`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`___________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
`AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`TransCore, LP
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Axcess International, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,286,158
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 4
`I.
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ...................................................................... 6
`III.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES ....................................................... 6
`IV. OVERVIEW OF ‘158 PATENT ................................................................... 8
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 11
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 18
`VII. GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE ................................................................... 18
`A. Ground A .................................................................................................... 18
`B. Ground B . ................................................................................................... 36
`C. Ground C. .................................................................................................... 45
`D. Ground D .................................................................................................... 56
`IX. MANDATORY NOTICES ......................................................................... 61
`X. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 63
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158 to Griebenow (“the ‘158 patent”)
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Reserved
`U.S. Patent No. 5,745,036 to Clare (“Clare”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,271,752 to Vaios (“Vaios”)
`European Patent Application EP 0 921 505 to Cox (“Cox”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,583,813 to Enright et al. (“Enright”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,005,985
`U.S. Patent No. 6,294,953
`File History for Inter Partes Reexamination filed February 27,
`2012 for the ‘158 patent
`File History for the ‘158 patent
`Proof of Service of Complaint
`
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1002
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1011
`Ex. 1012
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`Petitioner requests an inter partes review of claims 1-5, 8-12 and 19-21 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158 (“the ‘158 patent”) (Ex. 1001). This Petition shows that
`
`the challenged claims of the ‘158 patent are unpatentable based on a combination
`
`of prior art not considered during prosecution.
`
`This Petition relies upon Clare as a primary reference (Ex. 1004), in addition
`
`to various secondary references, to render the challenged claims unpatentable.
`
`Clare was asserted by another party in an inter partes reexamination filed on
`
`February 27, 2012 (Ex. 1010), prior to implementation of inter partes reviews
`
`associated with the America Invents Act (AIA). In that inter partes reexamination,
`
`the Requestor alleged Clare anticipated independent claims 1 and 19 of the ‘158
`
`patent, as well as various dependent claims. The Primary Examiner denied the
`
`inter partes reexamination, finding Clare was deficient with respect to a single
`
`claim element of each of independent claims 1 and 19 of the ‘158 patent. With
`
`respect to claim 1, the Primary Examiner asserted Clare did not teach “providing
`
`the subscriber with access to and control of a video camera in the video system at
`
`the facility.” With respect to independent claim 19, the Primary Examiner asserted
`
`Clare did not disclose “electronically transmitting notice of the alert condition
`
`along with the video image for delivery to a manager of the facility” (Ex. 1010 –
`
`Order Granting/Denying Request dated March 26, 2012, Section 5 at pages 3-5).
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`This Petition, however, does not allege Clare anticipates any of the claims of
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`the ‘158 patent. Rather, this Petition asserts obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`That is, the Petition uses Clare in combination with various secondary references,
`
`or Clare itself, to render obvious the challenged claims as unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. These grounds of rejection were never asserted in the previous inter
`
`partes reexamination or during prosecution of the ‘158 patent.
`
`One of these secondary references, Vaios (Ex. 1005), used to challenge
`
`some of the claims in this Petition (in combination with Clare) was considered by
`
`the Examiner during prosecution of the ‘158 patent (Ex. 1011). However, since
`
`Clare was not considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ‘158 patent, a
`
`possible combination of Clare and Vaios was not considered during prosecution of
`
`the ‘158 patent or in the previous inter partes reexamination.
`
`In addition, Vaios was used by the Examiner during prosecution of the ‘158
`
`to disclose the same element the Primary Examiner argued was missing from Clare
`
`during the prior inter partes reexamination, i.e., “providing a subscriber with
`
`access to and control of a video camera in the video system facility” (Ex. 1011 –
`
`e.g., Office Action dated April 4, 2006 at page 3). The Patent Owner never
`
`successfully rebutted the teachings of Vaios during the prosecution of the ‘158
`
`patent and it appears that the ‘158 patent was allowed for other reasons. These
`
`facts alone suggest that a combination of Clare with Vaios could render at least
`
`5
`
`
`
`some of the claims obvious.
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`Therefore, none of the grounds of rejection asserted in this Petition has been
`
`considered during prosecution of the ‘158 patent or after the ‘158 patent issued.
`
`This Petition shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior art renders
`
`obvious the challenged claims of the ‘158 patent, which should be found
`
`unpatentable and cancelled.
`
`
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies the ‘158 patent is available for inter partes review, and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review of the
`
`‘158 patent on the grounds identified in this Petition. Petitioner filed this Petition
`
`within one year of service of the original complaint against Petitioner in the district
`
`court litigation (See Ex. 1012).
`
`
`
`III. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES
`
`A.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`Ground A. Claims 1-5 and 8-12 of the ‘158 patent are unpatentable under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Clare in view of Vaios.
`
`Ground B. Claims 19-21 of the ‘158 patent are unpatentable under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Clare in view of Cox.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Ground C. Claims 1-5 and 8-12 of the ‘158 patent are unpatentable under
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Clare in view of Enright.
`
`Ground D. Claims 19-21 of the ‘158 patent are unpatentable under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Clare.
`
`
`
`Clare was filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
`
`on September 12, 1996 and issued on April 28, 1998. The ‘158 patent was filed in
`
`the USPTO on December 22, 1999. Therefore, Clare qualifies as prior art under at
`
`least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b) and (e) because Clare was filed in the
`
`USPTO before the ‘158 patent, and Clare was published more than one year before
`
`the filing date of the ‘158 patent.
`
`Vaios was filed in the USPTO on October 2, 1998. Therefore, Vaios
`
`qualifies as prior under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Vaios was
`
`filed in the USPTO before the filing date of the ‘158 patent.
`
`Cox was filed on October 15, 1998 in the European Patent Office, claims
`
`priority to GB 9725577 filed on December 4, 1997, and published on June 9, 1999.
`
`Therefore, Cox qualifies as prior under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`
`because Cox was published before the filing date of the ‘158 patent.
`
`Enright was filed in the USPTO on October 7, 1999. Therefore, Enright
`
`qualifies as prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Enright
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`was filed in the USPTO before the filing date of the ‘158 patent.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`Section VII identifies, with specificity, where each element of the
`
`challenged claims is found in the prior art references. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`
`The exhibit numbers of the evidence relied on to support the challenges are
`
`provided above and the relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised are
`
`provided in Section VII. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Proposed Grounds are Not Redundant
`
`Grounds A and C both challenge claims 1-5 and 8-12 of the ‘158 patent.
`
`Grounds B and D both challenge claims 19-21 of the ‘158 patent. However, the
`
`grounds are not redundant since each of the grounds uses a different combination
`
`of the references.
`
`
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF ‘158 PATENT
`
`A. The ‘158 patent, entitled “Method and System for Providing Integrated
`
`Remote Monitoring Services,” issued on October 23, 2007. The ‘158 patent
`
`describes a system that enables remote monitoring of a facility. In the embodiment
`
`illustrated in Fig. 1 of the ‘158 patent (shown below), the remote monitoring
`
`system includes monitored facilities (MF) 14, a central host 16 and subscribers 18
`
`connected to the Internet 12.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`
`
`
`
`The ‘158 patent provides details of a monitored facility (MF) 14 in Fig. 2
`
`(shown below). As described with respect to the embodiment illustrated in Fig. 2,
`
`MF 14 is a retail clothing store 40 that includes a sales floor 42 and a back area 44
`
`supported by a security door 46. The back area 44 includes a stock area 60, a vault
`
`room 62 and a computer room 64.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`
`
`
`
`The computer room 64 includes a computer system 78 that collects data
`
`using radio frequency identification (RFID) tag technology. Stationary polling
`
`stations collect RFID data as assets enter or leave store 40 and as assets enter or
`
`exit certain defined areas (Ex. 1001 – 4:50-64). Polling station (PS) 100 polls
`
`tagged inventory on sales floor 42 and PS 102 polls tagged inventory included in
`
`inventory 70 (Ex. 1001 – 5:36-44). The ‘158 patent describes that digital network
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`video cameras or standard video cameras 110-124 are distributed throughout the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`store 40 and connect to the Internet 12, either directly or indirectly (Ex. 1001 –
`
`5:65-6:3). The ‘158 patent discloses that the video data collection may be
`
`triggered via an external trigger or alarm and that the video may be transmitted live
`
`or recorded for later review (Ex. 1001 – 6:4-7). The ‘158 patent also describes that
`
`a remote video controller 188 located at the host 16 provides operators and
`
`subscribers 18 with control of the video cameras in the monitored facility 14 (Ex.
`
`1001 – 8:36-42).
`
`
`
`
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 19-21 of the ‘158 patent are to be given their
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification” (37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b)).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`For purposes of this inter partes review, Petitioner proposes the following
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation constructions for the following claim terms. All
`
`other terms should be given their plain meaning.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. “integrated remote monitoring services”
`
`The term “integrated remote monitoring services” appears in the preamble of
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`claim 1, and does not appear elsewhere in the claim.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`The ‘158 patent refers to providing integrated remote monitoring services,
`
`but does not explicitly define the term. However, the background of the ‘158
`
`patent refers to apparently prior art video surveillance technology that “allows
`
`remote personnel to connect to a video camera in a facility and to control or
`
`determine conditions at the facility,” but indicates that such video technology does
`
`not provide an integrated solution for business owners (Ex. 1001 – 1:35-42; italics
`
`added to “or” for emphasis). Immediately following the Background, in first
`
`paragraph of the Summary of the Invention, the ‘158 patent then describes
`
`integrated monitoring services as those that “allow a subscriber to remotely
`
`monitor, evaluate, and control operations at a facility” (Ex. 1001 – 1:50-52; italics
`
`added to “and” for emphasis). Thus, non-integrated services allow video
`
`monitoring along with control or the ability to determine conditions; and integrated
`
`services apparently allow video monitoring along with evaluation and control
`
`(which appears to equate to “determining conditions”). Therefore, the term
`
`“integrated remote monitoring services” should be construed as providing at least
`
`one other type of video service in addition to video monitoring.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. “RFID system”
`
`Claims 1, 8, and 19 recite the term “RFID system” without defining the
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`term. Turning to the description, the ‘158 patent dedicates an entire paragraph to
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`the incorporation by reference of seven U.S. patent applications that disclose RFID
`
`systems. These seven U.S. patent applications include Application Nos.
`
`09/298,982; 09/357,435; 09/298,559; 09/258,974; 08/789,148; 09/357,669; and
`
`09/357,688 (Ex. 1001 – 4:65 to 5:13).
`
`
`
`The applications describe essentially the same type of “RFID system.” For
`
`example, Application No. 09/357,435 issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,005,985 (the
`
`‘985 patent) on February 28, 2006 (Ex. 1008). The ‘985 patent describes an RFID
`
`system 10 that includes a base station 11 that resides in a fixed location and
`
`communicates with one or more radio tags 20 by an analog signal at a specified
`
`radio frequency. Radio tag 20 is described as a remote, portable self-contained
`
`device that may be affixed to a moveable item, such as a person, inventory or a
`
`vehicle. Base station 11 is described as a conventional unit and includes a card
`
`reader 12, a control system 14 and a base station antenna 16. Reader 12 is
`
`described as acquiring incoming signals from antenna 16 and demodulating the
`
`incoming signal for processing by control system 14 (Ex. 1008 – 3:45-65 and Fig.
`
`1). Application 09/258,974 issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,294,953 (the ‘953 patent)
`
`on September 25, 2001 (Ex. 1009). The ‘953 patent similarly describes the RFID
`
`system as including a conventional base station that communicates with radio tags
`
`(Ex. 1009 – 2:30-47 and Fig. 1). The other one of the applications that was
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`incorporated by reference into the ’158 patent and that issued (i.e., Application No.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`08/789,148, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,034,603) describes a similar RFID
`
`system. In fact, such an RFID system is consistent with the description of the
`
`system in the ’158 patent itself.
`
`
`
`Therefore, the term “RFID system” in the claims of the ’158 patent should
`
`be construed as a conventional radio frequency identification (RFID) system that
`
`includes a base station with a reader and a control/processing unit that processes
`
`RFID data.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3. “receiving and storing radio frequency identification (RFID)
`
`data from an RFID system at a remote facility of a subscriber”
`
`The phrase “from an RFID system at a remote facility of a subscriber” is
`
`included in claim 1 and should be read together as a single limitation.
`
`That is, this limitation does not require the receiving and storing RFID data
`
`be performed at a location remote from either the facility or a subscriber. There
`
`are no commas or other punctuation that requires either, or both, the receiving and
`
`storing of RFID data is to be performed at the remote facility. The claim only
`
`requires that the RFID data received and stored is from an RFID system at a
`
`remote facility.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`4. “remote facility”
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`The ‘158 patent does not explicitly provide a reference number to any
`
`element in the Figures with respect to the term “remote facility.” However, the
`
`‘158 patent refers to the remote facility, monitored facility and remote monitored
`
`facility interchangeably. For example, the ‘158 patent refers to receiving an RFID
`
`event at a monitored facility 14, and a remote monitored facility (Ex. 1001 – 9:47-
`
`49; and Fig. 5, step 250). That is, the ‘158 patent refers to “monitored facility 14”
`
`in the text and refers to “remote monitored facility” in Fig. 5 at step 250 when
`
`illustrating the same step. All of the terms “remote facility,” “monitored facility,”
`
`and “remote monitored facility” refer to one of the monitored facilities (MF) 14
`
`
`
`5. “the facility”
`
`Claim 1 in line 4 introduces the term “a remote facility,” described at item 4
`
`of this section above. The term “the facility” at claim 1, line 7 should be construed
`
`as referring to the “remote facility” introduced at line 4, in order to provide proper
`
`antecedent basis. That is, the “remote facility” and “the facility” in claim 1 should
`
`be construed as the same facility.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6. “subscriber”
`
`Claims 1-5, 12 and 19 use the term “subscriber.” The ‘158 patent refers to a
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`user that subscribes to a service in which data, such as video data, is collected at a
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`business location and made available to the user/subscriber for viewing (Ex. 1001
`
`– 2:31-41). The ‘158 patent does not describe that the subscriber pays any fee for
`
`being provided with access to the video or other data or any relationship between
`
`the subscriber and host service provider. Therefore, the term “subscriber” should
`
`be construed as any user provided with access to information associated with
`
`monitoring a location.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7. “receiving and storing video data from a video system at the
`
`facility”
`
`Claim 1 recites “receiving and storing video data from a video system at the
`
`facility.” Similar to the discussion above regarding “receiving and storing RFID
`
`data from an RFID system at a remote facility of a subscriber” recited in claim 1,
`
`the phrase “from a video system at the facility” should be read together and
`
`interpreted as referring to a source of the video data. This feature does not require
`
`that the receiving and storing video data is performed at any particular location
`
`relative to the facility or the subscriber, such as at the facility of a subscriber.
`
`There are no commas or other punctuation/indicators that require the receiving and
`
`storing video data from a video system is to be performed at the remote facility.
`
`That is, the limitation only requires receiving and storing video data from a video
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`system at the facility, and thus may be performed at any location.
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8. “web portal”
`
`The term “web portal” is used in claim 2. The ‘158 patent does not
`
`explicitly define the term “web portal.” However, the ‘158 patent uses the term
`
`“web portal” or “website portal” to denote an access portal via which a subscriber
`
`can access data via the Internet (Ex. 1001 – 4:1-8). Therefore, the term “web
`
`portal” should be construed as any access port/portal accessible via the Internet.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9. “manager”
`
`The term “manager of the facility” is used in claim 19. The ‘158 patent
`
`does not explicitly define the term “manager.” However, the ‘158 patent refers to
`
`subscriber 18, located remotely from monitored facility 14, as possibly being an
`
`owner or manager of the business that can receive processed data relative to the
`
`operation of facility 14 via a website portal (Ex. 1001 – 4:1-9). The ‘158 patent
`
`also discloses that access to the back room of monitored facility 14 is limited to
`
`only employees and managers of the store 40 (Ex. 1001 – 5:24-27). Therefore, the
`
`term “manager” should be construed as any party involved in some aspect of
`
`overseeing or managing operations of facility 14. The term “manager,” however,
`
`does not require that the manager be located remotely with respect to the
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`
`
`monitored facility.
`
`
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of the ‘158 patent would have been someone knowledgeable in radio
`
`frequency identification (RFID) technology, video control and/or transmission
`
`technology and/or general communications technology. Such a person would have
`
`a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer
`
`Science, or equivalent training, and approximately three years of industry
`
`experience related to RFID, video control/transmission and/or general
`
`communications.
`
`
`
`VII.
`
` GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE
`
`A. Claims 1-5 and 8-12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based
`
`on Clare in view of Vaios.
`
`Overview of Clare
`
`Clare is directed to an electronic article security system that monitors RFID
`
`tagged articles sold by a store to detect inventory shrinkage (Ex. 1004 – Abstract).
`
`The system of Clare shown below in Fig. 1 integrates the use of RFID
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`data and cameras 58 to detect and investigate inventory discrepancies, such as
`
`missing articles 12. This may be done at headquarters 17, which is located
`
`remotely with respect to the location being monitored (Ex. 1004 – 2:34-64; Fig. 1).
`
`Clare discloses all elements of claim 1 with the exception of “providing the
`
`subscriber with access to and control of a video camera in the video system at the
`
`facility.”
`
`
`
`Overview of Vaios
`
`Vaios shows and describes a multi-access remote system shown in Fig. 1
`
`below in which end users 8 located remotely from a security surveillance area 8 can
`
`monitor and control video cameras 10 in the security surveillance area 4 via
`
`connection 22, which may include the Internet 6 (Ex. 1005 – Abstract and 2:41-48).
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`
`
`1. Claim 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a. “A method for providing integrated remote monitoring services,
`
`comprising:”
`
`
`
`To the extent that the preamble is considered limiting, Clare discloses the
`
`limitations of the preamble. For example, Clare discloses a system for providing
`
`remote monitoring services that integrates the use of RFID data and cameras to
`
`detect and remotely investigate inventory discrepancies (Ex. 1004 – 2:34-64).
`
`Therefore, Clare discloses a method that coordinates or links at least one other type
`
`of video service (e.g., using cameras/images and RFID data to detect and
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`investigate inventory discrepancies) for providing integrated remote monitoring
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`services.
`
`
`
`b. “receiving and storing radio frequency identification (RFID) data from an
`
`RFID system at a remote facility of a subscriber;”
`
`Clare discloses these features. For example, Clare discloses that in one
`
`implementation, RFID data is stored locally at store 16 (Ex. 1004 – 10:20-22).
`
`Clare further discloses that after a customer exits the store, an interrogator 42
`
`monitors zone 20 located near the exit of store 16 for the presence of a security tag
`
`22 within zone 20. Clare also discloses that when a security tag is detected within
`
`zone 20, interrogator 42 outputs a signal that includes RFID data that is appended
`
`with date and time information regarding when the security tag 22 was detected
`
`and sends the data to remote computer 38 located at headquarters 17 (Ex. 1004 –
`
`6:28-60). The remote computer 38, upon receipt of the RFID data, extracts the
`
`information and compiles an event database (Ex. 1004 – 6:61-66). Therefore,
`
`Clare discloses using an RFID system (including interrogator 42) located at a
`
`remote facility (e.g., store 16) and that remote computer 38 (located remotely from
`
`store 16) receives and stores RFID data from the RFID system at the remote
`
`facility of a subscriber.
`
`As discussed in the Claim Construction section above, the phrase “from an
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`RFID system at a remote facility of a subscriber” does not require that the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`receiving and storing of RFID data is to be performed at a remote facility of a
`
`subscriber. That is, as described above, claim 1 only requires that the RFID data is
`
`from an RFID system at the remote facility. In any event, Clare discloses both
`
`storing RFID data locally at store 16 (Ex. 1004 – 10:20-22) and also storing RFID
`
`data remotely at headquarters 17 (Ex. 1004 – Fig. 1, remote computer 38 and event
`
`database 46).
`
`
`
`c. “receiving and storing video data from a video system at the facility;”
`
`
`
` Clare discloses these features. For example, Clare discloses that
`
`surveillance video camera 58, which is located at store 16, captures images of zone
`
`20 and outputs video signals to video recorder 60 for storing the video signals (Ex.
`
`1004 – 7:40-45). Clare discloses that video recorder 60 is located at store 16,
`
`which corresponds to the “remote facility” recited earlier in claim 1 (Ex. 1004 –
`
`Fig. 1, store 16). Clare discloses that the video signals may be sent directly to
`
`headquarters 17 for quicker discrepancy analysis (Ex. 1004 – 10:23-25).
`
`Therefore, Clare discloses receiving and storing video data from a video system at
`
`the facility.
`
`In addition and as described above, Clare discloses that video signals output
`
`from video recorder 60 are stored locally at store 16 (Ex. 1004 – 7:40:49), which is
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`reasonably construed under the broadest reasonable interpretation as being remote
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`from the subscriber. Therefore, Clare discloses receiving and storing video data
`
`from the video system both at remote headquarters 17 and at the monitored facility
`
`16.
`
`
`
`
`
`d. “providing the subscriber with access to the stored RFID and video data;”
`
`
`
`Clare discloses these features. For example, Clare discloses that video
`
`camera 58 captures a video image of zone 20 and outputs a video signal to video
`
`recorder 60 for storing the video signal (Ex. 1004 – 7:40-45). Clare also discloses
`
`that transaction records (point-of-sale (POS) data) are sent to remote computer 34
`
`at headquarters 17 and to remote computer 38 at headquarters 17 (Ex. 1004 – 6:8-
`
`11). Clare further discloses that at periodic intervals, a comparator 66 in remote
`
`computer 38 compares POS data in transaction database 40 with data in event
`
`database 46 to generate a discrepancy report (Ex. 1004 – 8:1-17). Clare also
`
`discloses that RFID data and/or POS database may be downloaded at periodic
`
`intervals to headquarters 17 and that video signals output from video recorder 60
`
`may be sent directly to headquarters 17 for quicker discrepancy analysis (Ex. 1004
`
`– 10:20-25).
`
`Clare further discloses that if a discrepancy is detected by comparator 66
`
`during the comparison, video storage medium 62 (located at store 16) is searched
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`to locate the video images associated with the time that led to the discrepancy (e.g.,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`when items were improperly removed from store 16) (Ex. 1004 – 8:24-36).
`
`Therefore, Clare discloses providing a subscriber (e.g., a user at
`
`headquarters 17) with access to stored RFID and video data (located both at store
`
`16 and headquarters 17).
`
`
`
`e. “providing the subscriber with access to and control of a video camera in
`
`the video system at the facility; and”
`
`
`
`Clare does not explicitly disclose providing the subscriber with control of a
`
`video camera at the monitored facility. However, Vaios discloses this limitation.
`
`For example, Vaios discloses a multi-access remote system having a security
`
`surveillance area 4, a plurality of end user locations 8 and a communication
`
`network 22 that allows the end user locations to establish a connection with the
`
`security surveillance area via the communication network 22 (Ex. 1005 – Abstract
`
`and Fig. 1). Vaios also discloses that the browser of remote computer system
`
`communicates with the local computer system via the Internet and includes control
`
`mechanisms for operating the camera and manipulating the video images,
`
`including focus, rotation, view, peak, dimming, etc. (Ex. 1005 – 2:41-45). Vaios
`
`further discloses that icons on a user interface accessible via a browser/the Internet
`
`are used to allow the end user 8 to move the camera upward or downward and
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`rotate the camera (Ex. 1005 – 7:62 to 8:12). Vaios also discloses that a remote
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`user can use the communication network to establish a connection 22 and logon
`
`with the surveillance system so that he/she can operate the camera and retrieve
`
`additional video information (Ex. 1005 – 8:65 to 9:4). Therefore, Vaios discloses
`
`providing the subscriber (e.g., end user 8) with access to and control of a video
`
`camera (e.g., camera 10) in the video system at the facility (e.g., security
`
`surveillance area 4).
`
`While Clare does not explicitly disclose providing the subscriber with
`
`control of a video camera at the facility, as disclosed by Vaios and discussed
`
`above, Clare does disclose providing the subscriber with access to video images
`
`captured by the video camera located at the facility (e.g., store 16 in Clare).
`
`Furthermore, Clare discloses that comparator 66 (located at headquarters 17) “can
`
`perform its function on a near real-time basis, instead of at periodic intervals” and
`
`that by “continuously making comparisons throughout the day, quicker
`
`discrepancy analysis can occur.” (Ex. 1004 – 10:26-29). Accordingly, it would
`
`have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of the ‘158 patent to combine the video camera control feature of Vaios
`
`with Clare in order to provide the user at headquarters 17 of Clare with enhanced
`
`video control, thereby allowing quicker discrepancy analysis.
`
`For example, both Clare and Vaios are analogous art as being directed to
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`video surveillance systems. Clare discloses analyzing video data associated with a
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,158
`
`discrepancy report caused by potential theft at store 16 located remotely from a
`
`user at headquarters 17 and Vaios discloses a multi-access monitoring system that
`
`includes remote control of cameras at the remote location. Therefore, providing
`
`control of the cameras as disclosed by Vaios, with the surveillance system of Clare
`
`is an obvious modification to Clare in order to merely provide the subscriber
`
`located remotely with respect to the area under surveillance in Clare with known
`
`technology that provides for control of the surveillance cameras in situations where
`
`such control may be useful, such as in accordance with real-time discrepancy
`
`analysis performed by Clare, as described above.
`
`For example, providing the camera control would be useful in a situation in
`
`which the user would like to view a particular area of the store in Clare more
`
`closely based on, for example, the discrepancy report generated by Clare. As one
`
`example, once a discrepancy report has been generated by Clare, providing control
`
`of the camera would have been an obvious modification to Clare in situations in
`
`which the user would like to view store personnel more closely if theft is suspected
`
`by the store personnel, view the exit more closely to identify a potential suspect,
`
`etc. By
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
