Mobotix Corporationv.ComCam International, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

09545948 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 21
571-272-7822 Entered: April 28, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

MOBOTIX CORP.,
Petitioner,

v.

COMCAM INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1
____________

Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, NEIL T. POWELL, and
FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.

POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Mobotix Corp. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
review of claims 1–28 of U.S. Patent No. 6,975,220 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the
’220 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). ComCam International, Inc. (“Patent
Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8. On April 29, 2015, we
instituted an inter partes review as to claims 1–28 of the ’220 patent. Paper
9 (“Institution Decision” or “Dec. on Inst.”). On July 29, Patent Owner filed
a Patent Owner Response. Paper 13 (“PO Resp.”). On October 13, 2015,
Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 15 (“Pet. Reply”). Neither party requested
an oral hearing, and no oral hearing was held. See Paper 19.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). This Final Written
Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–6 and 9–28 of the ’220 patent
are unpatentable, but that Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that claims 7 and 8 are unpatentable.

A. Related Proceedings
Patent Owner has asserted the ’220 patent against Petitioner in
ComCam Int’l, Inc. v. Mobotix Corp., Case No. 2:13-cv-00798 (E.D. Tex.).
Pet. 1; Paper 7, 2–3. The ’220 patent is also the subject of several other
district court proceedings. Id.

B. The ’220 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’220 patent discloses a system for detecting an event at a
premises and supplying information regarding the event to a website that
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

3
various authorized users can access. Ex. 1001, Abstr. Specifically, the ’220
patent discloses security system 311 in connection with Figure 3, reproduced
below. Id. at col. 6, ll. 48–49.

Figure 3 shows a block diagram of the components of security system
311 and its relationship to communication link 320, website 321, and various
other entities. Id. at 7:14–17. Security system 311 includes sensors 12, 13,
15, and 17– 20, cameras 33a–33n, lamps 313a–313n, video controller 316,
video encoder 317, transmitter 319, and system controller 21. Id. at col. 6,
ll. 52–62, col. 7, ll. 7–12, 47–50. The ’220 patent discloses polling sensors
12, 13, 15, and 17–20 with system controller 21 to detect an event, such as
an intrusion or an emergency. Id. at col. 7, ll. 47–52. The ’220 patent also
discloses responding to such an event by activating one camera 33a–33n and
one lamp 313a–313n, encoding the output of that camera 33a–33n with
video/audio encoder 317, and “pass[ing] the encoded video/audio signal to
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

4
transmitter 319 in the data format for transmission to website 321.”
Id. at col. 7, l. 50–col. 8, l. 3.

C. Illustrative Claim
Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 25 are independent. The other
challenged claims depend, directly or indirectly, from one of claims 1 and
25. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A system for detecting an event in a premises and
transmitting data regarding the event, comprising:
at least one sensor for detecting the event;
a controller coupled to the at least one sensor for
receiving a signal from the at least one sensor
indicating that an event has been detected;
at least one imaging device coupled to the system
controller for capturing event data associated
with the event detected at a particular at least
one sensor wherein the imaging device is
activated by the controller upon receiving the
signal from the particular sensor that is in an
area covered by a particular imaging device;
a transmitter coupled to the imaging device and the
controller for transmitting the event data
captured by the imaging device upon receiving
a transmission activation signal from the
controller after detection of the event; and
a website for receiving the event data from the
transmitter and making the event data
accessible for viewing by at least one
authorized entity.
Ex. 1001, col. 9, l. 61–col. 10, l. 14.

IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

5
D. The Prior Art References
The pending ground of unpatentability in this inter partes review is
based on the following prior art references:

Exhibits Nos. References
1007 U.S. Patent No. 6,697,103 B1, issued Feb. 24, 2004, filed
Mar. 19, 1998 (“Fernandez”)
1008 and
1015
Provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 60/051,489, filed
July 1, 1997 (Ex. 1008) and U.S. Patent Application No.
2005/0198063 A1, issued Sept. 8, 2005, filed Apr. 25, 2005
(Ex. 1015) (“Thomas”)1

E. Instituted Ground of Unpatentability
We instituted an inter partes review involving the following ground of
unpatentability:
References Basis Claims Challenged
Thomas and
Fernandez
§ 103(a) 1–28
Petitioner supports its challenge with a declaration executed by Dr.

1 Petitioner asserts U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/019063 A1 (the
“Thomas non-provisional application”) as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
based on its priority claim to Provisional U.S. Patent Application No.
60/051,489 (the “Thomas provisional application”). See Pet. 2, 4, 33. Any
arguments that Patent Owner may have had regarding whether the Thomas
non-provisional application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the
Thomas provisional application have been waived. See In re Giacomini, 612
F.3d, 1380, 1383–85 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Appellant argued that provisional
application did not provide written description support pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 119(e) for claims of patent asserted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
The court found that Appellant waived this argument by not raising it below
(at the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences)); see also Paper 11, 3
(cautioning Patent Owner that “any arguments for patentability not raised in
the response will be deemed waived”).
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

6
Tal Lavian on October 17, 2014 (“Lavian Declaration”) (Ex. 1003). Patent
Owner relies on a declaration executed by Mr. David Monroe on July 29,
2015 (“Monroe Declaration”) (Ex. 2002).2
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Interpretation
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
construed according to their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed.Cir.2015), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo
Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890 (mem.) (2016).
1. website (independent claims 1 and 25)
Petitioner asserts that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
term “website” is “a computer system that has a recognized domain name
and runs a Web server for publishing a group of related webpages on the
Web.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1005). Based on our analysis below, we determine
that the claim term “website” does not require express construction for
purposes of this Decision.
2. at least one imaging device coupled to the system controller for
capturing event data associated with the event detected at a particular

2 Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence asserting that we should
exclude Exhibit 2002 in its entirety or, in the alternative, we should exclude
at least certain paragraphs of Exhibit 2002. Paper 17 (“Mot. to Exclude”).
We are issuing a concurrent decision that Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is
denied-in-part and dismissed-in-part as moot. In the process of considering
the record evidence and preparing our Final Written Decision in this case,
we were cognizant of the concerns raised in Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
when assessing the appropriate weight we should accord Mr. Monroe’s
testimony in Exhibit 2002.
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

7
at least one sensor wherein the imaging device is activated by the
controller upon receiving the signal from the particular sensor that is
in an area covered by a particular imaging device (independent
claim 1)
The parties dispute the correct interpretation of this claim language.
Ex. 1001, col. 10, ll. 1–7; PO Resp. 4–8; Pet. Reply 4–6. In the Institution
Decision, we construed an aspect of this claim language necessary to assess
certain patentability arguments made by Patent Owner. Specifically, in the
Institution Decision, we concluded that:
Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we conclude
that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is
the plain meaning of the claim language. Thus, we
construe the claim to require that the imaging device is
activated by the controller upon receiving the signal from
the particular sensor that is in an area covered by a
particular imaging device, but not necessarily the
imaging device activated.
Dec. on Inst. 8; see id. at 6–8.
Patent Owner disagrees with this interpretation, arguing that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language is “activating an
imaging device with a sensor associated with that imaging device based on
the sensor’s presence in the imaging device’s covered area.” PO Resp. 8. In
contrast to our construction in the Institution Decision, Patent Owner’s
proposed construction requires that the sensor is covered by the imaging
device that is activated, as opposed to the sensor being covered by “a
particular imaging device” (including an imaging device other than the one
activated).
Patent Owner argues that our interpretation from the Institution
Decision is “both grammatically incorrect and create[s] a lack of antecedent
basis.” Id. at 6. Additionally, Patent Owner argues that “the specification
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

8
quite clearly discloses ‘activating an imaging device that covers a tripped
sensor’” (id. at 5 (quoting Dec. on Inst. 7–8)), and that the Specification does
not disclose activating an imaging device based on a tripped sensor covered
by another imaging device or outside the area covered by the activated
imaging device (id. at 5–6). Patent Owner further argues that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted the claim the way Patent
Owner proposes. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 44–48).
Petitioner responds that Patent Owner ignores the plain language of
the claim, and that Patent Owner tries to “force ‘a particular imaging device’
into ‘the imaging device’ that is activated.” Pet. Reply 4. Petitioner argues
that, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions about antecedent basis issues,
there is no reason the claim could not have been written to explicitly recite
what Patent Owner proposes it means. Id. at 5. Petitioner further argues that
the Specification does not warrant construing the claim in the manner Patent
Owner proposes. Id. at 5–6. Additionally, Petitioner asserts that Patent
Owner’s proposed construction “convert[s] an apparatus limitation (i.e., ‘at
least one imaging device’) into a step/method limitation (i.e., ‘activating an
imaging device’).” Id. at 4.
Having considered the arguments and evidence presented during trial,
we maintain that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the disputed claim
language in view of the Specification is its plain meaning. As we explained
in the Institution Decision:
[The] claim language clearly states that the triggering
sensor is in an area covered by “a particular imaging
device” (emphasis added), not necessarily within an area
covered by “the imaging device” activated. Consistent
with this, the claim language “capturing event data
associated with the event detected at a particular at least
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

9
one sensor” (emphasis added) does not require that the
triggering sensor is in an area covered by the activated
imaging device, as an imaging device would not need to
cover the area occupied by a sensor to capture event data
associated with an event detected by the sensor.

Dec. on Inst. 7.
Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, our construction is not
grammatically incorrect. See PO Resp. 6–7. Patent Owner suggests that
proper grammar dictates that the claim recite “a particular imaging device,”
as the claim does not include a prior reference to a “particular imaging
device.” Id. at 5–6. As Petitioner notes, if the disputed claim language were
intended to refer back to “the imaging device [] activated by the controller,”
it would have been grammatically correct for the claim to simply recite “the
imaging device,” as opposed to “a particular imaging device.” Pet. Reply 5.
Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument that “‘a particular imaging device’ has
proper antecedent basis” (PO Resp. 5), the claim language “a particular
imaging device” has no antecedent basis in independent claim 1. Thus,
Patent Owner has not identified anything about the claim language itself that
is inconsistent with our determination that the plain meaning of the claim is
that the imaging device is activated by the controller upon receiving the
signal from the particular sensor that is in an area covered by a particular
imaging device, but not necessarily the imaging device activated.
Additionally, we do not agree with Patent Owner that anything in the
Specification narrows the broadest reasonable interpretation of the disputed
claim language from its plain meaning. Patent Owner asserts that,
“[a]lthough it may be possible to activate the imaging devices without using
a sensor in the area covered by the imaging device, a person of skill would
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

10
understand from the specification that what is claimed is automatically
activating the imaging device in the immediate area where the sensor detects
the event.” PO Resp. 7. Patent Owner argues that “the specification does
not disclose any embodiment in which an imaging device is activated by a
tripped sensor covered by a different imaging device or outside the area
covered by the imaging device.” Id. at 5–6. In support of this, Patent Owner
argues the Specification’s disclosure that “[f]or at least some of sensors 12,
13, 15, 18, 19, 20 and preferably for each of the sensors, a surveillance
camera 33a–n covers the area around a particular sensor or sensors”
(Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 57–60) means “that[,] in the preferred embodiment,
each of the sensors may be individually assigned to a surveillance camera,
but alternatively multiple sensors may be covered by the same surveillance
camera” (PO Resp. 6).
Other than the statement from the Specification itself, Patent Owner
cites no evidence supporting this interpretation of column 6, lines 57–60.
We do not agree with Patent Owner’s interpretation. We read this statement
as indicating that the disclosed system preferably, but not necessarily, has a
camera covering the area around each sensor. This suggests that an
activated camera would not necessarily cover an area of a tripped sensor,
contrary to Patent Owner’s claim construction arguments.
In sum, Patent Owner’s arguments ask us to improperly import an
example discussed in the Specification into the claim as a limitation. See
SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the
explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to
import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”). We decline
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

11
to do so. Accordingly, we maintain that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the disputed claim language in view of the Specification is
the plain meaning of the claim language itself, i.e., the claim requires that
the imaging device is activated by the controller upon receiving the signal
from the particular sensor that is in an area covered by a particular imaging
device, but not necessarily the imaging device activated.
Moreover, as explained in detail in Section II.B.4 infra, even if we
agreed with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the disputed claim
language, Petitioner has established the unpatentability of claim 1 over the
combination of Thomas and Fernandez by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, even if correct, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the proper
construction of the disputed claim language are unavailing.
3. wherein the at least one sensor is a maintenance detector for
detecting an event that is a premises maintenance malfunction in the
premises while the system is activated (claim 7)
Claim 7 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites, in relevant part:
1. A system for detecting an event in a premises and
transmitting data regarding the event, comprising:
at least one sensor for detecting the event;
a controller coupled to the at least one sensor for
receiving a signal from the at least one sensor
indicating that an event has been detected; [and]
at least one imaging device . . . wherein the imaging
device is activated by the controller upon receiving
the signal from the particular sensor that is in an area
covered by a particular imaging device . . . .
Ex. 1001, col. 9, l. 62–col. 10, l. 7 (emphases added). Claim 7 depends from
claim 1 and recites “wherein the at least one sensor is a maintenance
detector for detecting an event that is a premises maintenance malfunction
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

12
in the premises while the system is activated.” Id. at col. 10, ll. 37–40
(emphasis added). The claim construction dispute for claim 7 revolves
around the relationship of the italicized portion of claim 7 to the italicized
portions of claim 1.
Patent Owner argues that “claim 7 requires activating an imaging
device when a maintenance detector in the imaging device’s field of view
detects a maintenance malfunction.” PO Resp. 10. In other words, Patent
Owner contends that this claim requires that claim 1’s “the imaging device is
activated by the controller upon receiving the signal” is triggered by claim
7’s “maintenance detector for detecting an event that is a premises
maintenance malfunction” when the maintenance detector detects a
maintenance malfunction and sends a signal. Petitioner counters that claim
7’s “maintenance detector” need not trigger activation of the imaging device
recited in claim 1. Pet. Reply 7–10.
The Institution Decision briefly touched on this issue. Dec. on Inst.
26. There, we found unpersuasive Patent Owner’s conclusory arguments
that assumed the claims require activation of “the imaging device” based on
the “maintenance detector for detecting an event that is a premises
maintenance malfunction.” Id. We observed that claim 7 does not “recite
activating an imaging device based on the premises maintenance
malfunction.” Id. We further stated that, “[t]o the extent Patent Owner
assumes that ‘an event’ recited in claim 7 is ‘the event’ recited in claim 1,
such an assumption facially does not make sense grammatically, and Patent
Owner provides no explanation to otherwise support such an assumption.”
Id.
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

13
In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner argues that its
interpretation is a natural reading of the dependency of claim 7. PO Resp. 8.
Patent Owner argues that “claim 1 clearly requires a sensor, an imaging
device, and activating the imaging device when the sensor detects an event.”
Id. at 9. Patent Owner further argues that claim 7’s recitation that “the at
least one sensor is a maintenance detector” “limits the sensor of claim 1 to
only maintenance detectors.” Id. Given this, and given that the other
limitations of claim 1 apply in claim 7, Patent Owner reasons that “claim 7
clearly requires activating the imaging device when the sensor which is a
maintenance detector detects an event.” Id. Regarding claim 7’s recitation
of “an event,” rather than “the event” recited in claim 1, Patent Owner
argues that it does not make sense to interpret the claims as requiring
different events, one event that triggers activation of the imaging device, and
another event that happens independently. Id. at 9–10.
Petitioner responds that we already rejected Patent Owner’s argument
on the basis that it facially does not make sense grammatically to read “an
event” in claim 7 as meaning “the event” in claim 1. Pet. Reply 7 (citing
Dec. on Inst. 26). Petitioner further argues that, “because this is a system
claim and not a method claim, it is the physical structure that matters (a
maintenance detector) and the intended use of that structure is not limiting.”
Id. Petitioner advances a number of bases for discounting Mr. Monroe’s
testimony regarding the construction of claim 7. Id. at 7–10. Petitioner
argues that the plain meaning of the language of claim 7 is consistent with
its proposed interpretation. Id. at 10. And Petitioner asserts that the
Specification is consistent with its interpretation of claim 7 because the
Specification discloses more than one type of sensor. Id. at 9–10. Petitioner
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

14
asserts that this is consistent with an interpretation that encompasses one
sensor for detecting “the event” and activating the imaging device and
another sensor for independently detecting a different event without
activating the imaging device. Id.
Having considered the arguments and evidence presented during trial,
we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 7
requires activation of the “imaging device” based on claim 7’s “maintenance
detector.” In contrast to the arguments Patent Owner presented before the
Institution Decision, the arguments and evidence presented by Patent Owner
during trial identify persuasive reasons that the language of the claims
themselves support Patent Owner’s proposed construction of claim 7.
For example, Patent Owner points out that claim 7 recites “wherein
the at least one sensor is a maintenance detector.” PO Resp. 9. We are
persuaded that this limits claim 1’s “at least one sensor for detecting the
event” to a maintenance detector. Id. We do not agree with Petitioner’s
argument that “[t]he plain language of claim 7 ‘wherein the at least one
sensor is a maintenance detector’ only requires at least one sensor to be a
maintenance detector.” Pet. Reply 10. If claim 7 recited that the at least one
sensor includes a maintenance detector, Petitioner’s argument would make
sense. But the plain meaning of the language “wherein the at least one
sensor is a maintenance detector” (emphasis added) is that claim 1’s “at least
one sensor for detecting the event” is limited to a maintenance detector.
Given this, we also are persuaded that the most logical reading of
claims 1 and 7, when read together, is that “the imaging device is activated”
based on input from the maintenance detector. After reciting “at least one
sensor for detecting the event,” claim 1 recites “a controller coupled to the at
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

15
least one sensor for receiving a signal from the at least one sensor indicating
that an event has been detected,” and that “the imaging device is activated
by the controller upon receiving the signal.” This claim language indicates
that the imaging device is activated when an event has been detected by the
at least one sensor. With claim 7 specifying that the at least one sensor “is a
maintenance detector for detecting an event that is a premises maintenance
malfunction” (emphasis added), the language of claims 1 and 7, when read
together, indicates that the imaging device is activated when the
maintenance detector detects an event that is a premises maintenance
malfunction.
In isolation from the other recitations of claims 1 and 7, claim 7’s
recitation of “an event” (emphasis added), creates some ambiguity,
indicating that the claimed maintenance detector may detect an event
without triggering activation of the imaging device. In the context of the
other language in the claims themselves, however, it becomes clear that the
most logical reading of claims 1 and 7 requires activation of the imaging
device in response to the maintenance detector detecting an event.3
Consistent with this, the Specification discloses that the system may
activate one of cameras 33a–n if an emergency is detected by
temperature/maintenance sensor 12. Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 47–55. As
Petitioner observes, the Specification also discloses that different sensors
can detect different events. Id.; Pet. Reply 9–10. This, however, does not
negate that the most logical reading of the claim language, as a whole,

3 This differs from the above-discussed dispute regarding claim 1, where
Patent Owner did not identify any aspect of claim 1 or certain disclosures in
the Specification that contradict the plain meaning of “a particular imaging
device.”
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

16
requires activation of an imaging device in response to an event detected by
a maintenance detector, which is consistent with the Specification’s
disclosure of activating one of cameras 33a–n if an emergency is detected by
temperature/maintenance sensor 12.
Furthermore, we find unpersuasive Petitioner’s argument that the
language of the claims merely recites an intended use of the system. Pet.
Reply 7–8. Claim 1 affirmatively recites that “the imaging device is
activated by the controller upon receiving the signal” (emphasis added), not
that the controller is configured, adapted, or otherwise suited or intended to
activate the imaging device. Thus, rather than reciting activation of the
imaging device based on sensor input as an intended use, claim 1
affirmatively recites that the imaging device is activated based on sensor
input.
We also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s argument that claim 7 could
have explicitly recited that the imaging device is activated in response to the
maintenance detector detecting an event. Pet. Reply 8. Although the
limitations of the claims might have been stated more directly, we are
persuaded for the reasons discussed above that the language of claims 1 and
7, when read together, indicates that activation of the imaging device is
triggered by an event sensed by the maintenance detector.
We conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 7
requires that “the imaging device is activated by the controller” in response
to the “maintenance detector” detecting an event. We do not, however,
agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that claim 7 requires that the
maintenance detector is within field of view of the imaging device that is
activated. See PO Resp. 10. This aspect of Patent Owner’s proposed
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

17
construction of claim 7 appears to stem from Patent Owner’s assertion that
claim 1 requires “activating an imaging device with a sensor associated with
that imaging device based on the sensor’s presence in the imaging device’s
covered area.” See PO Resp. 8, 10. For the reasons explained in Section
II.A.2 supra, we find this assertion unpersuasive.
B. Obviousness of Claims 1–28 over Thomas and Fernandez
Petitioner asserts that claims 1–28 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the combination of Thomas and Fernandez. Pet. 33–60; Pet.
Reply 1–25. Petitioner explains how this proffered combination allegedly
renders obvious the claimed subject matter. Petitioner also relies on the
Declaration of Dr. Lavian. Ex. 1003. Patent Owner disagrees with
Petitioner’s assertions and relies on the Declaration of Mr. Monroe. PO
Resp. 1–16; Ex. 2002.
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.” Prior art references must be “considered together
with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We analyze the parties’
contentions with these principles in mind.
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

18
1. Thomas (Ex. 1015 and Ex. 1008)4
Thomas discloses “improved techniques to remotely monitor
locations.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 42; Ex. 1008, 4.5 In Figure 1, Thomas shows one
embodiment of a system according to its disclosure, specifically system 100
illustrated in Figure 1. Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 46–49; Ex. 1008, 5. Figure 1 is
reproduced below.

Figure 1 shows components of system 100, including home location
102, Internet 104, communications link 106, remote computer 108,
communications link 110, home monitor server 112, communications
link 114, Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) 116 with antenna 120,

4 In our discussion of Thomas, we cite to both U.S. Patent Application
No. 2005/0198063 A1 (Ex. 1015) and to U.S. Provisional Patent Application
No. 60/051,489 (Ex. 1008).
5 Exhibit 1008 contains two sets of page numbers. A first set of page
numbers begins with “1” on the first page of Exhibit 1008, which is the
“Provisional Application Cover Sheet.” A second set of page numbers
begins with “1” on the first page of the actual provisional application, which
is the third page of Exhibit 1008. Within this Decision, we cite to the second
set of page numbers, as the Petition cites to the second set of page numbers.
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

19
communications link 118, wireless computer 122 with antenna 124, and
wireless link 126. Id.
Thomas discloses that visual monitoring of home location 102 may
occur from a remote location. Ex. 1015 ¶ 46; Ex. 1008, 5. Home
location 102, remote computer 108, home monitor server 112, and ISP 116
each couple connect to Internet 104. Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 46–49; Ex. 1008, 5.
Thomas discloses storing images for home location 102 and other home
locations on home monitor server 112. Ex. 1015 ¶ 48; Ex. 1008, 5. People
wanting to see remotely images of their home location can access home
monitor server 112 via Internet 104. Id.
In Figure 6, Thomas shows “visual monitoring system 600 according
to an embodiment.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 57; Ex. 1008, 8. Figure 6 is reproduced
below.

IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

20
Figure 6 provides a block diagram of the components of visual
monitoring system 600. Id. Visual monitoring system 600 includes image
controller 602 and one or more cameras 604. Ex. 1015 ¶ 58; Ex. 1008, 8.
Image controller 602 further includes buffer 608, reference image storage
610, comparison unit 612, image transmission unit 614, and notification unit
616. Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 59–60; Ex. 1008, 8. Figure 6 also shows link 606, which
couples image controller 602 directly or indirectly to Internet 104. Ex. 1015
¶ 58; Ex. 1008, 8. Figure 6 further shows an alarm system and a motion
sensor connected to notification unit 616 of image controller 602. Ex. 1015
¶ 62, Fig. 6; Ex. 1008, 9, Fig. 6.
Thomas discloses that “camera(s) 604 produce images of the area
being monitored.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 58; Ex. 1008, 8. Buffer 608 stores images
from camera(s) 604. Ex. 1015 ¶ 59; Ex. 1008, 8. Image transmission unit
614 transmits the current image from buffer 608 to Internet 104 under
certain circumstances. Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 60, 62; Ex. 1008, 8–9. For example,
image transmission unit 614 may transmit the current image based on the
results of comparison unit 612 comparing the current image to the image
stored in reference image storage 610. Ex. 1015 ¶ 60; Ex. 1008, 8.
Additionally, Thomas discloses that image transmission unit 614 of image
controller 602 “may make use of the alarm signal in determining whether to
transmit the current image.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 62; Ex. 1008, 9. Thomas elaborates
that image transmission unit 614 “can operate to avoid transmission of
images until the presence of the alarm signal.” Id.
Thomas also discloses multiple examples of a graphical user interface
(“GUI”) window for display in a remote computer of its system. For
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

21
example, Figure 15 of Thomas shows GUI window 1500. Ex. 1015 ¶ 93;
Ex. 1008, 16. Figure 15 is reproduced below.

Figure 15 shows GUI 1500 displaying various things related to the
operation of Thomas’s system. Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 93–95; Ex. 1008, 16.
Specifically, the left side of GUI 1500 displays a home security section; the
middle portion of GUI 1500 displays a home utilities section; and the right
side of GUI 1500 displays a home entertainment control panel. Id.
Figure 16 of Thomas shows another GUI window 1600. Ex. 1015
¶ 96; Ex. 1008, 16–17. Figure 16 is reproduced below.
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

22

Figure 16 shows GUI window 1600, which displays information
related to an alarm condition of a home location. Id. GUI window 1600
includes security status area 1602, which “displays the status of various
devices of an alarm system, including door sensors, motion sensors,
cameras, and switches.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 96; Ex. 1008, 16. Additionally, GUI
window 1600 includes “image viewer 1604 for displaying an image or series
of images.” Id. Thomas discloses that:
In the GUI window 1600 illustrated, the living room
motion sensor and the living room camera both indicate
that they have caused an alarm condition. In one
embodiment, the image viewer 1604 can automatically
display the most appropriate images with respect to the
alarm condition, e.g., the living room, and/or could allow
the user to select an image from a list of available
images. The alarm condition caused the alarm system to
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

23
forward this status information and/or image to a user of
a remote computer in the various ways previously
described.
Ex. 1015 ¶ 96; Ex. 1008, 16–17.
2. Fernandez (Ex. 1007)
Fernandez, titled “Integrated Network for Monitoring Remote
Objects,” shows an embodiment of its system in Figure 1, reproduced below.
Ex. 1007, col. 1, l. 66–col. 2, l. 3.

IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

24
Figure 1 “illustrates a general block diagram of preferred embodiment
of integrated fixed and/or mobile network system or apparatus for
performing real-time, historical and/or predictive monitoring and data
processing of one or more remote or local objects 2.” Id. at col. 1, l. 66–col.
2, l. 3. The system shown in Figure 1 includes controller 6, network 8,
servers 5, detectors 3, communicator 7, object 2, and target unit 4. See id. at
Fig. 1.
Fernandez discloses that “[c]ontroller 6 preferably is implemented for
user monitoring of one or more objects 2 using [a] conventional computer,
workstation or functionally equivalent digital processing equipment and/or
software.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 54–57. Controller 6 is coupled to network 8,
which “provides digital connection to or from any allocated web node
address or equivalently accessible network resource.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 22–26,
32–34. Fernandez also discloses that “network 8 further couples to one or
more conventional Internet, intranet or other [local area network/wide area
network] network connection or server 5 and sensor or detector 3, as well as
communicator 7 for communicating, preferably through conventional or
proprietary wireless connection, to one or more target unit 4.” Id. at col. 3,
ll. 16–21. In a facility monitoring application, Fernandez discloses that
detectors 3 may be implemented to sense state and other
measurement signals from motion detector, burglar
alarm, door or window open/close detector, smoke
detector, thermostat, phone answering machine, or other
electrical home appliance. In certain instances, e.g.,
unauthorized home entry, such sensed state may trigger
other functionality, such as taking electronic photograph
and/or notifying certain entities.
Id. at col. 4, ll. 43–50.
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

25
3. Discussion
Petitioner asserts that Thomas discloses most of the limitations of
claims 1–28. Pet. 37–60; Pet. Reply 10–25. Petitioner cites to the collective
teachings of Thomas and Fernandez in support of its contention that the
following limitation of independent claim 1 would have been obvious:
at least one imaging device coupled to the system
controller for capturing event data associated with the
event detected at a particular at least one sensor wherein
the imaging device is activated by the controller upon
receiving the signal from the particular sensor that is in
an area covered by a particular imaging device.
Pet. 39–41; Pet. Reply 10–19. Regarding this limitation, Petitioner notes
that Thomas discloses imaging devices coupled to a controller, specifically
cameras 604 coupled to image controller 602. Pet. 39. Additionally,
Petitioner asserts that Thomas discloses transmitting images from an
imaging device that covers an area (e.g., the living room) occupied by
sensors that have detected an alarm condition in that area. Id. at 39–40.
Petitioner further notes Thomas discloses that “image viewer 1604 can
automatically display the most appropriate images with respect to the alarm
condition, e.g., the living room.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 96, Fig. 16; Ex. 1008, 17,
Fig. 16; Pet. 39. Petitioner concedes that “Thomas does not expressly
disclose that ‘the imaging device is activated by the controller upon
receiving the signal from the particular sensor.’” Pet. 40.
Petitioner asserts, however, that this would have been obvious in view
of the collective teachings of Thomas and Fernandez. Id. at 40–41.
Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to have a controller
activate a particular imaging device in response to receiving a trigger event
signal. Id. at 40. Petitioner reasons that the system’s “imaging devices
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

26
would be either ‘always on’ or activated ‘on-demand.’” Id. In the case of
the “on-demand” operation, Petitioner asserts that it would have been
obvious to activate an imaging device in response to tripping of a sensor or
event trigger associated with that imaging device. Id. In connection with
this, Petitioner cites, inter alia, Fernandez’s disclosure at column 4, lines
43–50, which discloses:
Alternately in facility monitoring application, detectors 3
may be implemented to sense state and other
measurement signals from motion detector, burglar
alarm, door or window open/close detector, smoke
detector, thermostat, phone answering machine, or other
electrical home appliance. In certain instances, e.g.,
unauthorized home entry, such sensed state may trigger
other functionality, such as taking electronic photograph
and/or notifying certain entities.
Id. at 40–41.
Petitioner further asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have had reason to operate Thomas’s system to activate a camera
with the controller in response to the controller receiving a sensor signal. Id.
at 41. Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to combine the
teachings of Thomas and Fernandez because the references “teach using
similar components (cameras, other forms of sensors, and detectors) in the
same way (within surveillance systems that use the Internet to allow
authorized users to remotely view images and other data on a Website),
yielding predictable results.” Id. at 36. Petitioner argues that combining the
teachings of Fernandez with those of Thomas involves applying known
technology and would yield predictable results. Id. at 36–37 (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 115–26).
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

27
We have reviewed the evidence and arguments presented in the
Petition, Patent Owner’s Response, and Petitioner’s Reply. Based on that
review, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that all of the limitations of each of claims 1–6 and 9–28 are
taught by, or rendered obvious in view of the teachings of Thomas and
Fernandez, and that each of these claims, considered as a whole, would have
been obvious over the combination of Thomas and Fernandez. Pet. 33–60;
PO Resp. 1–17; Pet. Reply 1–25. With respect to claims 1–6 and 9–28, we
find Petitioner’s citations and arguments persuasive, and we adopt them as
the basis for our decision. Pet. 33–60; Pet. Reply 1–25. Regarding
dependent claims 7 and 8, as explained in detail infra, we determine that
Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
these claims would have been obvious over the combination of Thomas and
Fernandez. As discussed below, the parties’ disputes revolve around
whether certain limitations of the claims are taught by, or obvious in view
of, the teachings of Thomas and Fernandez.
4. Claims 1–6, 9–12, and 14–28
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not demonstrated the
combination of Thomas and Fernandez render obvious claim 1’s recitation
of
at least one imaging device coupled to the system
controller for capturing event data associated with the
event detected at a particular at least one sensor wherein
the imaging device is activated by the controller upon
receiving the signal from the particular sensor that is in
an area covered by a particular imaging device.
Ex. 1001, col. 10, ll. 1–7; PO Resp. 10–13. Patent Owner argues that, “[f]or
the reasons discussed supra, this claim limitation requires ‘activating an
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

28
imaging device with a sensor associated with that imaging device based on
the sensor’s presence in the imaging device’s covered area.’” PO Resp. 10.
Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner expressly admits that Thomas does
not teach the foregoing claim language, and implicitly admits that Fernandez
does not teach the foregoing claim language. Id. at 10–11. Instead, Patent
Owner argues, “Petitioner alleges that one of skill in the art would modify
Thomas’s ‘on-demand’ implementation or Fernandez’s ‘observe and track’
feature as a ‘design choice’ to arrive at the claimed limitation.” Id. at 11.
Patent Owner adds that “Thomas’s ‘on-demand’ implementation, however,
is entirely a creation of Petitioner’s expert with no basis in the actual prior
art itself.” Id.
Patent Owner also criticizes Petitioner’s citation of Fernandez’s
disclosure that “the detectors 3 may be coupled to control mechanism for
adjusting detector operation, such as focus, tilt, pan, focus [of an image
device], etc., as well as means for causing multiple neighboring detectors to
observe and track common object or object set, thereby obtaining various
comparative surveillance data.” Ex. 1007, col. 4, ll. 57–61; Pet. 40; PO
Resp. 11–12. Patent Owner argues that this cited disclosure of Fernandez
does not teach activating an imaging device. Id.
Patent Owner also addresses Petitioner’s citation of Fernandez’s
disclosure that
detectors 3 may be implemented to sense state and other
measurement signals from motion detector, burglar
alarm, door or window open/close detector, smoke
detector, thermostat, phone answering machine, or other
electrical home appliance. In certain instances, e.g.
unauthorized home entry, such sensed state may trigger
other functionality, such as taking electronic photograph
and/or notifying certain entities.
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

29
Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll. 43–50; Pet. 40–41; PO Resp. 12. Patent Owner argues
that this cited disclosure of Fernandez “is completely silent as to whether the
sensor is covered by the imaging device as required by claim 1.” PO Resp.
12.
Patent Owner asserts that, “[t]hus, neither Thomas nor Fernandez
teaches ‘activating an imaging device with a sensor associated with that
imaging device based on the sensor’s presence in the imaging device’s
covered area.’” Id. Patent Owner further asserts that “[n]either Thomas nor
Fernandez teaches the sensor is covered by any imaging device, much less
the imaging device activated.” Id. at 13.
Lastly, Patent Owner argues that “one of skill in the art would
conclude that Thomas and Fernandez are not combinable.” Id. In support of
this proposition, Patent Owner offers no further explanation, merely citing to
Mr. Monroe’s testimony. Id.
Petitioner responds that, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion,
“Thomas does disclose that the sensor is covered by an imaging device.”
Pet. Reply 11. Petitioner explains that the disclosure of Thomas associated
with Figure 16 teaches a living room sensor covered by a living room
camera, as explained in the Petition. Id. Additionally, Petitioner argues that
Fernandez discloses “on-demand” activation of an imaging device in
response to detection of an event by a sensor in an area covered by the
imaging device. Id. at 14–15. Petitioner also argues that, contrary to Patent
Owner’s assertion, the teachings of Thomas and Fernandez may be
combined, and it would have been obvious to do so. Id. at 11–13, 15–16.
Petitioner further argues that an “independent reason that on-demand
activation of an imaging device would be obvious to a [person of ordinary
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

30
skill in the art] is the extremely limited number of obvious implementations
available: always on, on-demand, or user activated” (id. at 16), asserting that
various evidence other than the teachings of Thomas and Fernandez shows
that on-demand operation was old and well-known (id. at 16–18).
Having considered the arguments and evidence presented during trial,
we are persuaded that Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence to support
a finding that the combined teachings of Thomas and Fernandez account for
all the limitations recited in claim 1. Patent Owner’s argument that “neither
Thomas nor Fernandez teaches ‘activating an imaging device with a sensor
associated with that imaging device based on the sensor’s presence in the
imaging device’s covered area’” is unpersuasive for a number of reasons.
PO Resp. 12. First, as explained in Section II.A.2 supra, we do not agree
with Patent Owner’s assertion that claim should be construed to require
“activating an imaging device . . . based on the sensor’s presence in the
imaging device’s covered area.”
Furthermore, even if we agreed with Patent Owner’s proposed
construction of claim 1, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated
that claim 1 would have been obvious over the teachings of Thomas and
Fernandez. That is, if we were to assume claim 1 requires activation of an
imaging device “upon receiving the signal from the particular sensor that is
in an area covered by” the imaging device that is activated, we are persuaded
that this still would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Thomas
and Fernandez, for the reasons that follow.
Regarding the spatial relationship between the imaging device and the
sensor, we are persuaded that Thomas teaches operating an imaging device
that covers an area occupied by a sensor sending a signal indicating an event
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

31
has been detected. Specifically, we are persuaded that, in connection with
Figure 16, Thomas teaches operating a camera that covers the living room,
which is occupied by a living room motion sensor sending a signal
indicating that an event has been detected. See Ex. 1008, 16–17, Fig. 16;
Pet. 39–40; Pet. Reply 11; Ex. 1003.
Regarding the causal relationship between activation of the camera
and a sensor sending a signal indicating an event has been detected, we are
persuaded that Fernandez teaches this in its statement that detectors may
sense state and that, “[i]n certain instances, e.g. unauthorized home entry,
such sensed state may trigger other functionality, such as taking electronic
photograph and/or notifying certain entities.” Ex. 1007, col. 4, ll. 47–50;
Pet. 40–41; Pet. Reply 11–13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 128–130. We also are persuaded
that it would have been obvious to operate Thomas’s system in accordance
with this teaching, i.e., to activate the living room camera in response to the
living room motion sensor sending a signal indicating that an event has been
detected. Pet. 40–41; Pet. Reply 11–13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122–131.
Patent Owner’s argument that neither reference individually teaches
both the spatial relationship and the causal relationship is unpersuasive
because it does not address what the combined teachings of the references
convey to one of ordinary skill in the art. “Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co. Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981)).
We also find unpersuasive Patent Owner’s argument that “Thomas’s
‘on-demand’ implementation . . . is entirely a creation of Petitioner’s expert
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

32
with no basis in the prior art itself.” PO Resp. 11. First, in view of
Fernandez’s disclosure regarding taking electronic photographs (Ex. 1007,
col. 4, ll. 47–50), we are persuaded that it would have been obvious to
modify Thomas to activate an imaging device in response to a sensor
detecting an event, regardless of whether a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood Thomas as disclosing “on-demand” operation as an
option. Moreover, we are persuaded by Petitioner and Dr. Lavian that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that one could
operate a camera “on-demand” because there are a finite number of
identified, predictable ways that a camera could be operated, including
always on, on demand, or user-activated. Pet. 40; Pet. Reply 16–18; Ex.
1003 ¶¶ 38–42, 127–131.
Additionally, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, we are persuaded
that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Thomas and
Fernandez in the manner asserted by Petitioner. Petitioner’s evidence and
arguments provide rational underpinning for its assertion that it would have
been obvious to combine the references. We are persuaded that combining
the teachings of Thomas and Fernandez amounts to no more than combining
known technologies with predictable results. Pet. 35–37, 40–41; Pet. Reply
11–19; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 115–131; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 401 (2007) (“[A] combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.”). Additionally, we are persuaded that modifying
Thomas to activate the imaging device in response to detection of an event,
as disclosed by Fernandez, would have been obvious to promote efficiency
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

33
and reduce bandwidth requirements, as compared to operating the imaging
device all the time. Pet. Reply 12–13.
Patent Owner’s argument that “one of skill in the art would conclude
that Thomas and Fernandez are not combinable” is unavailing for a number
of reasons. PO Resp. 13. First, Patent Owner provides no explanation in
support of this conclusory, one-sentence argument. Id. Instead, Patent
Owner cites Mr. Monroe’s testimony explaining why he believes a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not combine the teachings of these references.
Id. By itself, the failure of Patent Owner to provide any explanation of the
basis of its argument in the Patent Owner Response makes Patent Owner’s
argument unavailing, as it is improper for Patent Owner to rely wholly on
the cited materials to explain the basis of the argument. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.22(a)(2) (requiring each petition or motion to include “[a] full statement
of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the
significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law,
ruled, and precedent.”); § 42.23(a) (“Oppositions and replies must comply
with the content requirements for motions . . . .”); § 42.120(a) (“A patent
owner response is filed as an opposition . . . .”).
Furthermore, even considering the explanation of Mr. Monroe that
Patent Owner improperly incorporates by reference, we are not persuaded
“that Thomas and Fernandez are not combinable.” PO Resp. 13. Mr.
Monroe asserts that “[a person of ordinary skill in the art] would not
combine the Thomas ‘always on’ or user manually activated camera system
with the Fernandez ‘on demand’ camera system as suggested because
Fernandez’s alleged sensor trigger of an imaging device would change the
principle of operation of Thomas which requires continuous operation of an
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

34
imaging device.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 61. In support of this assertion, Mr. Monroe
advances that Thomas discloses that the main problem it desires to solve is
reducing bandwidth associated with transmitting images from cameras that
are “always on.” Id. Mr. Monroe asserts that “[t]he ‘Summary of the
Invention’ of Thomas expressly indicates that the invention is directed
toward comparing a current image with a reference image and then only
transmitting the current image if it differs from the reference image by more
than a predetermined threshold amount.” Id. Mr. Monroe further notes that
Thomas discloses operating as an alarm system or detecting intruders based
on changes in camera images. Id. Mr. Monroe concludes that, “[h]ence, the
entire teaching of Thomas involves ‘always on’ cameras continuously
operating and utilizing differences in the images as the basis for transmitting
the images and sounding an alarm.” Id.
In response to Mr. Monroe’s assertions, Petitioner argues that nothing
in Thomas requires continuous operation of an imaging device, and that
combining Fernandez’s “on demand” camera with Thomas’s system would
“help further Thomas’s purpose rather than frustrate its principle of
operation.” Pet. Reply 12–13. Petitioner emphasizes Mr. Monroe’s
testimony that reducing bandwidth requirements is the main problem
Thomas indicates it endeavors to solve. Id. at 12. Noting that Thomas
discloses one way to reduce bandwidth requirements (involving comparing
images), Petitioner asserts that Fernandez teaches a second way to reduce
bandwidth requirements, and that modifying Thomas to activate a camera
based on a sensor signal would further enhance efficiency and reduce
bandwidth requirements. Id. at 13.
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

35
We are not persuaded that Mr. Monroe correctly identifies the
principle of operation of Thomas. In particular, we find that the principle of
operation of Thomas is not as narrow as Mr. Monroe asserts. Thomas
discloses that:
Broadly speaking, the invention relates to improved
techniques to remotely monitor locations and to remotely
monitor and control devices or appliances through a
network. In one embodiment, the network in the Internet
and the transmission is facilitated by an Internet server or
electronic mail.
The remote monitoring of locations is provided by
efficiently transmitting images over the network to a
remote machine located at a remote location. In one
embodiment, the efficiency is facilitated by comparing a
current image with a reference image, and then only
transmitting the current image if it differs from the
reference image by more than a predetermined threshold
amount. The remote monitoring can also operate as an
alarm system or provide intruder detection based on
detected changes in images from a locally provided
camera.
Ex. 1008, 2 (emphasis added).
Thomas’s statement that “one embodiment” involves comparing
images to determine whether to transmit images indicates that other
embodiments do not involve comparing images. This indicates that the
principle of operation of Thomas is not limited to having cameras always
activated to allow comparing images, as suggested by Mr. Monroe. Indeed,
the preceding statement indicates that the principle of operation more
generally encompasses “efficiently transmitting images over the network to
a remote machine located at a remote location.” Given this, we are
persuaded by Petitioner that modifying Thomas’s system to activate an
imaging device in response to detection of an event by a sensor would not
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

36
change the principle of operation of Thomas, but would constitute another
example of transmitting images efficiently, in accordance with Thomas’s
principle of operation. Furthermore, Patent Owner does not cite any
evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not overcome any
challenges associated with combining the teachings of Thomas and
Fernandez. See KSR 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence
regarding claim 1 are more persuasive than Patent Owner’s arguments and
evidence regarding claim 1. With respect to claims 2–6, 9–12, and 14–24,
which depend from claim 1, Patent Owner argues that these claims “are not
obvious in view of Thomas and Fernandez for at least the reasons discussed
supra with respect to claim 1.” PO Resp. 16. We have reviewed
Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding claims 2–6, 9–12, and 14–24,
and find them more persuasive than Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence
with respect to these same claims. Regarding independent claims 25–28,
Patent Owner argues that “[f]or substantially the reasons discussed supra
with respect to claim 1, claim 25 and [claims 26–28] are not obvious in view
of Thomas and Fernandez.” PO Resp. 17. We have reviewed Petitioner’s
arguments and evidence regarding claims 25–28, and find them more
persuasive than Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence with respect to
these same claims. In sum, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–6, 9–12,
and 14–28 are unpatentable because they would have been obvious over the
combination of Thomas and Fernandez.
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

37
5. Claims 7 and 8
As noted in Section II.A.3 supra, claim 7 depends from claim 1 and
recites “wherein the at least one sensor is a maintenance detector for
detecting an event that is a premises maintenance malfunction in the
premises while the system is activated.” As also noted above, in view of the
evidence and arguments presented at trial, we have concluded that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 7 requires that claim 1’s
recitation that “the imaging device is activated by the controller” is triggered
by claim 7’s “maintenance detector” detecting an event. Claim 8 depends
from claim 7 and recites “wherein the maintenance detector is a temperature
sensor for determining that the temperature within the premises has moved
outside a specified range.”
In addressing the limitations of claims 7 and 8, Petitioner cites to the
teachings of both Thomas and Fernandez. Petitioner argues that Thomas
discloses maintenance detectors capable of providing “status information,
including a malfunction status of premises maintenance.” Pet. 45. For
example, Petitioner points to Thomas’s disclosure that its system allows a
user to request status information for home utilities, including heating,
cooling, and a sprinkler system. Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 12). Petitioner also
asserts that Thomas shows a “Temperature Control” in Figure 15 and
discloses that “the user may request the control to adjust the temperature
control to 60 degrees F.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 13). Petitioner further asserts
that “Fernandez discloses a ‘thermostat’ (Fern., 4:46) for detecting a
premises maintenance malfunction, such as high temperatures due to failure
of an a/c system.” Id. Petitioner asserts that “[t]he thermostat can determine
the temperature within the premises has moved outside a specific range
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

38
(including the set point and all temperatures below the set point).” Id. at 46.
Petitioner also asserts that Fernandez discloses a “ping test” for detecting
defective or unresponsive components. Id. at 45–46.
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner advances assumptions and
conclusory statements in support of its contention that these references
disclose maintenance detectors that can detect maintenance malfunctions, as
recited in claim 7. PO Resp. 13–15. Patent Owner states that “[t]he only
disclosures Petitioner relies upon for [the language of claim 8] are Thomas’s
‘Temperature Control’ and Fernandez’s ‘thermostat.’” Id. at 13. Patent
Owner further argues that the portions of Thomas’s and Fernandez’s systems
that Petitioner points to as maintenance detectors are not actually
maintenance detectors. Id. at 13–15. Patent Owner also argues that neither
Thomas nor Fernandez discloses activating an imaging device when a
maintenance malfunction occurs. Id. at 14–15.
Petitioner argues that Patent Owner is incorrect to suggest that
Petitioner only relies on Thomas’s “Temperature Control” and Fernandez’s
“thermostat” as disclosures of the claimed “maintenance detector.” Pet.
Reply 20. Petitioner states that this contention is wrong “and contradicted
by Patent Owner itself on the next page when Patent Owner asserts that
‘Petitioner provides nothing but assumptions and conclusory statements to
suggest a thermostat, a sprinkler system, and the like are maintenance
detectors or are capable of detecting a maintenance malfunction as required
by claim 7.’” Id.
Petitioner also elaborates on its assertions that the prior art discloses
maintenance detectors. Id. at 20–22. Petitioner explains that Thomas
discloses allowing a user to request status information for home utilities. Id.
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

39
at 20. Petitioner argues that, “[b]esides normal operation status, the status
information of the home utilities would include a ‘malfunction status of
premises maintenance’ in the event that any of the home utilities . . . fails to
work properly.” Id. at 20–21. Additionally, Petitioner argues that, in
Fernandez, the structure that sends a ping for a ping test constitutes a
maintenance detector. Id. at 21–22. Petitioner further asserts that Patent
Owner “ignores the fact that the ‘220 Patent itself discloses temperature and
other maintenance function sensors 12 . . . as components of prior art
security system 11.” Id. at 22.
Petitioner further argues that “Thomas discloses that the transmitter is
triggered by an alarm condition to forward the image and alarm status
information over the network to the website.” Id. at 21. In support of this
assertion, Petitioner points to claim 26 on page 21 of the Thomas provisional
application (Ex. 1008).6 Id. Petitioner suggests that it would have been
obvious to modify Thomas’s system to activate an imaging device based on
a maintenance detector. See id. at 22.
Having considered the arguments and evidence presented during trial,
we are not persuaded that Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence to
support a finding that the combined teachings of Thomas and Fernandez
account for limitations recited in claims 7 and 8. As explained in Section
II.A.3 supra, we do not agree with Petitioner’s argument that claims 7 and 8
do not require activation of an imaging device based on the maintenance

6 Petitioner’s citation reads: “See, e.g., MOB1009, Claim 26.” Pet.
Reply 21. Facially, this indicates that Petitioner is citing Exhibit 1009. We,
however, interpret this as a typographical error, as Petitioner is asserting
what Thomas discloses. We, therefore, presume that Petitioner intended to
cite to the Thomas provisional application, which is Exhibit 1008.
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

40
detector recited in claim 7. We also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s argument
that the combination of Thomas and Fernandez render it obvious to activate
an imaging device in response to a maintenance detector detecting an event.
Pet. Reply 22. Petitioner argues that,
[a]s fully addressed in Dr. Lavian’s declaration, given the
ample examples of malfunction detectors disclosed by Thomas,
Fernandez, and the ‘220 Patent’s admitted prior art system, a
[person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated
to modify the temperature sensor of Thomas or add a
thermostat as taught by Fernandez such that the temperature
sensor or the thermostat ‘sense[s] state and other measurement
signals” that “trigger other functionality, such as taking
electronic photograph[s].’

Pet. Reply 22 (citing Ex. 1007, col. 4, ll. 43–50; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 102–06, 145–
150). Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, we do not find that the cited
paragraphs of Dr. Lavian’s testimony provide persuasive evidence that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify
Thomas’s system in this manner.
Dr. Lavian’s testimony makes a series of speculative leaps, with little
or no explanation, from the language of the cited references to his assertions
regarding what the references disclose and what a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood based on such disclosures. For example,
from Thomas’s disclosure that a user may request status information of
home utilities, Dr. Lavian concludes that “Thomas discloses maintenance
detectors that can provide . . . a malfunction status, of premises
maintenance,” providing no explanation of the reason for this leap of logic.
Ex. 1003 ¶ 145. Building on this, based on Thomas’s disclosures of
providing a GUI that allows a user to request a particular temperature, Dr.
Lavian asserts that “[t]he maintenance detector can be . . . a temperature
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

41
sensor” (id. at ¶ 146 (emphasis added)), and that “the temperature sensor can
determine that the temperature within the premises has moved outside the
specified range” ((id. at ¶ 147 (emphasis added)). Citing claim 26 of the
Thomas provisional application, Dr. Lavian testifies that “Thomas discloses
that the transmitter is triggered by an alarm condition to forward the image
and alarm status information over the network to the website.” Id. at ¶ 149
(citing Ex. 1008, 21). Dr. Lavian then concludes that:
[t]hus, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] reviewing
Thomas would understand that the premises maintenance
malfunction detected by the maintenance detector (e.g.,
high temperatures due to failure of an a/c system by the
thermostat) can be an alarm condition that activates the
camera and triggers the transmitter to transmit the event
data over the network to the website.
Id. at ¶ 150. With respect to this conclusion, Dr. Lavian does not explain
why, in the absence of any such disclosure in Thomas, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have considered a maintenance malfunction an “alarm
condition” that would trigger activation of a camera.
In sum, we find that the cited testimony of Dr. Lavian is not based on
sufficient objective evidence to persuade us that it would have been obvious
to modify Thomas’s system in the manner asserted by Petitioner to account
for the elements recited in claims 7 and 8. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that claims 7 and 8 would have been obvious over the combination
of Thomas and Fernandez.
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

42
6. Claim 13
Claim 13 recites:
wherein each at least one sensor has a unique
identification code associated therewith that is
transmitted to the website with the event data for the
purpose of identifying the particular sensor that has
detected an event, and permitting an authorized accessing
entity to determine: a) a type of event that has occurred;
b) a particular sensor detecting the event; and c) an
imaging device providing the imaged data to the web site
for review.
Petitioner argues that this limitation would have been obvious in view of the
collective teachings of Thomas and Fernandez. Petitioner asserts that
Figures 15 and 16 of Thomas show a GUI displaying multiple sensors for
viewing by a user. Pet. 47. Petitioner also notes that Thomas’ Figure 16
shows an “alarm” event by the living room motion sensor and the living
room camera, as well as the images captured by the living room camera,
displayed in image viewer 1604. Id. at 47–48. In view of this, Petitioner
argues that “to properly distinguish and display the statuses of each of these
sensors on the GUI at the website, it would have been obvious to a [person
of ordinary skill in the art] that each of the multiple sensors has a unique
identification code associated therewith that is transmitted to the website.”
Id. at 53. Regarding the claim language “permitting an authorized accessing
entity to determine: a) a type of event that has occurred; b) a particular
sensor detecting the event; and c) an imaging device providing the imaged
data for review,” Petitioner argues that this language recites an intended use,
and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the
disclosure of the prior art meets this claim language. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶
139–42).
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

43
Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not have had any reason to uniquely identify each sensor in Thomas’s
system. PO Resp. 15. Patent Owner asserts that, “since Thomas merely
displays that an alarm has been sounded for a particular area of the house
(e.g. living room) . . . , one of skill in the art would have no reason to
uniquely identify each sensor because identifying the location of the event is
sufficient.” Id. Patent Owner asserts that “Thomas relates to a single type
of event (intrusion),” and then argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have no reason to identify the type of event. Id.
Petitioner responds that Patent Owner’s argument rests on Mr.
Monroe’s assertions that “identifying the location of the event is sufficient
because only one type of event can be detected using the security system,”
and that, in the ’220 patent, “using an identification code to identify the type
of event that occurs in a given location is beneficial for the invention of the
‘220 patent because multiple types of events could occur in a single location
(e.g., fire, smoke, motion, or temperature issue could all occur in the living
room).” Pet. Reply 22–23 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 68). Petitioner argues that Mr.
Monroe’s testimony does not reflect accurately what is taught in Thomas.
Id. at 23. Petitioner argues that Figure 15 and the related disclosure of
Thomas demonstrate that in addition to provisions for home security,
Thomas’s system involves information related to home utilities and home
entertainment control. Id. Petitioner asserts that “[a]pplying Mr. Monroe’s
own rationale, given that ‘various types of events that could be detected by
the various types of sensor’, ‘using an identification code to identify the type
of event that occurs in a given location is beneficial’ for Thomas.” Id.
Petitioner further argues that Dr. Lavian’s Declaration fully establishes that
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

44
it would have been obvious that each of Thomas’s multiple sensors could
have a unique identification code. Id.
Additionally, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner does not justify why
knowing the general location of an event is “sufficient,” such that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would not have reason to uniquely identify each
sensor. Id. at 24. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Petitioner argues
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to uniquely
identify sensors so that it could identify the specific location of the event,
“such as front door, back door, garage door, bedroom 1, bedroom 2, and
living room, as disclosed by Thomas.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, Figs. 15 and
16).7 Petitioner argues that the unique identifier associated with each sensor
allows identifying the location of the sensor. Id. Petitioner also argues that
Patent Owner does not acknowledge that the Petition and Dr. Lavian both
assert that Fernandez discloses unique identifiers for its sensors. Id.
Having considered the arguments and evidence presented during trial,
we are persuaded that Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence to support
a finding that the combined teachings of Thomas and Fernandez account for
the limitations recited in claim 13. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions,
we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have had reason to uniquely identify sensors. Pet. 53;
Pet. Reply 22–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 139–142; PO Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner’s
argument that “Thomas relates to a single type of event (intrusion)”

7 Petitioner’s citation reads: “see MOB1009, FIGS. 15 AND 16.” Pet.
Reply 24. Facially, this indicates that Petitioner is citing Exhibit 1009. We,
however, interpret this as a typographical error, as Petitioner is asserting
what Thomas discloses. We, therefore, presume that Petitioner intended to
cite to the Thomas provisional application, which is Exhibit 1008.
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

45
overlooks much of what Thomas discloses. PO Resp. 16. For example,
Patent Owner overlooks Figure 15 of Thomas, which shows that its system
involves much more than security breaches, including home utilities and
home entertainment controls. Ex. 1008, Fig. 15. Accordingly, we agree
with Petitioner’s assertion that it would be beneficial for Thomas’s system to
uniquely identify sensors to distinguish between events related to security
and events related to other aspects of Thomas’s system, such as home
utilities and home entertainment. Pet. Reply 23.
Additionally, we find unpersuasive Patent Owner’s argument that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to uniquely identify
Thomas’s sensors “because identifying the location of the event is
sufficient.” PO Resp. 15. As Dr. Lavian notes, Figure 16 of Thomas shows
that its system has sensors in multiple locations, including the front door,
back door, garage door, and the living room. Ex. 1008, Fig. 16; Ex. 1003
¶ 140. We are persuaded by Petitioner and Dr. Lavian that unique
identification codes for each of these sensors would allow the system to
distinguish between the sensors and provide the specific location of the
sensors. Pet. 47–48, 53; Pet. Reply 24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 139–140.
In sum, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that claim 13 would have been obvious over
the combination of Thomas and Fernandez.

IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

46
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed above, we determine the following:
(1) Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that claims 1–6 and 9–28 would have been obvious based on the
combined teachings of Thomas and Fernandez; and
(2) Petitioner has not demonstrated that claims 7 and 8 would have
been obvious based on the combined teachings of Thomas and
Fernandez.

IV. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is:
ORDERED that claims 1–6 and 9–28 have been shown to be
unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that claims 7 and 8 have not been shown to be
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.
IPR2015-00093
Patent 6,975,220 B1

47

PETITIONER:
P. Weston Musselman, Jr.
musselman@fr.com

Adam R. Shartzer
shartzer@fr.com

PATENT OWNER:
Minghui Yang
myang@dpelaw.com

Greg Donahue
gdonahue@dpelaw.com