Avigilon Fortress Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2020

IPR2019-00314 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2020)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 47
571-272-7822 Entered: July 1, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

CANON INC., CANON U.S.A., INC., and
AXIS COMMUNICATIONS AB,
Petitioner,

v.

AVIGILON FORTRESS CORPORATION,
Patent Owner.
____________

IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,923,923 B2 & C1
____________

Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.

McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Final Written Decision
Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
35 U.S.C. § 318(a)

IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
2
I. INTRODUCTION
In this inter partes review, instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314,
Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc., and Axis Communications AB (collectively
“Petitioner”) challenge claims 1–41 of U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923 B2 & C1
(Ex. 1001, “the ’923 patent”), owned by Avigilon Fortress Corporation
(“Patent Owner”). This Final Written Decision is entered pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed below,
Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–
41 of the ’923 patent are unpatentable.
A. Procedural History
Petitioner filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 1–41 of
the ’923 patent. Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary
Response. Paper 9. Petitioner then filed an authorized Reply to address
Patent Owner’s arguments that the asserted references are not printed
publications (Paper 11), to which Patent Owner filed an authorized Sur-reply
(Paper 12). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which
requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we instituted an inter
partes review of the challenged claims. Paper 13 (“Inst. Dec.”).
Following institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
(Paper 27, “PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 31, “Pet. Reply”),
and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 38, “PO Sur-reply”). An oral
hearing was held on April 8, 2020, and a copy of the hearing transcript has
been entered into the record. Paper 46 (“Tr.”).
B. Related Matters
Concurrent with the instant Petition, Petitioner filed another petition
for inter partes review of the ’923 patent in IPR2019-00311. Canon Inc. et
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
3
al. v. Avigilon Fortress Corp., IPR2019-00311 (PTAB Nov. 12, 2018)
(Paper 1). We issue a final written decision in IPR2019-00311 concurrently
with this Decision.
Petitioner also has filed several petitions challenging patents related to
the ’923 patent.1 For example, Petitioner filed petitions in IPR2018-00138
and IPR2018-00140 challenging claims of related U.S. Patent
No. 8,564,661 B2 (“the ’661 patent”). In both of these proceedings, we
determined that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that each of the challenged claims of the ’661 patent are unpatentable. Axis
Commc’ns AB et al. v. Avigilon Fortress Corp., IPR2018-00138, Paper 25
(PTAB May 30, 2019); Axis Commc’ns AB et al. v. Avigilon Fortress Corp.,
IPR2018-00140, Paper 25 (PTAB May 30, 2019).
Petitioner also filed petitions in IPR2019-00235 and IPR2019-00236
challenging claims of related U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912 B2. We denied
institution of both of these proceedings. See Canon Inc. et al. v. Avigilon
Fortress Corp., IPR2019-00235, Paper 19 (PTAB June 4, 2019) (stating that
Petitioner did not show the asserted reference qualified as a prior art printed
publication); Canon Inc. et al. v. Avigilon Fortress Corp., IPR2019-00236,
Paper 12 (PTAB June 4, 2019) (exercising discretion under 35 U.S.C.
§ 325(d) to decline institution).
C. The ’923 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’923 patent, titled “Video Surveillance System Employing Video
Primitives,” is generally directed to methods, devices, and computer
readable storage media for video surveillance. See Ex. 1001, codes (54),

1 Petitioner states the ’923 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,564,661 B2
and 7,868,912 B2 are related as each claim priority to U.S. Application No.
09/694,712. Pet. 8.
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
4
(57), Reexamination Certificate 1:29–4:28. In one embodiment, the
disclosed video surveillance system operates by (1) obtaining source video,
(2) extracting “video primitives” from the video, (3) archiving the video
primitives, (4) extracting “event occurrences” from the video primitives
using “event discriminators,” and (5) undertaking a response, as appropriate.
Id. at Fig. 4, 4:30–31, 11:63–65. “Video primitive” refers to an “observable
attribute” of an object viewed in a video feed, such as the size, shape,
position, speed, color, and texture of the object. Id. at 7:6–12. The ’923
patent explains that event discriminators are used to filter the video
primitives to determine if any event occurrences occurred. Id. at 10:66–
11:1. For example, an event discriminator can look for a “wrong way” event
as defined by a person traveling the “wrong way” into an area between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Id. at 11:1–4. The event discriminator checks the
video primitives and determines if any video primitives with the following
properties exist: a timestamp between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., a
classification of “person” or “group of people,” a “position inside the area,”
and a “wrong direction of motion.” Id. at 11:4–9.
D. Illustrative Claims
Petitioner challenges claims 1–41 of the ’923 patent. Claims 1, 8, 9,
20, 22, 29, and 30 are independent. Claim 1 is representative and is
reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
[a] detecting an object in a video from a single camera;
[b] detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by analyzing the
video from said single camera, the plurality of attributes
including at least one of a physical attribute and a temporal
attribute, each attribute representing a characteristic of the
detected object;
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
5
[c] selecting a new user rule after detecting the plurality of
attributes;
[d1] after detecting the plurality of attributes and after selecting the
new user rule, identifying an event of the object that is not one
of the detected attributes of the object by applying the new
user rule to the plurality of detected attributes,
[d2] wherein the applying the new user rule to the plurality of
detected attributes comprises applying the new user rule to
only the plurality of detected attributes;
[e] wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are
independent of which event is identified,
[f] wherein the step of identifying the event of the object identifies
the event without reprocessing the video, and
[g] wherein the event of the object refers to the object engaged in
an activity.

Ex. 1001, Reexamination Certificate, 1:34–55 (matter in brackets added for
clarity; matter in italics indicates additions made to the claim during the
reexamination proceeding).
E. Asserted Challenge to Patentability
Petitioner asserts that the claims 1–41 are unpatentable based on the
following challenge (Pet. 3):
Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § References
1–41 1032 Dimitrova,3 Brill4

2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the challenged claims
of the ’923 patent has an effective filing date before the effective date of the
applicable AIA amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA versions of § 103.
3 Nevenka Dimitrova, Motion Recovery for Video Content Classification,
ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 13, No. 4, Oct. 1995, 408–
439 (Ex. 1006, “Dimitrova”).
4 Frank Brill et al., Event Recognition and Reliability Improvements for the
Autonomous Video Surveillance System, Proceedings of a Workshop held in
Monterey California, Nov. 20–23, 1998, pp. 267–283 (Ex. 1004, “Brill”).
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
6

F. Testimonial Evidence
In support of its unpatentability contentions, Petitioner relies on a
declaration by John R. Grindon, D.Sc. (Ex. 1005). Patent Owner cross-
examined Dr. Grindon via deposition. See Ex. 2018. In support of its Patent
Owner Response, Patent Owner relies on a declaration by Alan Bovik, Ph.D.
(Ex. 2019). Petitioner cross-examined Dr. Bovik via deposition. See Ex.
1056.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Principles
To prevail on its challenge to Patent Owner’s claims, Petitioner must
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are
unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2012); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2018). The
petitioner “has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the
patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815
F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring
inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence
that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden
never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l
Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing
Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008))
(discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).
A claim is unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if
the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are
“such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
7
398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the
prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
indicia of non-obviousness (i.e., secondary considerations). Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17 (1966). Before
institution, the parties provided slightly different definitions of the level of
skill in the art. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76–80); Prelim. Resp. 7. In
our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition of a
person of ordinary skill in the art as someone having (i) a Bachelor of
Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer
science, with approximately two years of experience or research related to
video processing and/or surveillance systems, or (ii) equivalent training and
work experience in computer engineering and video processing and/or
surveillance systems. Inst. Dec. 7–8 (citing Pet. 8–9; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76–80).
Neither party disputes our definition of the level of ordinary skill in
the art. We see no reason to change our definition based on the complete
record and, thus, maintain our definition for the purposes of this Decision.
We further note that our analysis would be the same under either parties’
definition.
C. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review filed before November 13, 2018, such as
here, we construe claim terms in an unexpired patent according to their
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
8
broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018);5 Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the
broadest reasonable interpretation standard as the claim interpretation
standard to be applied in inter partes reviews). Consistent with the broadest
reasonable construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and
customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in
the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The parties propose constructions for a number of claim terms,
including the phrase “wherein the applying the new user rule to the plurality
of detected attributes comprises applying the new user rule to only the
plurality of detected attributes,” as recited in claims 1, 8, 9, 22, and 29 and
as similarly recited in claims 20 and 306 (hereinafter the “only” limitations).
See Pet. 9–23; PO Resp. 5–15; Pet. Reply 4–10; PO Sur-reply 5–9.
This language was added during the reexamination of the ’923 patent
to distinguish over certain prior art references. See Ex. 1016 (Oct. 30, 2013
Amendment), 78–79; Ex. 1017 (June 4, 2014 Final Action), 37–38; Ex. 1018

5 The 2018 amendment to this rule does not apply here because the Petition
was filed before November 13, 2018. See Changes to the Claim
Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018)
(now codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42 (2019)) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
effective November 13, 2018).
6 Claim 20 recites “wherein the analysis of the combination of the attributes
to detect the event comprises analyzing only the combination of attributes.”
Ex. 1001, Reexam. Cert. 2:46–48. Claim 30 recites “wherein the applying
the selected new user rule to the plurality of attributes stored in memory
comprises applying the selected new user rule to only the plurality of
attributes stored in memory.” Id. at 4:23–24.
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
9
(April 16, 2014 Amendment and Reply), 3–6, 9. In its October 2013
amendment, Patent Owner stated that the added claim language “require[s]
application of the user rule ‘only’ to the detected attributes.” Ex. 1016, 78.
Patent Owner further stated that in contrast, the queries of the prior art
references “are not applied to attributes . . . alone but are applied to object-
oriented abstractions.” Id. at 78–79. The Examiner agreed with Patent
Owner and found the “conceptual queries utilized in the video query system
of Day-I are not applied to ‘only’ the detected attributes, but require the use
of object-oriented abstractions to interface with the VSDG model.”
Ex. 1017, 38; see also id. (stating as shown in the ’923 patent, “an event
discriminator (‘user rule’) can be applied only against video primitives as
opposed to abstractions thereof”).
Petitioner argues that the added claim language cannot be construed to
require searching only attributes and exclude the searching of abstractions
because there is no support for such a limitation in the specification of the
’923 patent. See Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 133); id. at 7 (stating “the word
‘only’ is used for excluding reprocessing source video as opposed to
excluding something other than video primitives, such as abstractions”
(citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 30, 148; Ex. 1018, 7; Ex. 1005 ¶ 69)). Thus, Petitioner
contends any “argument that the claims include a negative limitation
precluding the searching of abstractions . . . must fail because [there is] no
written description support for that limitation in the ’923 patent.” Pet.
Reply 9; see also id. at 9–10 (stating a “construction of the claims forbidding
searching abstractions lacks written description support in the ’923 patent
and would be an error”).
We disagree with Petitioner and determine that the plain and ordinary
meaning of the phrase “applying the selected new user rule to only the
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
10
plurality of attributes” requires that the new user rule be applied to only the
plurality of attributes. Even if the added claim language was not adequately
supported,7 the language of the claim clearly states that the new user rule is
applied to only the plurality of attributes, and as such, we construe the claim
in accordance with its plain meaning. Petitioner has not persuasively shown
that claim construction should deviate from the clear meaning of the claim.
The prosecution history also supports a construction in accordance with the
plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language. During the
reexamination proceeding, Patent Owner expressly stated that the added
language “require[s] application of the user rule ‘only’ to the detected
attributes” in “contrast [to] the requirements of Day-I [which] are not
applied to the attributes stored in the VSDG alone but are applied to object-
oriented abstractions.” Ex. 1016, 78; see also id. at 79 (stating the “queries
of Day-II are also not applied to the attributes stored in the VSDG alone but
are applied to object-oriented abstractions”). Thus, the prosecution history
supports a construction as requiring that the new user rule be applied to only
the plurality of attributes (i.e., the new user rule is not applied to object-
oriented abstractions).
The parties remaining disputes regarding the scope of the “only”
limitations need not be resolved as they are not necessary to resolution of the
issues before us. We need only construe claim terms that are in controversy,
and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor
Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d

7 We make no determination as to whether the added claim language is
adequately supported.
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
11
795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) in the context of an inter partes review). To the
extent we find it necessary to further address the meaning of any other claim
terms, we do so below in the context of our unpatentability analysis.
D. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–41 over Dimitrova and Brill
Petitioner contends that claims 1–41 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Dimitrova and Brill.
Pet. 34–73; Pet. Reply 11–25. Patent Owner opposes. PO Resp. 16–51;
PO Sur-reply 10–24. For the reasons explained below, Petitioner has not
established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–41 of the
’923 patent would have been obvious over Dimitrova and Brill.
1. Overview of Dimitrova
Dimitrova is an article titled “Motion Recovery for Video Content
Classification” that is directed to content retrieval based on video data for
video on demand, automated surveillance systems, and other similar
systems. Ex. 1006, 3–4. Dimitrova discloses that the distinction between
still images and moving pictures is typically based in movements and
variations, and, accordingly, the analysis of the motion of objects allows for
the extraction of information that is unique to a video sequence. Id.
Dimitrova stores the video information using object attributes (“O”),
object motion attributes (“M”), and video attributes (“V”), or an “OMV”
triplet. See id. at 19–20. The OMV triplet is the basis for the query function
that allows for retrieval of video data based on its content. Id. at 3, 20. For
example the query expression
“V_Seq(O_category = pet, (Activity = walking, Trajectory = t1))” translates
into “retrieve all the video sequences in which a pet walks and makes a
trajectory t1.” Id. at 20. Dimitrova states that the answer to that query will
include all the “objects (animals) that are classified as pets: cats, dogs, fish
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
12
called Wanda.” Id. Another example is the function “Object_motion : O x
V → P (M)” which takes any object description and a particular video
sequence and returns a set of motion descriptions related to that object. Id.
Dimitrova states that these functions “allow for inexactness, and by default,
they return results that are approximately similar to the precise answer.” Id.
at 21. To make the retrieval exact, the symbol “!” is placed in front of the
query function. Id. (stating that the query “!Object_motion” will return only
the motion descriptions of objects that match the give characteristics).
Dimitrova also explains that these retrieval functions are imbedded
into the framework of a multimedia functional query language called
“EVA,” which is “object oriented and supports objects, object classes,
attributes and methods of objects, and relationships between objects.” Id. at
21–22. EVA deals with the temporal and spatial aspects of multimedia
information retrieval and delivery, in addition to the usual capabilities
provided by the ordinary database languages. Id. at 21.
2. Overview of Brill (Ex. 1004)
Brill, an article titled “Event Recognition and Reliability
Improvements for the Autonomous Video Surveillance System,” is directed
to an Autonomous Video Surveillance (“AVS”) system that “processes live
video streams from surveillance cameras to automatically produce a real-
time map-based display of the locations of people, objects and events in a
monitored region.” Ex. 1004, 4. Specifically, the AVS system of Brill has
been enhanced to utilize collateral information sources, camera hand-off,
vehicle recognition, and complex event recognition. Id.
3. Petitioner’s Contentions
Petitioner contends that the combined teachings of Dimitrova and
Brill render claims 1–41 unpatentable as obvious. See Pet. 33–73. With
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
13
respect to claim 1, Petitioner contends Dimitrova discloses the limitations of
claim element 1[a], which require detecting an object in a video from a
single camera, as Dimitrova detects objects and their motion in a video
obtained from a single camera. See id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1006, 8–19, Figs. 4–
6; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 345–347; Ex. 1006, 4–5). Petitioner also asserts Dimitrova
discloses the “detecting a plurality of attributes” limitations of claim element
1[b] as Dimitrova’s system uses “motion analysis” techniques to detect basic
activity attributes of an object, such as strolling, walking, or hurrying, and
observable physical attributes, such as size, shape, color, or velocity. Id.
at 33–36 (citing Ex. 1006, 17, 25; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 348–349, 351, 359).
Petitioner contends Brill also discloses detecting physical and temporal
attributes because Brill discloses events that use multiple physical attributes
(e.g., “person” and “near the door”), an activity attribute (“loiter”), and a
temporal attribute (“more than 5 seconds”) Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1005
¶ 360).
Petitioner further contends Dimitrova discloses the “selecting a new
user rule” limitations of claim element 1[c] because Dimitrova discloses “a
tasking mechanism that allows users to create ad hoc queries based on a
plurality attributes that are already detected.” Id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1005
¶¶ 362–363; Ex. 1006, 20, 28–29). In particular, Petitioner points to
Dimitrova’s “Parade Query” as specifying a combination of a set of already
detected activity, physical, and temporal attributes for identifying a Parade
Event. Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 364–365). Petitioner also contends that
the proper construction of a “new user rule” does not require setting a
response, but that if a response is required, both Dimitrova and Brill teach
this feature. Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 11; Ex. 1006, 11, 27; Ex. 1005
¶ 366).
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
14
Claim element 1[d1] recites, inter alia, “identifying an event of the
object that is not one of the detected attributes of the object by applying the
new user rule to the plurality of detected attributes.” Petitioner asserts that
“applying” encompasses “any mechanism for analyzing the detected
attributes to determine if they satisfy the new user rule criteria, e.g.,
querying a database.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 100–103); see also Pet.
Reply 7 (stating that a “‘query’ must examine the attributes to find a match
for the collection of attributes specified by the user rule” (emphasis omitted)
(citing Ex. 2019, 42)). Petitioner asserts Dimitrova’s “Parade Query”
satisfies the limitations of claim element 1[d1] because the query applies at
least two different attributes (e.g., “waving,” “walking,” “tall,” president,”
“person” and four frame numbers), from the plurality of detected attributes.
Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1006, 25; Ex. 1005 ¶ 368). Petitioner further contends the
Parade Query includes a temporal attribute requiring that the two objects
meet the specified criteria at the same time. Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1005
¶ 370). Petitioner also contends Dimitrova satisfies the limitations of claim
element 1[d1] that require applying the new user rule after detecting
attributes and creating the query because the Parade Event is created after-
the-fact and applied to existing recorded attributes. Id. at 39–40 (citing
Ex. 1006, 33, 34, 24–25, 29; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 369, 371).
Petitioner asserts the limitations of claim element 1[d2] that recite
“applying the new user rule to the plurality of detected attributes comprises
applying the new user rule to only the plurality of detected attributes”
require that “the prior art have the ability to search only the attributes
themselves.” Id. at 40 (citing Pet. 19–21). Petitioner argues Dimitrova
discloses this limitation by providing a query operator called “exact” (using
symbol “!”). Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 21; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 372–373). Petitioner
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
15
contends this operator allows the system to retrieve only objects that have
the same detected attributes as the user specified in the query. Id. at 40–41
(citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 373). Petitioner asserts this “operator prevents the system
from returning higher-level abstractions based on the queried attributes,
which would merely represent approximations of the searched attributes.”
Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 373). Petitioner also asserts that although
“Dimitrova discloses schemas that define logical relationships between
objects and attributes, those schemas do not define the storage structure of
the data in the Dimitrova database.” Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1006, 22–23; Ex.
1005 ¶ 374). Petitioner contends that Dimitrova merely teaches that the
attributes are stored as “OMV triplets,” without requiring any further
hierarchy and that Dimitrova “can apply its user rules to only the attributes,
e.g., the OMV triplet data, and therefore “does not require searching that
involves higher-level abstractions,” such as the abstractions of the Day
references that Patent Owner was trying to distinguish with the “only”
limitation. Ex. 1005 ¶ 374 (citing Ex. 1006, 19).
Petitioner also contends the attributes queried in Dimitrova’s Parade
Query are “independent of which event is identified” as required by claim
element 1[e] because attributes are pre-collected and stored in a database
before the Parade Query is defined by the user. See Pet. 41–43 (citing
Ex. 1006, 20, 25, 29; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 375–380). In addition, Petitioner contends
that because Dimitrova searches stored attributes in its database, Dimitrova
performs the “identifying” step “without reprocessing the video,” as required
by claim element 1[f]. See id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1003, 24–27; Ex. 1005
¶ 381). Finally, Petitioner asserts Dimitrova’s Parade Query satisfies the
limitations of claim element 1[g] (“wherein the event of the object refers to
the object engaged in an activity”) because the Parade Query identifies a
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
16
“parade” event by searching for activity attributes (i.e., “waving” and
“talking”) that refer to an object engaged in an activity. See id. at 44 (citing
Pet. 41–43; Ex. 1005 ¶ 382).
4. Analysis
In our Institution Decision, we determined Petitioner made an
adequate showing for institution purposes that Dimitrova and Brill teach or
suggest each limitation of claim 1. See Inst. Dec. 24–31. Nevertheless, on
the complete record now before us, as discussed in detail below, we find that
a preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the combined
teachings of Dimitrova and Brill teach or suggest “wherein the applying the
new user rule to the plurality of detected attributes comprises applying the
new user rule to only the detected attributes” as recited in independent
claim 1, element [d2], as well as in independent claims 8, 9, 22, and 29 and
similarly recited in independent claims 20 and 30 (hereinafter the “only”
limitations). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that independent claims 1, 8, 9, 20, 22, 29
and 30, or the claims that depend therefrom, would have been obvious over
Dimitrova and Brill.
As described above, Petitioner contends the “Parade Query” is a “new
user rule.” See Pet. 38–39 (stating that the creation of ad hoc queries using a
set of attributes, such as the “Parade Query” discloses selecting a “new user
rule”). According to Petitioner, the Parade Query, when used with a “query
operator called ‘exact’ (using symbol ‘!’),” applies the new user rule to only
the plurality of detected attributes because the “exact” operator “allows the
system to retrieve only objects that have the same detected attributes as the
user specified in the query.” See id. at 40–41 (citing Ex. 1004, 21; Ex. 1005
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
17
¶¶ 372–373).8 Petitioner asserts that the “exact” operator prevents the
system from returning higher-level abstractions based on queried attributes,
which would merely represent approximations of the searched attributes. Id.
at 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 373).
Patent Owner responds that Dimitrova does not teach “applying the
new user rule to only the plurality of detected attributes” because Dimitrova,
even when using the “exact” operator, “queries object-oriented abstractions”
(abstraction data) and thus does not query only attributes. See PO Resp. 18–
22. To support its argument that Dimitrova queries abstraction data in
addition to attributes (and thus does not apply the new user rule to “only”
attributes), Patent Owner points to Dimitrova’s disclosure that “its retrieval
functions ‘need to relate the motion at a higher level of abstraction of the
object to the detailed motion of parts of objects.’” Id. at 19 (quoting
Ex. 1006, 33) (citing Ex. 1006, 21, 27; Ex. 2018, 130:13–24; Ex. 1006, 27).
Patent Owner also contends that Dimitrova explicitly states that its query
operates on abstractions as the “V_seq” operator “operates on “any
description that can be provided at any level of the spatial hierarchy.” Id.
(quoting Ex. 1006, 20); see also Ex. 1006, 21–22 (stating that the language
used in the system is “object oriented and supports objects, classes, attributes
and methods of objects, and relationships between objects” (emphasis
added)). Patent Owner further argues that Dimitrova states that it uses “a
semantic multiresolution hierarchy for spatiotemporal representation

8 Petitioner also argues that the “only” limitations cannot be construed to
require searching only attributes and “exclude searching abstractions”
because the ’923 patent provides no written description support for that
limitation. See, e.g., Pet. 19–20; Pet. Reply 13–14. We disagree with this
argument for the reasons stated above in Section II.C.
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
18
(Figure 7) because it helps video analysis at various resolution levels” and
that even Petitioner’s expert agrees that “there is a spatial hierarchy in
Dimitrova that is involved in the query process.” PO Resp. 20 (quoting Ex.
1006, 17; Ex. 2018, 145:17–146:9) (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 7; Ex. 2018,
146:10–15; Ex. 1022, 1, 2, 5, 7). In addition, Patent Owner contends
Dimitrova’s OMV triplet “is an abstraction of the video data” because it
represents a way to store the analyzed video in an indexed way with
metadata that associates different O, M, and V values as a group and is more
than just purely an attribute or set of attributes. Id. at 20–21 (citing
Ex. 1006, 20; Ex. 2018, 133:1–134:18, 135:13–21).
Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s argument that the “exact”
operator “!” queries higher-level abstractions. See Pet. Reply 14. Rather,
Petitioner argues that Dimitrova’s “exact” search operator “!” prevents the
system “from returning higher level abstractions.” Id. Petitioner contends
that because Dimitrova’s “exact operator only considers and returns results
that exactly match the specified attributes,” Dimitrova satisfies the
limitations of claim element 1[d2]. See id.
Based on the complete record, we determine that Petitioner has not
adequately shown that Dimitrova teaches this limitation. Claim element
1[d2] requires “applying the new user rule to only the plurality of detected
attributes,” not “consider[ing] and return[ing]” only the detected attributes
or preventing the system from returning higher level abstractions. See Pet.
Reply 14 (emphases added). Petitioner admits that the “applying the new
user rule” limitations includes “querying” a database. See Pet. 11–12
(stating that the claimed “‘applying’ would encompass any mechanism for
analyzing the detected attributes to determine if they satisfy the user rule
criteria, e.g., querying a database”). Indeed, Petitioner stated “at most, this
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
19
limitation [i.e., applying a new user rule to only the plurality of detected
attributes] only requires an embodiment that can search attributes alone.”
Pet. Reply 10; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 102 (stating that a person of ordinary skill
in the art “would understand that the claimed ‘applying’ could encompass
any mechanism for analyzing the detected attributes to determine if they
satisfy the new user rule criteria,” and that “[t]his could be accomplished by
querying a database” (emphasis added)); see also Pet. Reply 8 (stating that
the prosecution history does not support a clear and unmistakable disclaimer
that “applying” requires “analysis” on top of a “query”), 7 (stating that “a
‘query’ must examine the attributes to find a match for the collection of
attributes specified by the user rule” (emphasis omitted)).
We agree with Patent Owner that Dimitrova’s queries using the
“exact” operator query abstraction data in addition to attributes and,
therefore, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Dimitrova teaches
“applying the new user rule to only” the attributes as required by the
independent claims. See PO Resp. 18–22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 387; Ex. 1006,
1, 2, 5, 7, 17, 20–21, 27, 33, Fig. 7; Ex. 1016, 78–79; Ex. 1017, 38;
Ex. 2018, 130:13–24, 133:1–134:18, 135:13–21, 142:9–18, 143:16–144:24,
145:17–146:9, 146:10–15; Ex. 2019, 52–53); PO Sur-Reply 13–14 (citing
Ex. 1016, 9, 14; Ex. 1017, 13, 38). We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s
evidence and argument, as described above, that Dimitrova’s “exact”
operator does not change the core functionality of the query from analyzing
abstractions to analyzing only attribute data. See, e.g., PO Resp. 21 (citing
Ex. 2019, 52–53). Patent Owner has provided sufficient evidence and
argument that Dimitrova’s queries, with or without the “!” operator, are
applied to the same data, including abstraction data, when looking for
matching results, and thus the “exact” operator queries still operate on data
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
20
that contain higher-level abstractions. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 21, 24, 40–41);
Ex. 2019, 52–53.
Petitioner does not present sufficient evidence or argument to rebut
this evidence and argument. Petitioner’s contention that Dimitrova’s
“exact” search operator “prevents the system form returning higher-level
abstractions” (Pet. Reply 14 (emphasis added) does not persuasively show
that Dimitrova’s “exact” search operator does not search the higher-level
abstractions. See Pet. Reply 14. Even if the “exact” search operator
prevents the system from returning higher-level abstractions, a query using
the “exact” search operator still operates by querying the higher-level
abstractions, and therefore, is applied to more than just the attributes.
Based on the complete record, we find that Petitioner has not shown
sufficiently that Dimitrova teaches or suggests applying the new user rule to
“only” the plurality of detected attributes as required by the independent
claims. Petitioner does not contend that Brill teaches this missing limitation.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, based on the complete record,
Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Dimitrova and Brill teach or
suggest “wherein the applying the new user rule to the plurality of detected
attributes comprises applying the new user rule to only the detected
attributes” as recited in independent claim 1, element [d2], as well as in
independent claims 8, 9, 22, and 29 and similarly recited in independent
claims 20 and 30.
Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that independent claims 1, 8, 9, 20, 22, 29,
and 30, or the claims that depend therefrom, would have been obvious over
the combined teachings of Dimitrova and Brill.
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
21
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner has not shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–41 are unpatentable.

IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that claims 1–41 of U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923 B2 & C1
have not been shown to be unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a final written decision,
parties to this proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

Claims 35 U.S.C. § References
Claims
Shown
Unpatentable
Claims
Not Shown
Unpatentable
1–41 103(a) Dimitrova, Brill 1–41
Overall Outcome 1–41
IPR2019-00314
Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
22
FOR PETITIONER:
Joseph Calvaruso
Richard Martinelli
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
jvcptabdocket@orrick.com
rfmptabdocket@orrick.com

C. Gregory Gramenopoulos
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT
& DUNNER LLP
gramenoc@finnegan.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:
Eugene Goryunov
Michael Dokhanchy
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
Eugene.goryunov.ipr@haynesboone.com
Reza.dokhanchy@kirkland.com