Mobotix Corp.v.E-Watch Corporation

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 3, 2015

09966130 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 20
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 IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

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

CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.

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

IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Mobotix Corp. (“Petitioner”) filed a Corrected Petition requesting
inter partes review of claims 1–3, 15–21, 23–26, 29–32, 34, 36, 37, 39–50,
52–68, and 70–76 of U.S. Patent No. 7,228,429 (Ex. 1101, “the ’429
patent”).1 Paper 4 (“Pet.”). e-Watch, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) did not file a
Preliminary Response. On February 10, 2014, we instituted an inter partes
review of claims 15–21, 23–26, 29–32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41–50, 52–58, 60,
62–67, and 70–76 on certain grounds of unpatentability alleged in the
Petition. Paper 13 (“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 15–21, 23–26,
29–32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41–50, 52–58, 60, 62–67, and 70–76 are unpatentable.
A. The ’429 Patent
The subject matter of the ’429 patent relates to sensor, monitor, and
control appliance devices generally utilized in monitoring and surveillance
systems, and is specifically adapted to a network adaptation of such

1 The Petition includes several inconsistent listings of claims for which
review is sought. Compare, Pet. 1 (omitting claims 32, 34, 36, 37, 63, and
64), with Pet. 3, 60 (including claims 32, 34, and 36, but omitting claim 37).
In addition, all three lists omit claims 1–3 despite the Petition including
analysis of those claims, and include claim 68 despite the Petition providing
no analysis with respect to that claim. Pet. 45–46, 54–60. We determine
that these inconsistencies are clerical errors.
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

3
appliances. Ex. 1101, 1:8–11. Public facilities, such as schools, banks,
airports, arenas, and the like, frequently employ monitoring and surveillance
systems to enhance security. Id. at 1:13–23. Such systems generally have a
centralized monitoring console, usually attended by a guard or dispatcher,
and a variety of sensors located throughout the facility, such as smoke
detectors, fire detectors, motion sensors, glass breakage detectors, badge
readers, video cameras, microphones, and transducers utilized to lock and
unlock doors. Id. at 1:24–30. However, in prior art systems, the signal
generated by each type of device was used locally, or if part of a network,
was sent over a dedicated connection to a remote collection point for that
type of device. Id. at 1:40–44. Such prior art devices merely provided an
ON/OFF indication to the centralized monitoring system and were generally
hard-wired to the centralized monitoring system via a “current loop” or
similar arrangement. Id. at 1:45–51.
To solve these and other problems, a network appliance is disclosed in
the ’429 patent that is designed to participate in a comprehensive multimedia
security and building support system that may be deployed singularly, or in
combination, to achieve the degree of monitoring and protection desired. Id.
at 2:17–22. The single network appliance provides all of the functions
previously supplied by a plurality of dedicated purpose, discrete appliances.
Id. at 2:29–31. The network appliance may be connected to the multimedia
surveillance and monitoring system via a wired or wireless network. Id. at
3:11–22. The network appliance may transmit event data, video and/or
image monitoring information, audio signals, and other network appliance
sensor and detector data over the network for automatic event recording,
assessment, and response. Id. at 3:11–22. The ’429 patent is specifically
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

4
directed to networked appliances, such as video and/or image appliances,
access control devices, detectors, and sensors, as well as audio, condition,
and/or event monitoring systems. Id. at 3:58–61.
The network appliance may include a video camera, digitizer, motion
video buffer and compressor, and a still-frame video buffer and compressor.
Id. at Fig. 8, 13:48–14:51. Figure 8 of the ’429 patent is reproduced below:

Figure 8 of the ’429 patent illustrates one embodiment of network appliance
5. When activated, camera 325 captures local scenes, and transmits them to
monitoring station(s) 390 via network 385 using suitable compression
methods, such as MPEG or JPEG. Id. at 13:53–56. The local scenes are
transmitted to network 385 via multiplexer 355, system processor 375, and
network interface 380. Id. at 13:53–59. Simultaneously, microphone 360
may be included to receive local sounds, digitize them at A/D converter 365,
compress them at audio compressor 370, and send them to network 385. Id.
at 13:59–62.
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

5
B. Illustrative Claim
The ’429 patent includes 76 claims, of which claim 1 is the only
independent claim. Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. An appliance for a network based security system,
comprising:
a. a sensor component adapted for generating a signal in
response to a condition present at the sensor component;
b. a processor for generating a digital output signal
corresponding to the sensor component signal;
c. a network interface for transmitting the digital output
signal via a digital network,
wherein the sensor is a video sensor and the signal
comprises a video signal, the appliance further comprising:
a. an analog-to-digital converter for converting the
analog video signal to a digital signal;
b. a motion video buffer;
c. an mpeg compressor associated with the motion video
compressor;
d. a still frame buffer;
e. a jpeg compressor associated with the still frame
buffer;
f. a multiplexer for combining the outputs of the mpeg
compressor and the jpeg compressor for generating a
combined output signal to the processor for
distribution via the network interface over the
network,
wherein there is further comprising:
a. an audio sensor component;
b. an analog-to-digital converter for converting the
analog audio signal to a digital signal;
c. an audio compressor associated with the audio
sensor component for introducing a signal to the
multiplexer, whereby the multiplexer produces a
combined digital signal comprising a video and an
audio component for distribution via the network
interface over the network.
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

6
C. Prior Art Supporting the Instituted Challenges
The following prior art references were asserted in the instituted
grounds:
Seeley US 6,069,655 May 30, 2000 Ex. 1105
MOBOTIX, INTERNET-VISION-SYSTEMS 1 (2000).
(hereinafter “the Mobotix Brochure”)
Ex. 1106
Fernandez US 6,697,103 B1 Feb. 24, 2004 Ex. 1107
Maram US 5,019,803 May 28, 1991 Ex. 1109
Body WO 00/48155 Aug. 17, 2000 Ex. 11192
D. 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) 15–18, 23–25, 39, 43–50, 55, 60, 62–65, 71, 73, and 74
Seeley and Fernandez § 103(a) 18–21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 37, 41, 42, 70, and 75
Seeley and Maram § 103(a) 26, 29–31, 37, 42, 52, 54, 55, 58, 72, and 75
Seeley and Body § 103(a) 32, 34, 36, 42, 43, 50, 53, 55–57, 60, 65, 67, 75, and 76
Mobotix Brochure § 103(a) 15–18, 20, 23–25, 43–50, 65, 66, and 71

2 Petitioner incorrectly identifies Body as Ex. 1121. Pet. 9.
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

7
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
2012). Claim terms 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). 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).
1. “multiplexer”
Independent claim 1 recites a “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. For support, Petitioner cites a
definition of “multiplexer” from McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and
Technical Terms, as well as several portions of the ’429 patent. Id. (citing
Ex. 1118). Claim 1 of the ’429 patent specifies that the recited multiplexer
is “for combining of the outputs of the mpeg compressor and the jpeg
compressor for generating a combined output signal” and that it “produces a
combined digital signal comprising a video and an audio component.” Apart
from the claims, the ’429 patent uses the term “multiplexer” only once.
Ex. 1101, 13:56–57 (“the network comprising the multiplexer 355”). Based
on the above, we agree that Petitioner’s construction constitutes the broadest
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

8
reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. Accordingly, we
adopt it as the proper construction of multiplexer.
2. “the sensor”
Independent claim 1 recites “wherein the sensor is a video sensor and
the signal comprises a video signal.” Claim 1 does not recite “a sensor.”
Thus, there is no antecedent basis for “the sensor.” However, claim 1 does
recite “a sensor component adapted for generating a signal.” Petitioner
identifies factors in favor of construing “the sensor” as referring to the
“sensor component” and factors in favor of construing “the sensor” as
indicating “a sensor.” Pet. 4–5. On balance, we are not persuaded that the
patentee intended the term “the sensor” to add a second structural
limitation—“a sensor”—in addition to the “sensor component” recited
earlier in the claim. The “wherein” clause requires that “the signal
comprises a video signal.” The antecedent basis for “the signal” is the
“signal” that the “sensor component” is adapted for generating. Because the
“sensor component” is adapted for generating a “video signal,” a person of
ordinary skill in the art would understand it to be a “video sensor.”
Accordingly, we construe “the sensor,” as recited in claims 1 and 69–76, to
refer to the “sensor component” recited in claim 1.
3. “is”
Independent claim 1 recites the term “is” in the phrase “wherein the
sensor is a video sensor.” Petitioner proposes that “is” be construed as open-
ended because claim 1 specifies that “the sensor is a video sensor” whereas
numerous dependent claims specify that the “sensor” recited in claim 1 “is”
a type of sensor other than a video sensor. Pet. 5. For example, claim 70
specifies that “the sensor is a fingerprint reader.” On this record, we are not
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

9
persuaded that the patentee intended to give “is” a special (i.e., open-ended)
meaning. To the extent that claim 70 and other dependent claims further
limit the “sensor” recited in claim 1, those limitations are in addition to the
limitations of claim 1. We decline to construe “is” such that claim 70 could
be satisfied by a sensor that is a video sensor but not a fingerprint reader, or
by a sensor that is a fingerprint reader but not a video sensor. Therefore, we
decline to construe “is” as open-ended, and instead construe it to have its
plain and ordinary meaning.
4. “workstation”
As explained below with respect to claim 61, Petitioner contends that
“workstation-to-workstation Intercom” is taught by Body. Pet. 36–37. The
term “workstation” is not defined in the Specification. A person of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood the plain and ordinary meaning of
“workstation” as requiring input and output that can be used by an
individual. See MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 722 (5th ed. 2002)
(“workstation n. 1. A combination of input, output, and computing
hardware that can be used for work by an individual.”). Accordingly, we
construe workstation as “a combination of input, output, and computing
hardware that can be used for work by an individual.”
B. Claims 15–18, 23–25, 39, 43–50, 55, 60, 62–65, 71, 73, and 74 –
Obvious over Seeley
Petitioner contends that claims 15–18, 23–25, 39, 43–50, 55, 60, 62–
65, 71, 73, and 74 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Seeley. Pet. 9–23. All of the claims depend from independent claim 1,
but inter partes review was not instituted for claim 1.
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

10
Seeley (Exhibit 1105)
Seeley discloses a video security system having components located
physically at a 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:

Fig. 7 is a block diagram of a site control unit (“SCU”) installed on a
premises. Id. at 7:42–43. Figure 7 shows SCU 12, including cameras 22.
Id. at 10:43–46. A function of SCU 12 is to look intelligently at video
acquired from each of cameras 22 to determine if an intruder is present
within any scenes viewed by cameras 22. Id. at 9:24–27. SCU 12 includes
image acquisition section 24, which receives video signals from each of
cameras 22, these signals representing images of scenes observed by the
respective cameras 22. Id. at 10:43–46.
When motion is detected, cameras 22 take full frame images of the
scene. Id. at 12:66–13:4. Motion may be detected by sensors S1–S3 via
alarm unit 16. Id. at 12:23–24. The full frame images then are sent to and
IPR2
Paten

comp
centr
Id. a
comp
50, c
46 to
exam
Figu
12 sh
buffe
Com
comb
33.
65, 7
over
013-0049
t 7,228,42
ressed at
al station
t 13:27–30
ression m
ompressed
central st
ple of term
re 12 is a b
ows that v
r 308 and
municatio
iner modu
Analysis
Petitione
1, 73, and
Seeley. P
9
9
frame com
CS via vid
. Images
odule 50.
images m
ation CS v
inal adap
lock diag
ideo sign
switch 30
n lines C2
le 316 to

r contend
74 are unp
et. 9–23.
pression m
eo output
from came
Id. at 18:2
ay be sen
ia termina
tor 20 is s
ram of a te
als transmi
6 to comm
, C3 are co
form an IS
s that claim
atentable
In support
11
odule 44
46 of SCU
ras 22 also
6–28. Fro
t directly (
l adaptor 2
hown belo
rminal ada
tted from
unication
mbined w
DN comm
s 15–18,
under 35 U
of this ass
, before be
12 and te
are supp
m video c
i.e., live) t
0. Id. at 1
w in Figur
ptor. Id.
SCU 12 fl
lines C2, C
ith commu
unication
23–25, 39
.S.C. § 1
erted grou
ing suppli
rminal ada
lied to vid
ompressio
hrough vid
8:34–36,
e 12.
at 7:57–58
ow throug
3. Id. at
nication l
path. Id.
, 43–50, 55
03(a) as ob
nd of
ed to
pter 20.
eo
n module
eo output
Fig. 7. An
. Figure
h data
14:19–22.
ine C1 at
at 14:31–
, 60, 62–
vious

IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

12
unpatentability, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how the
claimed subject matter of each claim is met by Seeley, and relies on a
Declaration of Dr. Stephen B. Wicker (“Dr. Wicker”). Id. (citing Ex. 1103
¶¶ 19, 36, 38–43, 93, 94). As claims 15–18, 23–25, 39, 43–50, 55, 60, 62–
66, 71, 73, and 74 each depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1,
Petitioner’s detailed explanations as to how each limitation of those claims is
disclosed or suggested by Seeley also address the limitations set forth in
independent claim 1. Id. at 9–17.
Upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, we
determine that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that claims 15–18, 23–25, 39, 43–50, 55, 60, 62–65, 71, 73, and 74
would have been obvious over Seeley.
For example, we are persuaded that the following limitations of
independent claim 1 are met by the following disclosure of Seeley:
Independent Claim 1 Seeley
a sensor component cameras 22
a processor site control unit (“SCU”) 12
a network interface terminal adapter
a motion video buffer compressed video buffer 51
a still frame buffer snapshot buffer 40
a multiplexer video output 46
an audio sensor component microphones 52
an analog-to-digital converter audio processing module 54
an audio compressor audio processing module 54
Pet. 9–17.
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

13
Independent claim 1 also recites “an mpeg compressor” and “a jpeg
compressor.” Seeley discloses video compression module 50 and frame
compression unit 44. Ex. 1105, Fig. 7, 13:27–30, 18:26–38. Petitioner
acknowledges that Seeley does not disclose expressly that video
compression module 50 implements an “MPEG” standard, or that frame
compression unit 44 implements a “JPEG” standard, as recited in
independent claim 1. Pet. 15. However, Petitioner explains as follows:
Although Seeley does not explicitly reference an MPEG
compressor, MPEG was a well-known video compression
standard at the time of the invention. It would have been
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention that the video compression module 50 could
use the MPEG compression standard, as MPEG was one of a
limited number of well[-]known, commonly used video
compression standards at that time. The video compression
module 50 using [the] MPEG compression technique would be
part of the overall motion video compressor and would thus be
“associated with the motion video compressor.” Wicker Decl.
[Declaration of Professor Stephen Wicker, Ex. 1103], ¶ 38.
. . . .
Although Seeley does not explicitly identify a JPEG
compressor, JPEG was a well-known image compression
standard at the time of the invention. It would have been
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention that the frame compression unit 44 could use
the JPEG compression standard, as JPEG was one of a limited
number of well[-]known, commonly used still image
compression standards at that time. Wicker Decl., ¶ 39.
Pet. 15. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning.
Petitioner further acknowledges that Seeley does not disclose
expressly “an analog-to-digital converter for converting the analog video
signal to a digital signal,” as recited in independent claim 1. Pet. 14.
Petitioner then explains as follows:
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

14
However, Seeley discloses that the cameras 22 can be analog or
digital cameras and “[a] SCU can accommodate a plurality of
cameras which can be . . . analog or digital cameras.” Seeley,
10:60-62, and 20:48-50. . . . Seeley further discloses that the
video signal is output from the SCU (Site Control Unit) to be
transmitted over ISDN (a digital network). See e.g., Seeley,
14:7-9. Because the SCU is described as performing pixel by
pixel operations and having an input from an analog camera and
the processed video signal is transmitted over a digital network,
Seeley discloses an analog-to-digital converter for converting
the analog video signal to a digital signal in order to transmit
the video signal over the digital network. Declaration of
Professor Stephen Wicker, MOB1103, (hereinafter “Wicker
Decl.”), ¶ 36.
Pet. 14. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning.
With respect to the “conventional LAN data link” recited in claim 15,
Petitioner cites Seeley as disclosing a conventional LAN data link:
Figure[] 12 of Seeley shows a Terminal Adaptor (20) with a
conventional LAN data link including an Ethernet connection
to SCU 12 and an ISDN connection. See below for
obviousness discussion.
. . . .
As to claims 15–17, the ’429 Patent’s Specification
describes the Figures showing the structure of these claims
(FIG. 10 and FIG. 11) as depicting nothing more than “a
standardized method and apparatus for monitoring, controlling
and powering a variety of network-based appliances.” ’429
Patent, 14:28-31 9 (emphasis added). In fact, the preamble of
claim 15 identifies the structure as a “conventional” LAN data
link. Thus, Figures[] 10 and 11 of the ’429 Patent constitute
admitted prior art, and the addition of the admitted prior art
structure to the system disclosed by Seeley would have been
obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention. Wicker
Decl. ¶¶ 93-94. As to claim 15, Figures 10 and 11 of the ’429
Patent show a hub physical-layer interface (800), two twisted-
pairs wires (815/820), a first transformer (805/810) connecting
the two twisted wires to hub, a network device physical-layer
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

15
interface (835) connected to the twisted pairs (815/820), and a
second transformer (825/830) connected to a peripheral device.
Pet. 18, 21–22. Paragraphs 93 and 94 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration state:
93. It was well-known to a POSITA at the time of the
invention of the ’429 patent that a “conventional” LAN data
link could include a hub at one end of the link and a peripheral
device at the other, and that the link between the ends could be
accomplished with one or more pairs of twisted-pair wires. It
was also well-known to a POSITA that a transformer could be
used between the hub and the link, and between the peripheral
device and the link, to provide electrical isolation between the
end points, e.g., to remedy a ground offset that can occur when
the hub and the peripheral device are powered from different
sources. Additionally, and as an example, the Ethernet
10BASE-T specification (IEEE 802.3) requires the use of
transformers at the ends of twisted pair cables. See, for
example Annex D.6 of the IEEE Std. 802.3, 1998 Edition
(excerpt below, where XFMR denotes a transformer), in which
10BASE-T uses cabling systems with a nominal differential
characteristic impedance of 150 Ω.
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

16

94. As discussed above, the transformers at each end of the
LAN data link can electrically isolate the hub and the peripheral
device from ground offsets. It would be well-known to a
POSITA that with the end points isolated from offset voltages
present on the link, the link itself could be intentionally biased
with an external voltage and used to transmit power. For
example, U.S. Patent 5,148,144 (to Sutterlin, et al.) describes
how the twisted pair wires of a transformer-isolated LAN data
link can be used to conduct power between a power supply and
a regulator, in which the power supply is connected to the
twisted pair side of a transformer at one end of the twisted pair
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

17
wires, and the DC/DC regulator is connected to the twisted pair
side of another transformer at the other end of the LAN data
link.
Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 93–94 (highlighting in original). We are persuaded by the
reasoning in the above-quoted analysis of Dr. Wicker.
With respect to “wherein the sensor component is a heat sensor,”
recited in claim 24, Petitioner cites Seeley for disclosing that “security
companies also use passive infrared (“P.I.R.”) sensors which sense heat
differences caused by animate objects such as humans or animals.” Pet. 18
(citing Ex. 1105, 1:48–49). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning.
Claim 39 depends from claim 2. With respect to “wherein the
network is a hardwired network and the network interface is a connector,”
recited in claim 2, from which claim 39 depends, Petitioner cites Seeley as
disclosing a terminal adaptor. Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1105, Fig. 1). With
respect to “wherein the network interface includes both an RJ-45 jack and an
RJ-11 jack,” recited in claim 39, Petitioner cites Seeley as disclosing an
Ethernet connection and two plain old telephone service (“POTS”) lines:
Fig. 12 of Seeley shows a Terminal Adaptor as part of the
appliance that is a network interface having a conventional
LAN data link including an Ethernet connection and two POTS
lines “available for whatever usage the operator of the
premise[sic] wishes to put them.” See, e.g., Seeley, 13:59–
14:5. See below for obviousness discussion.
. . . .
As to claim 39, it was well known to a POSITA at that time of
the invention that an Ethernet connection would have a RJ-45
connection and a POTS line would have a RJ-11 connection
such that the Terminal Adaptor of Seeley would include both a
RJ-45 jack and a RJ-11 jack. Wicker Decl. ¶¶ 19, 41-42.
Id. at 19, 22. Paragraphs 41 and 42 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration state:
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

18
41. Seeley further teaches a customer premise connected
through a terminal adapter 20 to an Integrated Services Data
Digital Network (ISDN), which is further connected to the
central station. E.g., FIG. 1. A POSITA would understand that
terminal adapter 20 (i.e., network interface) has an associated
processor designed to format data (here, image/video/audio
data) such that it is suited for transmission as a signal across a
network. The signal used to transmit the data would include
attributes such as IP address information and appliance type
information to allow for routing and delivery across the
network.
42. ISDN, as addressed above, is a circuit-switched telephone
network system, designed to allow digital transmission of voice
and data over ordinary telephone copper wires. An ISDN
network provides capability for simultaneous voice, video, and
text transmission between individual nodes across separate
networks and enables, for instance, video conferencing. It was
well known to a POSITA at the time of the invention of the ’429
patent that an ISDN network is a hardwired network. A
POSITA would understand that an Ethernet network, as
disclosed by Seeley, is also a hardwired network and that
connection to Ethernet or ISDN networks could be
accomplished with a RJ-45 jack. See further discussions re
support in ¶ 19 above.
Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 41–42 (emphasis added). We are persuaded by the reasoning in
the above-quoted analysis of Dr. Wicker.
With respect to claims 43–50, Petitioner contends that they “do not
disclose additional structure, as they merely recite an intended use for the
claimed device.” Pet. 23. Claim 43 recites “[t]he appliance of claim 1,
further including a time display over the IP network.” However, claim 43
does not identify any component of claim 1 that generates the time display
or communicates it over the IP network, or otherwise indicate whether the
time display is even generated or communicated by the appliance of claim 1.
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

19
As a result, “further including a time display over the IP network” lacks a
functional relationship to the components recited in claim 1. The same
analysis applies to claims 44–50. We, therefore, construe these limitations
to be non-functional descriptive material. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336,
1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887–89
(BPAI 2008) (precedential) (discussing cases pertaining to non-functional
descriptive material). As a result, we are persuaded that these claims do not
distinguish over Seeley.
With respect to claim 65, Petitioner likewise contends that it “do[es]
not disclose additional structure, as [it] merely recite[s] an intended use for
the claimed device.” Pet. 23. However, unlike claims 43–50, claim 65
recites “the appliance further configure[d] to.” Thus, claim 65 requires that
the recited “access control” is “provide[d]” structurally by the appliance of
claim 1. As a result, we are not persuaded that claim 65 recites non-
functional descriptive material. Petitioner cites Seeley as providing access
control. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1105, 9:61–67 (“[C]ontrol panel P, including a
keypad K, may be conveniently located on the premise[sic] such that . . . the
person can enter an appropriate code into the keypad at panel P to signify
that the entry [is] unauthorized or reportable.”)). We are persuaded by
Petitioner’s reasoning.
Petitioner has also shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
Seeley discloses or suggests every limitation of claims 16–18, 23, 25, 55, 60,
62–64, 71, 73, and 74.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 15–18, 23–
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

20
25, 39, 43–50, 55, 60, 62–65, 71, 73, and 74 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Seeley.
C. Claims 18–21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 37, 41, 42, 70, and 75 –
Obvious over Seeley and Fernandez
Petitioner contends that claims 18–21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 37, 41, 42, 70,
and 75 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Seeley
and Fernandez. Pet. 23–27.
Fernandez (Exhibit 1107)
Fernandez discloses an integrated fixed and/or wireless network and
associated database, and software functionality for monitoring and
processing remote and/or local moveable objects. Ex. 1107, 1:33–36.
According to Fernandez, a preferred integrated network monitoring system
includes network communications infrastructure 8. Id. at 2:22–26. Network
8 may be a functional aggregate of multiple sub-networks, including
conventional or proprietary networking equipment, for enabling access to
and/or through the World Wide Web (WWW), or other functionally
equivalent local and/or wide area network (LAN/WAN) interconnectivity.
Id. at 2:26–31. Network 8 provides a digital connection to, or from, any
allocated web node address or equivalently accessible network resource,
such as a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), associated hypertext file, and
other proper domain name and file location, according to a Transmission
Control Protocol/internet Protocol (TCP/IP) addressing scheme. Id. at 2:32–
37. Network 8 further couples to one or more conventional internet,
intranet, or other LAN/WAN network connection or server, and sensor or
detector. Id. at 3:17–22. According to Fernandez, such arrangements
preferably use a conventional TCP/IP protocol Internet website addressing
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

21
scheme. Id. at 3:48–50. Fernandez discloses that an overall integrated
system preferably includes a geographically or relatively fixed network of
multiple detectors uniquely accessible through an Internet browsing
interface, overlaid with a mobile set of targets closely associated with, or
attached to, certain objects for remote monitoring. Id. at 5:46–52.
Analysis
Petitioner contends that claims 18–21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 37, 41, 42, 70,
and 75 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Seeley
and Fernandez. Pet. 23–27. In support of this asserted ground of
unpatentability, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how the
subject matter of each claim is met by the combined teachings of Seeley and
Fernandez, and relies on the Declaration of Dr. Wicker. Id. (citing Ex. 1103
¶¶ 48–52). Specifically, claims 18–21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 37, 41, 42, 70, and 75
each depend, directly or indirectly from claim 1. Petitioner cites Seeley as
teaching every limitation of independent claim 1, and cites to portions of
Fernandez as teaching the additional limitations in claims 18–21, 23, 24, 26,
29, 37, 41, 42, 70, and 75.
Upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, we are
persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 18–21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 37, 41, 42, 70, and 75 would
have been obvious over Seeley and Fernandez.
For example, with respect to “wherein the sensor component is a
motion detector,” recited in claim 18, Petitioner cites Fernandez for
disclosing a motion detector:
Fernandez discloses that an appliance (detector 3) can be
implemented using a variety of imaging and non-imaging
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

22
sensors. For example, the sensor can be a “motion detector”.
See, e.g., Fernandez, 4:43-50.
Pet. 26. The cited portion of Fernandez teaches that “detectors 3 may be
implemented to sense state and other measurement signals from [a] motion
detector.” Ex. 1107, 4:43–45. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning.
Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to combine Seeley and Fernandez, and, as support,
relies on the Declaration of Dr. Wicker. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 48–52).
Dr. Wicker states:
Because both Seeley and Fernandez are directed toward
disclosures of surveillance and monitoring appliances, a
POSITA at the time of invention of the ’429 patent would have
been motivated to add to or modify the camera units taught by
Seeley with any of the detectors and triggering devices
commonly incorporated with monitoring systems. Fernandez
teaches the use of examples of these types of non-imaging
detectors and triggering devices that might be added to the
camera units of Seeley. Thus, the combination of the teachings
of Seeley and Fernandez would have yielded known,
predictable results, based on the knowledge of a POSITA.
Ex. 1103 ¶ 52. We are persuaded by the reasoning in the above-quoted
analysis of Dr. Wicker.
Petitioner has also shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a
combination of Seeley and Fernandez discloses or suggests every limitation
of claims 19–21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 37, 41, 42, 70, and 75.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 18–21, 23,
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

23
24, 26, 29, 37, 41, 42, 70, and 75 of the ’429 patent are unpatentable over
Seeley and Fernandez.
D. Claims 26, 29–31, 37, 42, 52, 54, 55, 58, 72, and 75 –
Obvious over Seeley and Maram
Petitioner contends that claims 26, 29–31, 37, 42, 52, 54, 55, 58, 72,
and 75 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Seeley
and Maram. Pet. 28–33.
Maram (Exhibit 1109)
Maram discloses a detector unit for use in detecting unauthorized
intrusions into homes, offices, factories, and other buildings. Ex. 1109,
Abstract. The detector unit comprises a detector such as a passive infrared
detector, a radio frequency transmitter that is connected to the detector and
that transmits a detector signal when the detector is actuated, and a battery.
Id.
Figure 1 is reproduced below:

As depicted in Figure 1, the alarm system comprises main control unit
(“MCU”) 10 connected to a source of main electrical power and to
emergency battery 12, which comes into operation should the main electrical
power be interrupted. Id. at 3:57–61. MCU 10 includes receiver 16 to
receive any one of a number of encoded signals, actuator 18, internal siren
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

24
20a, external audible alarm emitter 20b, and a display device including an
alphanumeric readout display board 21 and a series of identified LEDs 22.
Id. at 3:63–68. Actuator 18 is operable by receiver 16 when it receives a
detector signal to actuate one or both of sirens 20 or to send a signal to a
remote emergency monitoring service such as a police station. Id. at 3:68–
4:4. LEDs 22 indicate that a particular signal has been received and further
details are obtained from the display. Id. at 4:4–7. The alarm system
comprises a number of detector units 24.
Figure 1A is reproduced below:

Figure 1A depicts a block diagram of detector unit 24 of Maram including
detector 28. Id. at 3:35–36, 3:56–57. Detector 28 may be, for example, a
passive infrared detector, a sonic detector, a micro-switch, a vibrator
window switch, a smoke detector, a door switch, a tamper switch, a pressure
pad switch, a remote key switch, a monitoring device to monitor, e.g.,
temperature, humidity, pressure, radiation, or when a particular item is in its
proximity. Id. at 2:38–50. Detector 28 also may be a panic button. Id. at
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

25
7:7–9. Detector unit 24 may be contained within a housing into which an
emergency button is formed. Id. at 2:56–57. On depression of the
emergency button, transmitter 30 sends a signal detectable by MCU 10. Id.
at 2:59–61.
Analysis
Petitioner contends that claims 26, 29–31, 37, 42, 52, 54, 55, 58, 72,
and 75 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Seeley
and Maram. Pet. 28–33. In support of this asserted ground of
unpatentability, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how the
subject matter of each claim is met by the combined teachings of Seeley and
Maram, and relies on the Declaration of Dr. Wicker. Id. (citing Ex. 1103
¶¶ 53–59). Specifically, claims 26, 29–31, 37, 42, 52, 54, 55, 58, 72, and 75
each depend, directly or indirectly from claim 1. Petitioner cites Seeley as
teaching every limitation of independent claim 1, and cites to portions of
Maram as teaching the additional limitations in claims 26, 29–31, 37, 42, 52,
54, 55, 58, 72, and 75.
Upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, we are
persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 26, 29–31, 37, 42, 52, 54, 55, 58, 72, and 75 would
have been obvious over Seeley and Maram.
For example, with respect to “wherein the sensor component is a
humidistat,” recited in claim 30, Petitioner cites Maram for disclosing a
humidistat:
Maram discloses that “[t]he detector may also be a monitoring
device to monitor . . . humidity . . .” See, e.g., Maram, 2:46-47.
Pet. 31. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning.
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

26
With respect to “wherein the sensor is a pull handle fire alarm,”
recited in claim 72, Petitioner cites Maram for disclosing a fire detector and
an emergency button:
Maram discloses the detector units comprise “fire detectors.”
Maram further discloses that on depression (activation) of the
emergency button the transmitter gives off a signal (initiate
specific actions). See, e.g., Maram, 2:59-61. [sic] 1:13-16,
2:43-46. See discussion immediately following this claim
chart.
. . . .
As to claim 72, a POSITA at the time of the invention would
have been motivated to include a pull handle fire alarm, a well-
known, commonly used fire alarm, as an emergency button as
taught by Maram to give off a fire alarm signal when fire is
detected by the fire detector taught by Maram. Wicker, Decl.
¶ 59.
Pet. 32–33. Paragraph 59 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration states:
Maram discloses “fire detectors” and “an emergency button,”
that when depressed (activated) gives off an alarm signal. See,
e.g., Maram, 2:59-61. [sic] 1:13-16, 2:43-46. A POSITA at the
time of the invention would have been motivated to include a
pull-handle fire alarm in addition to or in lieu of the emergency
button to send a fire alarm signal when fire is detected by the
fire detector taught by Maram. The pull handle fire alarm was a
well-known, commonly used fire alarm at the time of the
invention.
Ex. 1103 ¶ 59. We are persuaded by the reasoning in the above-quoted
analysis of Dr. Wicker.
Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to combine Seeley and Maram, and, as support, relies
on the Declaration of Dr. Wicker. Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 53–59).
Dr. Wicker states:
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

27
Because both Seeley and Maram are directed toward
disclosures of surveillance and monitoring appliances, a
POSITA at the time of invention of the ’429 patent would have
been motivated to add to or modify the camera units taught by
Seeley with any of the detectors, the emergency button, and/or
warning indicator devices commonly incorporated with a
detector unit in monitoring systems as taught by Maram. Thus,
the combination of the teachings of Seeley and Maram would
have yielded known, predictable results, based on the
knowledge of a POSITA.
Ex. 1103 ¶ 58. We are persuaded by the reasoning in the above-quoted
analysis of Dr. Wicker.
Petitioner has also shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a
combination of Seeley and Maram discloses or suggests every limitation of
claims 26, 29, 31, 37, 42, 52, 54, 55, 58, and 75.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 26, 29–31,
37, 42, 52, 54, 55, 58, 72, and 75 of the ’429 patent are unpatentable over
Seeley and Maram.
E. Claims 32, 34, 36, 42, 43, 50, 53, 55–57, 60, 65, 67, 75, and 76 –
Obvious over Seeley and Body
Petitioner contends that claims 32, 34, 36, 42, 43, 50, 53, 55–57, 60,
65, 67, 75, and 76 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Seeley and Body. Pet. 33–37.
Body (Exhibit 1119)
Body discloses a controller for use in a monitoring system with an
existing communications network. Ex. 1119, Abstract. The controller
includes inputs capable of receiving data from a number of differing
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

28
peripheral devices, processing means to process the data into a format
suitable for the existing communications network, and a data output capable
of connection to the communications network. Id. Figure 1 is reproduced
below:

Figure 1 “is a schematic of a security system incorporating a controller in
accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.” Id. at 12:9–10.
As shown in Figure 1, the monitoring system includes server 2 connected via
a local area network to a number of workstations or terminals 3. Id. at
12:15–16. The system also includes a number of controllers 4. Id. at 12:19.
Controller 4 is preferably an intelligent, microprocessor-based
controller capable of communicating with up to sixteen field devices. Id. at
13:1–2. These devices may include contactless smart card and proximity
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

29
card readers 5 and 6, input and output panels 7, digital video cameras 8, and
digital intercoms 9. Id. at 13:2–4. In a preferred embodiment, the system
includes “plus” card readers 6, which include a keypad with numeric keys
and function keys and a 128x32 pixel LCD display. Id. at 13:20–23.
Controller 4 performs alarm and event monitoring and is capable of
programmable logic control type functions. Id. at 13:8–9. Controller 4 will
buffer and route image intercom information to an appropriate server or
workstation PC along with data received from other peripheral devices. Id.
at 13:9–11. An operator can view images from any camera 8 in the system
by using an operator workstation, and can configure the system to store
several images from a given camera when a certain alarm occurs. Id. at
15:4–6.
The occurrence of certain pre-selected events can trigger transmission
of stored images to a server such that the server will have recorded a number
of images from before, during, and after an event. Id. at 15:7–9. The details
of which event triggered the image recording is included as data with the
sequence of images, when the sequence of images is sent to the server for
recording to a hard disk. Id. at 15:12–14. This allows the operator to
navigate directly to the sequence of images and play the images back. Id. at
15:16–18. For example, when acknowledging an alarm, an operator can
request to view any images associated with that alarm and immediately play
back several seconds worth of images that were recorded around the time of
the alarm. Id. at 15:19–22. In addition, a person at one of digital intercoms
9 may press appropriate keys to generate an event that is reported to the
operator at the workstation. Id. at 16:10–11. The operator may then accept
the call by switching on digital intercom 9. Id. at 16:11–12.
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

30
Analysis
Petitioner contends that claims 32, 34, 36, 42, 43, 50, 53, 55–57, 60,
65, 67, 75, and 76 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Seeley and Body. Pet. 33–37. In support of this asserted ground of
unpatentability, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how the
subject matter of each claim is met by the combined teachings of Seeley and
Body, and relies on the Declaration of Dr. Wicker. Id. (citing Ex. 1103
¶¶ 60–63). Specifically, claims 32, 34, 36, 42, 43, 50, 53, 55–57, 60, 65, 67,
75, and 76 each depend, directly or indirectly from claim 1. Petitioner cites
Seeley as teaching every limitation of independent claim 1, and cites to
portions of Body as teaching the additional limitations in claims 32, 34, 36,
42, 43, 50, 53, 55–57, 60, 65, 67, 75, and 76.
Upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, we are
persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 32, 34, 36, 42, 43, 50, 53, 55–57, 60, 65, 67, 75, and 76
would have been obvious over Seeley and Body.
For example, with respect to “wherein the sensor component
comprises a programmable module for sending a control signal to a remote
device,” recited in claim 32, Petitioner cites Body for disclosing a controller:
Body discloses that “a controller may have part of its
processing capability, information to allow it to determine
whether an event is an alarm based on the following
criteria…whether the source and type of event is a group of
alarm points;”(programmable module) and “the controller may
only communicate selected data [control signal] to an operator
on the communications network” (e.g., “the operator work
station 3” (a remote device)). See, e.g., Body, 9:7-15, 10:11-12,
16:10-11.
Pet. 34–35. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning.
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

31
Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to combine Seeley and Body, and, as support, relies on
the Declaration of Dr. Wicker. Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 60–63).
Dr. Wicker states:
Because both Seeley and Body are directed toward disclosures
of security/surveillance/monitoring appliances, a POSITA at the
time of invention of the ’429 patent would have been motivated
to combine the camera units as taught by Seeley with the
controller and its associated peripheral devices as taught by
Body, because both references teach using known components
(cameras, other forms of sensors, detectors, and access
controller) in the same way for use in surveillance/security
systems. Thus, the combination of the teachings of Seeley and
Body would have yielded known, predictable results, based on
the knowledge of a POSITA.
Ex. 1103 ¶ 62. We are persuaded by the reasoning in the above-quoted
analysis of Dr. Wicker.
Claim 67, which depends from claim 65, recites “the access control
including an automatic camera switching based on an access attempt.”
Petitioner cites Body for disclosing automatic camera switching:
Body discloses the access controller 4 is connected to cameras
8. Body further discloses that any event or alarm (access
control attempt) “may trigger recording of sound from an
intercom” (automatically switches on audio). See, e.g., Body,
12:21-13:4, 16:21-22. See further discussion immediately
following this claim chart.
. . . .
As to claim 67, it would have been obvious to POSITA to
include automatic camera switching to automatically switch on
video in the area of a triggered sensor in view of the disclosure
in Body to automatically switch on audio when an alarm
occurs, [sic] Wicker, Decl. ¶ 63.
Pet. 37. Paragraph 63 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration states:
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

32
Body discloses that the access controller 4 is connected to
cameras 8 and any event or alarm “may trigger recording of
sound from an intercom.” See e.g., Body, 12:21-13:4, 16:21-
22. The event or alarm can be based on an access control
attempt and can automatically switch on audio recordings. A
POSITA at the time of the invention of the ‘429 patent would
have been motivated to include automatic camera switching
between cameras to automatically switch on video for the
camera(s) that view the area around a sensor that senses access
at a control point, in view Body’s teaching of automatically
switching on audio if there is an attempted access.
Ex. 1103 ¶ 63. We are persuaded by the reasoning in the above-quoted
analysis of Dr. Wicker.
Petitioner has also shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a
combination of Seeley and Body discloses or suggests every limitation of
claims 34, 36, 42, 43, 50, 53, 55–57, 60, 65, 75, and 76.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 32, 34, 36,
42, 43, 50, 53, 55–57, 60, 65, 67, 75, and 76 of the ’429 patent are
unpatentable over Seeley and Body.
F. Claims 15–18, 20, 23–25, 43–50, 65, 66, and 71 – Obvious over the
Mobotix Brochure
Petitioner contends that claim 15–18, 20, 23–25, 43–50, 65, 66, and
71 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the Mobotix
Brochure. Pet. 38–47.
Mobotix Brochure (Exhibit 1106)
The Mobotix Brochure discloses a weatherproof camera with ISDN
and Ethernet connections, an integrated computer, Linux, and sensors.
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

33
Ex. 1106, 1. The camera is suited for use in video surveillance and as an
alarm system. Id. at 1. The connection of the camera to the viewer can be
setup via an integrated Ethernet interface, an ISDN modem, an external
analog modem and mobile telephone, or an optional integrated Global
System for Mobile communications (“GSM”) module. Id. The camera
includes a built-in webserver. Id. at 2. The camera uses all digital CMOS
image sensors with 640x480 pixels and 24-bit color depth. Id. at 1, 4. The
camera includes an image processor. Id. at 2. The image processor supports
multiple data formats including grayscale fax, RAW, JPEG, TIFF, and
H.320 ISDN. Id. at 5.
Image transfer can be carried out via fax, e-mail, FTP, or HTTP. Id.
Image sequences can be stored and accessed later. Id. It is also possible to
transfer live video via ISDN in a small image format, and to call up a
detailed larger image when required. Id. The camera can send recorded
images according to a fixed time schedule or externally triggered events or
in response to specific inquiries by dialing in via a browser. Id. The camera
may be fitted with external sensors such as an external switch, a
microphone, a sensor for detecting changes in light level, a sensor for
detecting temperature fluctuations, a telephone/fax, and a laser light barrier.
Id. at 6. In addition, the camera features a 24V/100 mA output that provides
remote control of lights, alarms, or even household appliances using an
external relay that can be activated via the internet, as well as locally by
camera events. Id. An optional internal accumulator (i.e., battery) can
provide hours of back-up and thereby save images in an event of a power
failure. Id. at 1.
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

34
Analysis
Petitioner contends that claims 15–18, 20, 23–25, 43–50, 65, 66, and
71 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the Mobotix
Brochure. Pet. 38–47. In support of this asserted ground of unpatentability,
Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how the claimed subject
matter of each claim is met by the Mobotix Brochure, and relies on a
Declaration of Dr. Wicker. Id. (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 65–67, 93, 94). As
claims 15–18, 20, 23–25, 43–50, 65, 66, and 71 each depend, directly or
indirectly, from claim 1, Petitioner’s detailed explanations as to how each
limitation of those claims is disclosed or suggested by the Mobotix Brochure
also address the limitations set forth in claim 1. Id. at 38–43.
Upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, we are
persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 15–18, 20, 23–25, 43–50, 65, 66, and 71 would have
been obvious over the Mobotix Brochure.
Petitioner acknowledges that the Mobotix Brochure does not disclose
expressly a “multiplexer,” as recited in independent claim 1, because the
Mobotix Brochure merely discloses that “it is also possible to transfer a live
video via ISDN in a small image format and call up the detailed large image
when required.” Pet. 42 (quoting Ex. 1106, 5). Petitioner then cites the
Declaration of Dr. Wicker (Id.) for the following:
One feature of the camera described by the Mobotix Brochure
is that the camera is able to transmit both live video and
detailed large images, when those images are required.
Mobotix Brochure at pg. 5. Thus, the camera is able to transmit
both live video and detailed images at the same time. A
POSITA [Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art] at the time of
invention of the ’429 patent would understand from a technical
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

35
perspective that a multiplexer could be used to combine the live
video signal with the detailed image signal, in compressed or
uncompressed forms, to transmit a single combined signal
containing video and image information.
Ex. 1103 ¶ 65. We are persuaded by the reasoning in the above-quoted
analysis of Dr. Wicker.
With respect to the “motion detector” recited in claim 18, Petitioner
cites the Mobotix Brochure as disclosing an “IR motion detector.” Pet. 44
(citing Ex. 1106, 8). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning.
With respect to “the appliance further configure [sic] to provide
access control,” recited in claim 65, Petitioner cites the Mobotix Brochure as
disclosing that the camera appliance is configured to “provide ‘access
authorisation [sic] to the network as well as authorisation [sic] to access the
camera.’” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1106, 3). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s
reasoning.
Petitioner has also shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
Mobotix Brochure discloses or suggests every limitation of claims 15–18,
20, 23–25, 43–50, 66, and 71.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 15–18, 20,
23–25, 43–50, 65, 66, and 71 of the ’429 patent are unpatentable over the
Mobotix Brochure.
III. CONCLUSION
We conclude Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that:
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

36
1. Claims 15–18, 23–25, 39, 43–50, 55, 60, 62–65, 71, 73, and 74 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Seeley;
2. Claims 18–21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 37, 41, 42, 70, and 75 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Seeley and Fernandez;
3. Claims 26, 29–31, 37, 42, 52, 54, 55, 58, 72, and 75 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Seeley and Maram;
4. Claims 32, 34, 36, 42, 43, 50, 53, 55–57, 60, 65, 67, 75, and 76 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Seeley and
Body; and
5. Claims 15–18, 20, 23–25, 43–50, 65, 66, and 71 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the Mobotix Brochure.
IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that claims 15–21, 23–26, 29–32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41–50,
52–58, 60, 62–67, and 70–76 of the ’429 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.
IPR2013-00499
Patent 7,228,429

37
For PETITIONER:

P. Weston Musselman, Jr., Esq.
Adam R. Shartzer, Esq.
Fish & Richardson P.C.
musselman@fr.com
shartzer@fr.com
apsi@fr.com

For PATENT OWNER:

Michael Smith
Robert C. Curfiss
pto@patent-counselors.com
bob@curfiss.com