Mobotix Corp.v.E-Watch Corporation

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 3, 2015

09593361 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 17
571-272-7822 Entered: February 3, 2015
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

MOBOTIX CORP.,
Petitioner,

v.

e-WATCH, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913
____________

Before JAMESON LEE, MICHAEL W. KIM, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

2
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Mobotix Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes
review of claims 12, 15, 16, 18, 20–30, and 34–37 of U.S. Patent No. 7,023,913
(Ex. 1101, “the ’913 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Paper 5 (“Pet.”).
e-Watch, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response. On February
10, 2014, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 15, 16, 18, 20–30, and 34–
37 on certain grounds of unpatentability alleged in the Petition. Paper 10 (“Dec.”).
After institution of trial, Patent Owner did not file a Patent Owner Response. An
oral argument was not held.
The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). In this Final Written
Decision, issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73, we
determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that all claims
for which trial is instituted, claims 15, 16, 18, 20–30, and 34–37, are unpatentable.
B. Related Proceedings
The ’913 patent is the subject of another petition for inter partes review,
IPR2013-00337, also filed by Petitioner. In that proceeding, Petitioner challenged
claims 1–11, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 31–33 of the ’913 patent. We granted the petition
and instituted trial in IPR2013-00337 on November 13, 2013. On October 10,
2014, we issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2013-00337 that held claims 1–11,
13, 14, 17, 19, and 31–33 of the ’913 patent unpatentable. See Mobotix Corp. v. e-
Watch, Inc., Case IPR2013-00337 (PTAB Oct. 10, 2014) (Paper 35).
Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’913 patent was asserted
against Petitioner in a district court proceeding captioned e-Watch, Inc. v. Mobotix
Corp., Case No. 5:12-cv-00492 (W.D. Tex.). Pet. 1; Paper 8, 1. Petitioner and
Patent Owner also indicate that the following judicial proceedings may affect, or
IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

3
be affected by, a decision in this proceeding: (1) e-Watch, Inc. v. Avigilon
Corporation, Case No. 4:13-cv-00347 (S.D. Tex.); and (2) e-Watch, Inc. v. FLIR
Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-00638 (S.D. Tex.). Pet. 1; Paper 8, 1.
C. The ’913 Patent
The subject matter of the ’913 patent relates to multimedia sensors for use in
connection with a digital networked surveillance system. Ex. 1101, 1:7–9. Public
facilities, such as schools, banks, airports, arenas, and the like, frequently employ
monitoring and surveillance systems to enhance security. Ex. 1101, 1:12–21. One
such system employs analog cameras that deliver video via coaxial cables to a
centralized monitoring facility, but this type of system is generally of low quality,
does not have the ability to “share” the video, and provides video that is viewable
only on the system’s control console. Ex. 1101, 1:37–43. More recently, security
cameras have employed video compression technology, enabling individual
cameras to be connected remotely to a centralized system via telephone circuits.
Ex. 1101, 2:5–7. Due to bandwidth constraints imposed by public–switched
telephone systems, however, such surveillance systems typically are limited to
low-resolution images, or low frame rates, or both. Ex. 1101, 2:1–4.
To solve these and other problems, methods and systems are disclosed,
according to the ’913 patent, for using a fully digital camera system capable of
providing high-resolution still image and/or streaming video signals via a network
to a centralized, server-supported security and surveillance system. Ex. 1101,
2:36–40. According to the ’913 patent, the fully digital camera system is adapted
for collecting an image from one or more image transducers, compressing the
image, and sending the compressed digital image signal to one or more receiving
stations over a digital network. Ex. 1101, 2:45–49.
IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

4
According to the ’913 patent, recent advances in the art have produced
commercially available area sensors, as applied to security cameras, with improved
resolution that provide significant improvement in the quality of captured images.
Ex. 1101, 2:50–56. Such improved quality allows greater accuracy in recognizing
persons or events. Ex. 1101, 2:56–57.
Visual information captured by these sensors commonly is converted to
digital form either on the sensor itself, or by an immediate, subsequent analog to
digital converter device. Ex. 1101, 2:58–61. In digital form, the captured visual
information largely is immune to the degradations that plague analog systems. Ex.
1101, 2:61–63.
The described camera uses video compression techniques to reduce the
amount of image data that must be conveyed by the network. Ex. 1101, 3:12–14.
According to the ’913 patent, a number of recently perfected image and video
compression techniques may be employed to reduce significantly the amount of
visual data, while preserving the visual quality. Ex. 1101, 3:14–17. When used
with adequate transmission bandwidth, or given adequate compression time, these
compression techniques may produce low-loss results. Ex. 1101, 3:60–63.
According to the ’913 patent, a commonplace example is the DSS broadcast
system, which produces broadcast-quality video at bit rates of 1 to 4 Mbits/sec
using MPEG-2 compression. Ex. 1101, 3:60–65.
A variety of suitable audio compression methods also exist, when the
captured audio is of sufficient quality that an attached monitoring server, upon
analysis, may discern accurately sonic patterns indicative of various disturbances
such as glass breakage, gunshots, and the like. Ex. 1101, 4:14–18
IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

5
D. Illustrative Claim
The ’913 patent includes 37 claims, of which a trial was instituted on claims
15, 16, 18, 20–30, and 34–37. Of those, claims 20, 21, 34, and 35 are independent
claims. Independent claim 21 is reproduced as follows:
21. A digital security camera capable of generating and
transmitting digital high resolution image signals in both a full motion
video format and a still image frame format, the camera comprising:
a. a plurality of image transducers each adapted for collecting
digital high resolution image signals;
b. a cylindrical housing for housing the plurality of image
transducers, each of the image transducers mounted in the cylindrical
housing such that they are angularly spaced and aimed radially
outward from the cylindrical housing in a manner to collect a
combined image representing a full panoramic view of an area within
the normal range of the image transducers;
c. a motion video compressor associated with the image
transducer for compressing full motion video images for generating a
compressed full motion video image data signal;
d. a still frame compressor associated with the image transducer
for compressing still frame images for generating a compressed still
frame image data signal;
e. a first multiplexer associated with each image transducer for
merging the compressed full motion video image data signal and the
compressed still frame image data signal into a single, combined
image data signal;
f. a second multiplexer for merging all of said signals into a
combined data signal;
g. a processor associated with the second multiplexer for
generating a conditioned output image signal suitable for transmission
over a network; and
h. a network gateway.
E. Prior Art References Alleged to Support Unpatentability
Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
Seeley US 6,069,655 May 30, 2000 Ex. 1105
Ohki EP 0 920 211 June 2, 1999 Ex. 1106
IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

6
Neta US 5,200,818 Apr. 6, 1993 Ex. 1107
Brusewitz WO 98/41022 Sept. 17, 1998 Ex. 1108
Umeda JP 10-224696 Aug. 21, 1998 Ex. 1109
English translation of Umeda
JP 10-224696 Aug. 21, 1998 Ex. 1110 1
F. Grounds of Unpatentability Instituted for Trial
The following table summarizes the challenges to patentability that were
instituted for inter partes review:
Reference(s) Basis Claims Challenged
Seeley § 103(a) 18 and 20
Seeley and Ohki § 103(a) 21–30
Seeley and Neta § 103(a) 15 and 34
Seeley, Ohki, and Neta § 103(a) 16 and 35–37
Brusewitz and Ohki § 103(a) 18 and 21–30
Brusewitz, Ohki, and Neta § 103(a) 15, 16, and 34–37
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given their
broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms also are given their ordinary and
customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in
the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech, Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

1 Umeda is a Japanese language document. Ex. 1109. Unless indicated otherwise,
all specific citations to Umeda in this decision refer to its English language
translation which is Exhibit 1110.
IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

7
If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must be set
forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.
Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir.
1998).
Multiplexer
Independent claims 20, 21, 34, and 35 each recite “multiplexer.” Petitioner
proposes that “multiplexer” be construed as “a device for combining two or more
input signals into at least one output signal.” Pet. 4 (internal quotation marks
omitted). For support, Petitioner cites a definition of “multiplexer” from
MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL TERMS, as well as
several portions of the ’913 patent. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1111). The ’913 patent
discloses the following: “multiplexer 15 is provided for merging the signals in
advance of the processor.” Ex. 1101, 8:11–12. See also Ex. 1101, 10:28–30 (“The
MPEG chip output 73 and the DSP output 77 are introduced into a multiplexer 78
for merging the still and video data, which is then output as a digital signal on line
74”) Based on the above, we agree that Petitioner’s construction constitutes the
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. Accordingly, we
adopt it as the proper construction of “multiplexer.”
B. Principles of Law
To prevail in its challenges to the patentability of the claims, Petitioner must
prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37
C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented 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. 398, 406 (2007).
IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

8
To establish obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be
taught or suggested by the prior art. See CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp.,
349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA
1974). A patent claim composed of several elements, however, is not proved
obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was known,
independently, in the prior art. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 419. In that regard, for
an obviousness analysis it is important to identify a reason that would have
prompted one of skill in the art to combine prior art elements in the way the
claimed invention does. Id. A precise teaching directed to the specific subject
matter of a challenged claim, however, is not necessary to establish obviousness.
Id. Rather, obviousness must be gauged in view of common sense and the
creativity of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Id. Moreover, obviousness can be
established when the prior art itself would have suggested the claimed subject
matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051
(CCPA 1976).
We analyze the instituted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with the
above-stated principles.
C. Claims 18 and 20 – Alleged Obvious over Seeley
Petitioner contends that claims 18 and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Seeley. Pet. 7–16. Claim 18 depends from independent
claim 1, but claim 1 is not challenged in this Petition. Claim 20 is independent.
1. Seeley (Exhibit 1105)
Seeley discloses a video security system having components physically
located at premises being protected, and components located at a central station
from which a number of premises can be monitored simultaneously. Ex. 1105,
1:25–28. Figure 7, shown below, illustrates one embodiment of such a system.
IPR2
Paten

func
22 to
came
whic
imag
Ex. 1
Ex. 1
fram
vide
from
18:2
013-0049
t 7,023,9
Figure 7
tion of SC
determin
ras 22. E
h receives
es of scen
When m
105, 12:6
105, 12:2
e compres
o output 46
cameras 2
6–28. Fro
8
13
Fig.
un
shows SC
U 12 is to
e if an intr
x. 1105, 9
video sign
es observe
otion is de
6–67. Mo
3–24. The
sion modu
of SCU
2 also are
m compre
7 is a bloc
it (“SCU”
U 12, incl
look intell
uder is pre
:24–27. SC
als from e
d by respe
tected, cam
tion may b
full frame
le 44, befo
12 and term
supplied t
ssion mod
9
k diagram
) installed
uding cam
igently at
sent withi
U 12 inc
ach of cam
ctive cam
eras 22 t
e detected
images th
re being s
inal adap
o video co
ule 50, com
of a site c
on a prem
eras 22. E
video acqu
n any of th
ludes imag
eras 22, t
eras 22. E
ake full fra
by sensor
en are sen
upplied to
ter 20. Ex
mpression
pressed i
ontrol
ises.
x. 1105, 1
ired from
e scenes v
e acquisit
hese signa
x. 1105, 1
me image
s S1–S3 v
t to and c
central st
. 1105, 13
module 5
mages ma
0:43–46.
each of ca
iewed by
ion section
ls represe
0:43–46.
s of the sc
ia alarm u
ompressed
ation CS v
:27–30. Im
0. Ex. 11
y be sent d

A
meras
24
nting

ene.
nit 16.
at
ia
ages
05,
irectly
IPR2
Paten

(i.e.,
Ex. 1
Figu
Figu
data
22.
comb
§ 10
unpa
013-0049
t 7,023,9
live) throu
105, 18:3
re 12.
re 12 show
buffer 308
Communic
iner modu
Petitione
3(a) as obv
tentability
8
13
gh video
4–36; Fig.
Fig. 12
s that vid
and switc
ation line
le 316 to
r contend
ious over
, Petitione
output 46
7. An exa
is a block
eo signals
h 306 to c
s C2, C3 a
form an IS
2
s that claim
Seeley. P
r provides
10
to central s
mple of te
diagram o
transmitte
ommunica
re combin
DN comm
. Anal
s 18 and 2
et. 7–16.
detailed e
tation CS
rminal ad
f a termin
d from SC
tion lines
ed with co
unication
ysis
0 are unp
In support
xplanation
via termin
aptor 20 is
al adaptor.
U 12 now
C2, C3. E
mmunicat
path. Ex.
atentable u
of this ass
s as to how
al adaptor
shown be

flow throu
x. 1105, 1
ion line C
1105, 14:
nder 35 U
erted grou
each cla
20.
low in
gh
4:19–
1 at
31–33.
.S.C.
nd of
im
IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

11
limitation is disclosed or suggested by Seeley, and, as support, relies on the
Declaration of Dr. Stephen B. Wicker (“Dr. Wicker”). Pet. 7–16 (citing Ex. 1103
¶¶ 32, 38–40, 42). As claim 18 depends from independent claim 1, Petitioner’s
detailed explanations as to how each limitation of claim 18 is disclosed or
suggested by Seeley also address the limitations set forth in independent claim 1.
Upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, we are
persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 18 and 20 would have been obvious in view of Seeley.
For example, Petitioner has shown persuasively that the following
limitations of claim 18, which includes all the limitations of independent claim 1,
are met by the following elements of Seeley:
Independent Claim 1 Seeley
a plurality of image transducers cameras 22
a motion video compressor video compression module 50
a still frame compressor frame compression module 44
a first multiplexer video output 46
a second multiplexer combiner 316
Independent claim 1 also recites “a processor associated with the multiplexer
for generating a conditioned output image signal suitable for transmission over a
network.” Seeley discloses that SCU 12 transmits video signals to central station
CS via terminal adaptor 20. Ex. 1105, 9:31–35. The communications among SCU
12, terminal adaptor 20, and central station CS is along the Ethernet and the ISDN
communication path. Ex. 1105, Figs. 7, 12. While Petitioner does not identify
explicitly a processor in Seeley, Petitioner contends that communication among
SCU 12, terminal adaptor 20, and central station CS along the Ethernet and the
ISDN communication path suggests that: “there is a processor [in Seeley]
IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

12
associated with the multiplexer that controls the function of generating a
conditioned output image signal suitable for transmission over a network.” Pet. 11.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning.
Independent claim 1 further recites “a motion compressor and a still frame
compressor associated with each image transducer and positioned between the
image transducer and the second multiplexer.” Seeley discloses that frame
compression module 44 and video compression module 50 receive data from, and,
thus, are associated with each of cameras 22, and are positioned between cameras
22 and combiner 316. Ex. 1105, Fig. 7.
Independent claim 1 additionally recites “wherein said camera may capture
both full motion video and still frame video, alternately or simultaneously, and
transmit both compressed full motion video and compressed still frame video,
alternately or simultaneously.” Seeley discloses that snapshots, compressed video,
live video, and audio are sent back and forth among SCU 12, terminal adaptor 20,
and central station CS along the Ethernet and the ISDN communication path.
Ex. 1105, 14:35–37; Figs. 7, 12.
Furthermore, claim 18 recites “wherein the full motion video compressor is
a JPEG chip.” While Petitioner acknowledges that video compression module 50
of Seeley is not a JPEG chip, Petitioner contends that M-JPEG was a well-known
video compression technique, and provides the following rationale for modifying
video compression module 50 of Seeley to include a JPEG chip:
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
(“POSITA”) at the time of the invention that the video compression
module 50 could use M-JPEG compression, which uses a JPEG chip,
as M-JPEG was one of a limited number of well known, commonly
used video compression techniques at that time. Wicker Decl., ¶ 38.
Pet. 13. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning.
IPR2
Paten

discl
we d
burd
Seel
§ 10
and c
Ohk
mou
conf
013-0049
t 7,023,9
Petitione
oses or su
After co
etermine t
en for sho
ey.
Petitione
3(a) as obv
laims 22–
Figure 1
i discloses
nting base
iguration a
8
13
r also has
ggests eve
nsidering P
hat, by a p
wing that c
D. Cla
r contend
ious over
30 ultimat
2 of Ohki
Figure
cam
a plurality
100 in a c
llows ima
shown by
ry limitatio
3.
etitioner’
repondera
laims 18 a
ims 21–30
s that claim
Seeley an
ely depen
1.
is shown b
12 is a fro
eras on an
of camera
ircumferen
ges to be c
13
a prepond
n of claim
Concl
s positions
nce of the
nd 20 of t
– Obviou
s 21–30 a
d Ohki. Pe
d from ind
Ohki (Exh
elow.
nt view th
image fo
s 1 placed
tial direct
ollected si
erance of
20.
usion
, as well a
evidence,
he ’913 pa
s over See
re unpaten
t. 16–22.
ependent c
ibit 1106)
at shows a
rming app
on an upp
ion. Ex. 1
multaneou
the eviden
s their sup
Petitioner
tent are un
ley and Oh
table und
Claim 21
laim 21.

layout of
aratus.
er side fa
106, col. 4
sly and jo
ce that See
porting ev
has met it
patentabl
ki
er 35 U.S.C
is indepen

ce of came
, ¶ 15. Su
ined or
ley
idence,
s
e over
.
dent
ra
ch a
IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

14
synthesized to form an image stretching over at least a portion of a region in a
circumferential direction. Ex. 1106, col. 2, ¶ 8.
2. Analysis
Petitioner contends that claims 21–30 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Seeley and Ohki. Pet. 16–22. In support of this asserted
ground of unpatentability, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how each
claim limitation is disclosed or suggested by Seeley, and, as support, relies on the
Declaration of Dr. Wicker. Pet. 16–22 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 39, 43–46, 48, 49).
Upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, we are
persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 21–30 would have been obvious over Seeley and Ohki.
For example, Petitioner has shown persuasively that the following
limitations of independent claim 21 are met by the following elements of Seeley:
Independent Claim 21 Seeley
a plurality of image transducers cameras 22
a motion video compressor video compression module 50
a still frame compressor frame compression module 44
a first multiplexer video output 46
a second multiplexer combiner 316
Independent claim 21 also recites “a processor associated with the second
multiplexer for generating a conditioned output image signal suitable for
transmission over a network.” Seeley discloses that SCU 12 transmits video
signals to central station CS via combiner 316 of terminal adaptor 20. Ex. 1105,
9:31–35. The communications among SCU 12, terminal adaptor 20, and central
station CS is along the Ethernet and the ISDN communication path. Ex. 1105,
Figs. 7, 12. While Petitioner does not identify explicitly a processor in Seeley,
IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

15
Petitioner contends that communication among SCU 12, terminal adaptor 20, and
central station CS along the Ethernet and the ISDN communication path suggests
that: “there is a processor [in Seeley] associated with the second multiplexer
[combiner 316 in terminal adaptor 20] that controls the function of generating a
conditioned output image signal suitable for transmission over a network.” Pet.
19–20. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning.
Independent claim 21 further recites:
a cylindrical housing for housing the plurality of image transducers,
each of the image transducers mounted in the cylindrical housing such
that they are angularly spaced and aimed radially outward from the
cylindrical housing in a manner to collect a combined image
representing a full panoramic view of an area within the normal range
of the image transducers.
Petitioner cites figures in Ohki for disclosing these limitations, and contends the
following:
A POSITA at the time of the invention of the ’913 patent would
have been motivated to mount multiple camera sensors of the type
taught by Seeley in one of the cylindrical housings taught by Ohki in
order to provide a complete or panoramic view of an area. This
combination would be a routine substitution of multiple camera
sensors for a single camera sensor in a specific housing in order to
achieve a predictable result. Wicker Decl., ¶¶ 43–46.
Pet. 17. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning.
Petitioner also has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a
combination of Seeley and Ohki discloses or suggests every limitation of claims
22–30.
3. Conclusion
After considering Petitioner’s positions and supporting evidence, we
determine that, by a preponderance of the evidence, Petitioner has met its burden
IPR2
Paten

for s
Ohk
§ 10
indep
indep
Neta
view
surfa
elem
§ 10
grou
013-0049
t 7,023,9
howing th
i.
E
Petitione
3(a) as obv
endent cl
endent.
Figure 2
Figur
and
discloses
. Ex. 110
ce of optic
ent 14 and
Petitione
3(a) as obv
nd of unpa
8
13
at claims 2
. Claim
r contend
ious over
aim 1, but
of Neta is
e 2 of Net
lenses, gi
optical mo
7, 3:60–61
al modula
lens 26.
r contend
ious over
tentability
1–30 of th
s 15 and
s that claim
Seeley an
claim 1 is
1. N
shown be
a is an illu
ving a 180
dule 10 h
. Each len
r 10 comp
Ex. 1107,
2
s that claim
Seeley an
, Petitione
16
e ’913 pat
34 – Obvio
s 15 and
d Neta. Pe
not challe
eta (Exhi
low.
strative arr
degree ap
aving fifte
s system d
rises a ligh
3:61–64.
. Anal
s 15 and
d Neta. Pe
r provides
ent are un
us over S
34 are unp
t. 23–24.
nged in th
bit 1107)
angement
erture ang
en sensors
isposed o
t sensitiv

ysis
34 are unp
t. 23–24.
detailed e
patentable
eeley and N
atentable u
Claim 15
is petition,

having 15
le field of
for a hem
n a hemisp
e array for
atentable u
In suppor
xplanation
over Seel
eta
nder 35 U
depends fr
and claim
sensors
view.
ispheric fi
heric-like
med of sen
nder 35 U
t of this as
s as to ho
ey and
.S.C.
om
34 is
eld of

sor
.S.C.
serted
w each
IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

17
claim limitation is disclosed or suggested by Seeley, and, as support, relies on the
Declaration of Dr. Wicker. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1103, ¶¶ 55–58).
Upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, we are
persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 15 and 34 would have been obvious over Seeley and Neta.
For example, our analysis concerning how Seeley discloses or suggests
every limitation of independent claim 1, from which claim 15 depends, is set forth
above, and need not be repeated here. Claim 15 further recites “a spherical
housing for supporting the plurality of image transducers mounted in the housing
in angularly spaced, radially projecting relationship to provide full image
collection coverage for a predetermined three dimensional space.” Petitioner cites
columns 2 and 3 of Neta for disclosing these limitations, and contends the
following:
A POSITA at the time of the invention would have been
motivated to mount the plurality of camera sensors taught by Seeley
in a spherical housing as taught by Neta to capture a wide (e.g.,
spherical) field of view, because each of these references teach using
known components (cameras, other forms of sensors/detectors) in the
same way (for use with surveillance systems), yielding predictable
results. Such a substitution is well known, based on common sense,
and/or the result of routine experimentation. Wicker Decl., ¶¶ 55–58.
Pet. 23–24. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning.
Petitioner also has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a
combination of Seeley and Neta discloses or suggests every limitation of claim 34.
3. Conclusion
After considering Petitioner’s positions, as well as their supporting evidence,
we determine that, by a preponderance of the evidence, Petitioner has met its
burden for showing that claims 15 and 34 of the ’913 patent are unpatentable over
Seeley and Neta.
IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

18
F. Claims 16 and 35–37 – Obvious over Seeley, Ohki, and Neta
Petitioner contends that claims 16 and 35–37 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Seeley, Ohki, and Neta. Pet. 24–27. Claim 16
depends from independent claim 1, which is not challenged in this Petition; claim
35 is independent; and claims 36 and 37 depend from independent claim 35.
1. Analysis
Petitioner contends that claims 16 and 35–37 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Seeley, Ohki, and Neta. Pet. 24–27. In
support of this asserted ground of unpatentability, Petitioner provides detailed
explanations as to how each claim limitation is disclosed or suggested by Seeley,
and, as support, relies on the Declaration of Dr. Wicker. Pet. 24–27 (citing Ex.
1103 ¶¶ 47–49, 55–58).
Upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, we are
persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 16 and 35–37 would have been obvious over Seeley, Ohki, and Neta.
For example, our analysis concerning how Seeley discloses or suggests
every limitation of independent claim 1, from which claim 16 depends, is set forth
above, and need not be repeated here. Claim 16 further recites:
a housing comprising an axial sliced cylinder having a planar wall and
a partially cylindrical wall, the planar wall adapted for mounting the
housing on a relatively flat surface, the plurality of image transducers
mounted in the cylindrical portion of the housing such that they are
angularly spaced and aimed radially outward from the housing in a
manner to collect a combined image representing a full panoramic
view of an area within the normal range of the image transducers.
Petitioner cites a combination of Figure 12 of Ohki and Figures 1 and 2 of Neta for
disclosing these limitations, and contends the following:
It was well known to a POSITA at the time of the invention that
one could select from multi-camera housings in a variety of shapes
IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

19
(e.g. planar array, cylindrical, sliced sphere, etc.) to cover a viewable
area to be surveilled. Ohki teaches a cylindrical housing. Neta
teaches a hemispherical housing which includes a planar surface used
for mounting the housing on a wall, ceiling or post. Modifying a
cylindrical housing such that it has one planar side (which would
result in an axial sliced cylindrical housing) would have been an
obvious alternative option for a housing to a POSITA at the time of
the invention in order to provide a housing suitable for coverage of a
large viewing area while being easily mounted to a flat surface, such
as a wall or ceiling. Wicker Decl., ¶¶ 47–49; 55–58.
Pet. 25–26. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning.
Petitioner also has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a
combination of Seeley, Ohki, and Neta discloses or suggests every limitation of
claims 35–37.
2. Conclusion
After considering Petitioner’s positions, as well as its supporting evidence,
we determine that, by a preponderance of the evidence, Petitioner has met its
burden for showing that claims 16 and 35–37 of the ’913 patent are unpatentable
over Seeley, Ohki, and Neta.
G. Claims 18 and 21–30 – Obvious over Brusewitz and Ohki
Petitioner contends that claims 18 and 21–30 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Brusewitz and Ohki. Pet. 27–33, 35–40.
Claim 18 depends from independent claim 1, but claim 1 is not challenged in this
Petition. Claim 21 is independent.
1. Brusewitz (Exhibit 1108)
Brusewitz discloses systems and methods for improving display of high
resolution still images through integration with a corresponding lower resolution
video image. Ex. 1108, 1:9–11. An example of a system of Brusewitz is shown
below in Figure 1:
IPR2
Paten

Figu
of im
the d
signa
comm
comb
imag
fram
Ex. 1
may
resol
imag
long
013-0049
t 7,023,9
Fig
re 1 shows
aging sys
igital imag
l stream t
unication
Brusewi
ined with
ing system
es per seco
108, 7:26
request a h
ution imag
e frames,
er than tra
8
13
ure 1 is a b
camera 1
tem 6. Ex
e data int
hen may b
s (“GSM”
tz disclose
still imag
6 may op
nd sequen
–29. Whe
igher reso
es require
transmissi
nsmission
lock diag
0 forwardi
. 1108, 4:3
o a video s
e transmitt
) channels
s that conv
e managem
erate in n
ce of ima
n a user, h
lution stil
a much g
on of such
of video im
20
ram of an
ng digital
–15. Enc
ignal strea
ed wireles
. Ex. 110
entional v
ent. Ex.
ormal vide
ges at a co
owever, ob
l image. E
reater num
a high res
age fram
electronic
image dat
oder 16 th
m. Ex. 11
sly over G
8, 12:24–3
ideo imag
1108, 7:24
o mode, d
nventiona
serves so
x. 1108, 7
ber of bits
olution im
es. Ex. 11

imaging sy
a to subsam
en encodes
08, 4:22–
lobal Syst
1.
ing capab
–26. For
isplaying
l video res
mething o
:29–31. S
than conv
age usuall
08, 8:9–1
stem.
pler devi
and comp
23. The v
em for Mo
ilities may
example,
a conventi
olution.
f interest, t
ince high
entional v
y takes mu
3. While t
ce 14
resses
ideo
bile
be
onal 30
he user
ideo
ch
he high
IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

21
resolution image is being processed, production of video image frames either is
suspended or continues at a lower bit rate, e.g., through interleaving with the high
resolution image. Ex. 1108, 8:14–16. Conventional video systems employing still
picture capabilities handle the two images differently and independently.
Ex. 1108, 8:16–18.
2. Analysis
Petitioner contends that claims 18 and 21–30 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Brusewitz and Ohki. Pet. 27–33, 35–40. In
support of this asserted ground of unpatentability, Petitioner provides detailed
explanations as to how each claim limitation is disclosed or suggested by
Brusewitz and Ohki, and, as support, relies on the Declaration of Dr. Wicker. Pet.
27–33, 35–40 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 59, 60–63, 67). As claim 18 depends from
independent claim 1, Petitioner’s detailed explanations as to how each limitation of
claim 18 is disclosed or suggested by Brusewitz and Ohki also address the
limitations set forth in independent claim 1.
Upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, we are
persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 18 and 21–30 would have been obvious over Brusewitz and Ohki.
For example, Petitioner has shown persuasively that the following
limitations of claim 18, which include all the limitations of independent claim 1,
are met by Brusewitz and Ohki.
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites “a plurality of image transducers
each adapted for collecting digital high resolution image signals.” Brusewitz
discloses camera 10, which collects high resolution images. Ex. 1108, 2:26–28,
6:2–8, Fig. 1. Petitioner then cites Ohki for disclosing a plurality of image
transducers, and contends the following:
IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

22
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention
to mount multiple cameras of the type taught by Brusewitz in an
arrangement as taught by Ohki in order to provide a larger viewing
area such as a complete or panoramic view of an area. This
combination would be a simple well-known substitution of multiple
cameras for a single camera in order to obtain predictable results.
Wicker Decl., ¶¶ 62–63.
Pet. 30. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning.
Independent claim 1 recites the following:
b. a motion video compressor associated with the image
transducer for compressing full motion video images for generating a
compressed full motion video image data signal;
c. a still frame compressor associated with the image
transducer for compressing still frame images for generating a
compressed still frame image data signal.
Brusewitz discloses encoder 16, which handles video image capabilities and still
image capabilities differently and independently. Ex. 1108, 4:25–31, 9:16–17, Fig.
1. Concerning encoder 16, Petitioner cites the Declaration of Dr. Wicker for the
following:
Brusewitz further teaches a compressor that compresses both
still frame and video images. The compression, however, can occur
separately—such that still frame image compression and video image
compression occur as separate steps. Indeed, Brusewitz indicates that
“encoder 16 encodes the captured high resolution image.” See
Brusewitz, 9:16–17. Yet, Brusewitz also teaches in Figure 2 that
compression (or encoding) of the video images—step 58—is a
separate step from compression of the still images—step 62. Because
these encoding steps are disclosed by Brusewitz as occurring
separately, a POSITA at the time of invention of the ’913 patent
would understand that the encoder can use separate compression
algorithms or separate compression chips for still image compression
and motion video compression, respectively. For instance, Brusewitz
associates compression algorithms such as MPEG with the video
signal stream. Brusewitz, 4:22–5:12. And Brusewitz does not
otherwise exclude separate algorithms for still image compression,
IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

23
such as JPEG, which was a well-known still image compression
standard and one of a limited number of options for still image
compression.
Ex. 1103, ¶ 60. We are persuaded by the reasoning in the above-quoted analysis of
Dr. Wicker.
Independent claim 1 further recites “a first multiplexer for merging the
compressed full motion video image data signal and the compressed still frame
image data signal into a single, combined image data signal.” Brusewitz discloses
that production of video image frames may continue at a lower bit rate, e.g.,
through interleaving with the high resolution image. Ex. 1108, 8:14–16.
Independent claim 1 additionally recites “a second multiplexer for merging
all of said signals into a combined data signal.” Concerning this limitation,
Petitioner contends the following:
Brusewitz does not expressly disclose a second multiplexer.
However, Brusewitz discloses that the cameras may be networked
where beneficial, giving exemplary applications as videoconferencing
and surveillance systems. See e.g., Brusewitz, 12:24–13:3. It would
have been known to a POSITA at the time of the invention of the ’913
Patent that surveillance systems using multiple cameras, such as the
multiple cameras used with the housing of Ohki, were commonly
connected to a network. Wicker Decl., ¶ 67. Thus, it would have
been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to include a
second multiplexer to combine data signals from the multiple cameras
mounted in the Ohki housing into a single signal for network
transmission, as was well-known in the art at the time of the invention
of the ’913 Patent. Wicker Decl., ¶ 67.
Pet. 31–32. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning.
Independent claim 1 also recites “a processor associated with the multiplexer
for generating a conditioned output image signal suitable for transmission over a
network.” Brusewitz discloses that digital image data may be transmitted
wirelessly over GSM channels via the video signal stream. Ex. 1108, 12:24–31.
IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

24
Independent claim 1 further recites “a motion compressor and a still frame
compressor associated with each image transducer and positioned between the
image transducer and the second multiplexer.” As discussed above, Brusewitz
discloses encoder 26 associated with camera 10.
Independent claim 1 additionally recites “wherein said camera may capture
both full motion video and still frame video, alternately or simultaneously, and
transmit both compressed full motion video and compressed still frame video,
alternately or simultaneously.” Brusewitz discloses that digital image data may be
transmitted wirelessly over GSM channels via the video signal stream. Ex. 1108,
12:24–31. Brusewitz also discloses that the video signal stream may include video
image frames interleaved with high resolution images. Ex. 1108, 8:14–16.
Dependent claim 18 recites “wherein the full motion video compressor is a
JPEG chip.” While Petitioner acknowledges Brusewitz does not identify explicitly
an M-JPEG compressor, Petitioner contends that M-JPEG was a well-known video
compression technique, and provides the following rationale for modifying
encoder 16 of Brusewitz to include a JPEG chip: “It would have been obvious to a
POSITA at the time of the invention that [encoder 16] could use M-JPEG
compression, which uses a JPEG chip, as M-JPEG was one of a limited number of
well known, commonly used video compression techniques at that time. Wicker
Decl., ¶ 60.” Pet. 35. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning.
Petitioner also has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a
combination of Brusewitz and Ohki discloses or suggests every limitation of
claims 21–30.
3. Conclusion
After considering Petitioner’s positions, as well as their supporting evidence,
we determine that, by a preponderance of the evidence, Petitioner has met its
IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

25
burden for showing that claims 18 and 21–30 of the ’913 patent are unpatentable
over Brusewitz and Ohki.
H. Claims 15, 16, and 34–37 – Obvious over Brusewitz, Ohki, and Neta
Petitioner contends that claims 15, 16, and 34–37 are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Brusewitz, Ohki, and Neta. Pet. 40–45.
Upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, for reasons
similar to those set forth above with respect to the combinations of Seeley and
Ohki or Neta, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 15, 16, and 34–37 of the ’913 patent are
unpatentable over Brusewitz, Ohki, and Neta.
III. CONCLUSION
We conclude Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(1) claims 18 and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Seeley;
(2) claims 21–30 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Seeley and Ohki;
(3) claims 15 and 34 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Seeley and Neta;
(4) claims 16 and 35–37 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Seeley, Ohki, and Neta;
(5) claims 18 and 21–30 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Brusewitz and Ohki; and
(6) claims 15, 16, and 34–37 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Brusewitz, Ohki, and Neta.
IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

26
IV. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that claims 15, 16, 18, 20–30, and 34–37 of the ’913 patent are
held unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that because this is a final written decision, parties
to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must comply with the
notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2013-00498
Patent 7,023,913

27
For Petitioner:
P. Weston Musselman, Jr.
Adam Shartzer
musselman@fr.com
shartzer@fr.com

For Patent Owner:
Michael Smith
Robert C. Curfiss
pto@patent-counselors.com
bob@curfiss.com