describes the
`
`computer-based administrative setup of the camera: “When you click System on
`
`the Administrator menu, the System setting menu appears. Use this menu to
`
`perform the principal settings of the software.” Id. (emphasis in original). On the
`
`“Systems” tab, the serial number of the camera is displayed:
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Id. (red-colored annotations added). Thus, during “system configuration” described
`
`at page 31, the program already knows the serial number of the camera from the
`
`“preparation” performed when connecting the camera to the network and assigning
`
`an IP address to the camera, described at page 9.
`
`As yet further evidence that the program already knows the camera serial
`
`number based on the IP address, page 43 of the Guide discusses sending a
`
`“notification,” e.g., an email, that includes tags, such as the camera serial number.
`
`Ex. 1007-043. The Sony User’s Guide states that the computer can include a serial
`
`number of the camera in the notification. Ex. 1007-044. To embed the serial
`
`number in the notification, the user types the tag “<SERIAL>”: “Use this tag to
`
`embed the camera’s serial number in the text or parameter.” Ex. 1004-044
`
`(referencing <SERIAL> tag at lower left-hand column). The program thus includes
`
`the serial number in the notification in response to the user including the SERIAL
`
`tag (and not requiring the user to input the actual serial number). Inclusion of the
`
`serial number in the notification regarding the video would be unnecessary if the
`
`camera already associated or stamped the video data with the serial number.
`
`Moreover, the program would not know the serial number to include in the
`
`notification if the serial number was not already cross-referenced with the IP
`
`address (absent some undisclosed extraction of the serial number from the
`
`uploaded video).
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`The Sony User’s Guide also teaches that video from a particular camera is
`
`accessed by inputting the IP address for the camera, as discussed below. If the
`
`program already knows the camera’s serial number because the serial number was
`
`cross-referenced with the IP address during the came
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
