Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
8,781,292
Paper No. ______
12/01/16 9:17 AM
Case IPR__________
US Patent 8,781,292
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION. ..........................................................................................1
II.
STANDING. ....................................................................................................1
III.
FEE. .................................................................................................................2
IV.
V.
VI.
A.
B.
District Court...............................................................................2
2.
C.
D.
E.
B.
C.
B.
C.
2.
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
D.
E.
F.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Ground 1: Claims 1, 8, 18, 20-21, 26, 28, 30, 32, 36, 38-39, 42,
45, 47-48, 50-51, 54, 57, and 59 are Unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. 103 as Obvious in view of US Patent No. 8,805,431 to
Vasavada (Ex.1010). ...........................................................................21
1.
2.
b.
c.
- ii -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
device manager." (Ex.1001, Claim 1; Ex.1003,
80). ................................................................................27
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
- iii -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
3.
i.
j.
k.
b.
c.
- iv -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
4.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
-v-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
5.
k.
l.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
6.
7.
8.
- vi -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
B.
9.
10.
11.
2.
b.
c.
d.
e.
- vii -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
recording a second set of record data related to the
event" (Ex.1001, Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82).....................69
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
- viii -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
data recorded by the first recording device has the
same time stamp as said second item of recorded
data recorded by the second recording device to
correlate the respective particular items of
recorded data between the first and second
recording devices." (Ex.1001, Claim 12; Ex.1003,
82). ................................................................................73
IX.
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................74
X.
XI.
- ix -
Case IPR__________
US Patent 8,781,292
I.
INTRODUCTION.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. 42.100 et seq., TASER
International, Inc. ("TASER" or "Petitioner") petitions for Inter Partes Review of
claims 1, 8, 12, 18, 20-21, 26, 28, 30, 32, 36, 38-39, 42, 45, 47-48, 50-51, 54, 57,
and 59 ("challenged claims") of U.S. Patent No. 8,781,292, as amended by the Ex
Parte Reexamination Certificate ("'292 Patent")(Ex.1001). The '292 Patent has
been assigned to Digital Ally, Inc., who is believed to be the "Patent Owner."
This Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, and thus a trial for
inter partes review must be instituted. Evidence in this Petition demonstrates the
challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103. Petitioner respectfully
requests the challenged claims be rejected and cancelled.
II.
STANDING.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.104(a), Petitioner hereby certifies that the '292
Patent is available for inter partes review. The '292 Patent issued on July 15, 2014,
more than nine months prior to the filing of this Petition. An ex parte
reexamination certificate for the 292 Patent also issued on January 14, 2016
(Ex.1001, p.17).
Petitioner further certifies under 37 C.F.R. 42.104(a) that it is not barred or
estopped from requesting inter partes review of the '292 Patent on the grounds
-1-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
identified below. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 315(b), this Petition is timely because it is
filed within one year after Patent Owner served its complaint against Petitioner in
Digital Ally, Inc. v. TASER International, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02032-CM-JPO,
now pending in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas
Litigation).
III.
FEE.
The undersigned submitted payment by deposit account with the filing of
this Petition authorizing the Office to charge fees required under C.F.R. 42.15(a).
IV.
District Court.
Digital Ally, Inc. v. TASER International, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02032CM-JPO, now pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Kansas (Kansas Litigation) (Ex.1007, 26).
Digital Ally, Inc. v. Enforcement Video, LLC d/b/a/ Watchguard Video, Case
No. 2:16-cv-02349-JTM-JPO ("Watchguard Litigation"), (Ex.1008, 22).
-2-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
2.
Petitioner is also filing another, concurrent petition for inter partes review of
the 292 Patent. The concurrent petition addresses additional claims, and focuses
on different prior art closely matching the exemplary equipment discussed in the
292 Patent. The art in this concurrent petition further rebuts statements made by
the Patent Owner during prosecution to secure claim allowance, as well as Patent
Owners contention that the 292 Patent represents its invention of camera autoactivation technology.
The differences between the two petitions with respect to the art presented,
the challenged claims, and their respective disclosures are further discussed below
in Sections VIII(A) and (B), which set forth the detailed grounds for the present
Petition.
C.
-3-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
(206) 682-8100; Fax (206) 224-0779. TASER consents to service by electronic
mail at: brandon.stallman@cojk.com; rhys.lawson@cojk.com; litdoc@cojk.com.
E.
Ground 1: Claims 1, 8, 18, 20-21, 26, 28, 30, 32, 36, 38-39, 42,
45, 47-48, 50-51, 54, 57, and 59 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,805,431 to Vasavada ("Vasavada," Ex.1010).
2.
The evidence to support the above challenges and the identification of where
each claim limitation is found in the prior art references are provided below. This
Petition and Dr. Henry Houhs Declaration (Ex.1003) demonstrate the challenged
claims are not patentable.
-4-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
C.
Summary of Unpatentability.
-5-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
additional recording devices in response to receiving a signal indicating a first
recording device has been instructed to record. (Ex.1009).
VI.
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
systems focused on in-car recording systems with video cameras, along with
officer-worn microphones and/or cameras. It was also well-known that one such
device could trigger another, or that one trigger could synchronously start multiple
video or audio recorders to capture event data from various vantage points. Id.
Such recording systems were so well-known that law enforcement customers
were describing them in requests for proposal and detailed specifications (Ex.1014
pp.5-7,
9-12,
15-16;
public
at
least
by
4/4/2013;
http://www.ci.pomona.ca.us/mm/finance/bids/S0901.6_Mobile_Video_Recording_
Sys.pdf; Ex.1003, 133). Similarly, the International Association of Chiefs of
Police issued a minimum specifications document stating that such systems
should include multiple recording devices, synchronization of recordings, and
auto-activation of recordings (Ex.1017 pp.18, 10, 13, 22-23, 25-26; Sections
1.4.17, 1.4.51, 4.1.1., 4.2.15, 4.2.16, 4.2.22, 4.2.24, 5.4.1-5; Ex.1003, 132).
TASER was also active in this space years before Patent Owners priority
date. In the early 2000s, TASER conceived what would become the "Axon"
network of devices and applications, a connected device ecosystem that included
automatically triggered cameras worn by law enforcement officers.
TASER gave several public presentations describing its "TACOM" (TASER
Communications) system, including CEO Rick Smith's April 28, 2009, slide
presentation below at the Evidence.com Technology Summit in Scottsdale, AZ:
-7-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
-8-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
In the illustrated TACOM system, the data from the CEW and on-officer
camera could be communicated to a computer-based evidence system (TASER's
Evidence.com system, as shown). This coordination allowed for synchronization of
data recordings from connected devices when transferred to Evidence.com.
Thus, it was well-known from many prior art sources, including TASER, to
provide an automatically-triggered system of synced devices for recording events,
and to time stamp and coordinate the multiple data sets generated.
C.
The '292 Patent is said to solve the problems of the prior art by providing a
computer program, method, apparatus, and system for managing multiple
-9-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
recording devices (Ex.1001, 1:61-64). According to the '292 Patent, the multiple
recording device management system includes a multiple recording device
managing apparatus, referred to in the challenged claims as the "recording device
manager" (Ex.1001, 1:65-67). The multiple recording device management system
also includes a vehicle recording device, such as a video camera, synced to the
recording device manager and a personal recording device, such as a video camera,
synced to the multiple-recording-device manager (Ex.1001, Abstract). According
to the '292 Patent, the recording device manager can be either a disparate device or
can be incorporated into the vehicle recording device or the personal recording
device (Ex.1001, 8:15-19).
The basic components of the claimed system are shown in Fig.1 of the '292
Patent, reproduced below:
- 10 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
With reference to Fig.1 above, the recording device manager 12 operates by
first receiving a first communication signal from either the vehicle recording
device 14 or the personal recording device 18 (the first, synced, recording device).
The communication signal is said to indicate that the first, synced, recording
device has begun recording or has received instructions by a user, such as a law
enforcement officer, to record an event. In response to receiving the first
communication signal, the recording device manager 12 transmits a second
communication signal to the other one of the vehicle recording device 14 or the
personal recording device 18 (the second, synced, recording device). The second
communication signal instructs the second, synced recording device to begin
recording the event (Ex.1001, 2:1-8).
By automatically signaling the second, synced, recording device to record
data of the event based on the recording status of the first, synced recording device,
the invention is said to address the problems in the prior art associated with
manually managing recording devices, thus insuring that both recording devices
record data of the event (Ex.1001, 2:1-8; Ex.1007, 10, 11).
2.
Claims 1, 12, 18, 36, and 48 of the challenged claims are independent. Each
of the remaining challenged claims depends, directly or indirectly, from one of
these independent claims. Claim 1 is representative of the challenged claims.
- 11 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
D.
Based on the claims as originally filed on September 27, 2013, a first Office
Action was issued rejecting Claims 1-12 and 19-20 as being anticipated by, or
obvious in view of, United States Patent Publication No. 2012/0189286 A1
(Takayama) (Ex.1005, 01/31/2014 Office Action, pp.60-67). On March 19,
2014, the Patent Owner filed a response to the USPTO that amended the claims to
recite that the first recording device records a first set of record data from a first
input and the second recording device records a second set of record data from a
second input (Ex.1005, Applicant Response of 03/19/2014, p.49). The Patent
Owner argued that Takayama records "a single set of data from a single input," and
that Takayama only teaches a single video camera, whose output is then stored
onto various media. (Ex.1005, Applicant Response of 03/19/2014, p.49). The
Patent Owner distinguished their invention as record[ing] the same event ... from
different vantage points and thus, would receive different sets of record data.
(Ex.1005, Applicant Response of 03/19/2014, pp.49-50). The Patent Owner further
amended the claims to clarify that the claimed recording devices captured different
record data. (Ex.1005, Applicant Response of 03/19/2014, pp.38-41).
As a result of the submitted amendment, the application was allowed and
issued as US Patent No. 8,781,292 on July 15, 2014.
- 12 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
E.
A POSITA in the field of the '292 Patent in August, 2013 would have been
someone with at least a bachelors degree in electrical engineering or a related field
(including but not limited to computer or network engineering), with two years of
additional experience in the area of data communications and data storage
(Ex.1003, 78). The additional two years of experience could be either in an
industrial setting or in an educational setting, such as in the course of obtaining an
advanced degree (Ex.1003, 78).
- 13 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION.
A claim subject to inter partes review (IPR) is given its broadest
reasonable construction (BRI) in light of the specification of the patent in which
it appears. 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b). Under the BRI standard, words of the claim
must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the
specification and prosecution history. Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Sipnet EU
S.R.O., 806 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed.Cir.2015).
Petitioner below proposes the broadest reasonable interpretation of certain
claim language, as understood by a POSITA as of the filing date of the '292 Patent.
37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3). Petitioner also below sets forth claim terms that were
either defined in the specification or are subject to 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Petitioner submits that all remaining claim terms should be accorded their
plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a POSITA. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48700
(2012). Petitioner reserves all rights regarding claim constructions presented
during litigation, including the Kansas Litigation, as they do not necessarily
correspond to a broadest reasonable interpretation approach. Different standards
may be involved in litigation and Patent Office proceedings. Cuozzo Speed
Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016).
- 14 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
A.
- 15 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
B.
- 16 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
C.
- 17 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
D.
According
to
the
'292
Patent,
the
"recording
device
manager 12 includes ... a receiver 30 for receiving from either the vehicle
recording device 14 or the personal recording device 18 information, including a
signal, that such recording device has started recording; a transmitter 32 for
transmitting a signal; ... and a controller 36 for performing algorithms, managing
- 18 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
data, and generating signals and receiving information indicative of triggering
events." (Ex.1001, 8:31-41).
In one embodiment, the '292 Patent specification describes the controller as
including "electronic circuitry, a processing element, a memory element, computer
hardware, and computer software ... for performing algorithms for managing the
recording devices 14, 18, as described below." (Ex.1001, 9:42-48). The '292 Patent
explains the structure of the receiver and the transmitter in terms of wireless or
wired circuitry or connectors that receive communication signals and transmit
communication signals, respectively (Ex.1001, 9:60-10:6). The '292 Patent also
sets forth the algorithms performed by the controller for carrying out the claimed
function (Ex.1001, Abstract, 5:56-67, 4:27-53; 8:31-45; 14:43-58).
As properly construed, the corresponding structure for this claim limitation
(as described in the specification and equivalents thereof) is a receiver, a
transmitter, and a special purpose controller programmed to perform the disclosed
algorithm.
E.
In the Kansas Litigation, Petitioner and the Patent Owner have agreed to a
construction of "insures" as meaning "make certain or sure." (Ex.1012, p.6). The
Patent Owner contends in the Kansas Litigation that the recording device manager
can meet this limitation by simply transmitting a second communication signal to
- 19 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
the second recording device instructing the second recording device to record
(Ex.1013, pp.19-20).
Under a BRI approach, Petitioner will apply the Patent Owners position on
insures for purposes of this Petition, and demonstrate unpatentability on that
basis. Petitioner will also demonstrate where the applied references teach
additional features that actually make certain or sure, should the Board require
more than the interpretation advocated by the Patent Owner to meet this claim
term. In the context of the Kansas Litigation, Petitioner does not concede that
merely transmitting a signal to a recording device instructing it to record makes
certain or sure that the second device is actually recording.
F.
In the Kansas Litigation, Petitioner and the Patent Owner have agreed to a
construction of "metadata" as meaning "data about a data recording, including but
not limited to a time stamp, location, user, device serial number, number of
recording devices, or trigger type." (Ex.1012, p.6).
Petitioner accepts this construction of the term "metadata" for purposes of
this Petition, and demonstrates unpatentability based on this construction.
- 20 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Ground 1: Claims 1, 8, 18, 20-21, 26, 28, 30, 32, 36, 38-39, 42, 45,
47-48, 50-51, 54, 57, and 59 are Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
103 as Obvious in view of US Patent No. 8,805,431 to Vasavada
(Ex.1010).
- 21 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
In Vasavada, an alert triggers video recording of incident information from a
first radio (Ex.1010, Abstract, 2:11-13). The first radio, in response to the alert,
transmits a signal, including video recorded by the first radio's camera, to the
central control station (Ex.1010, 3:59-67). The central control station receives the
signal from the first radio, and retransmits the signal to a dynamically formed
talkgroup comprised of a number of second portable or vehicular radios (Ex.1010,
3:46-51, 4:1-9). Upon receiving the signal from the central control station, each
second radio of the talkgroup begins recording in-route video as they approach the
incident scene. (Ex.1010, 2:20-22, 4:10-30). This allows various vantage points of
the event to be recorded and stored, which may be accessed at a later date for
evidentiary reasons. (Ex.1010, 5:60:60, 7:15-19).
In transmitting and receiving signals, the communication system can employ
a number of communication protocols, including cellular (e.g., LTE), IEEE 802.11
(WiFi), etc. (Ex.1010, 2:28-37).
1.
With reference to the concurrently-filed petition for inter partes review, the
grounds above for Vasavada are arguably stronger than the Pierce and 20/20-W
Publication" (by ICOP) grounds in the concurrent petition because Vasavada more
explicitly discloses the triggering of a second camera to record. The Vasavada
reference also focuses on multiple officer-mounted cameras, as opposed to the
- 22 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Pierce and 20/20-W vehicular system that involves one officer-mounted camera
(along with other data capture devices, such as a microphone). However, the
Vasavada-based grounds are arguably weaker because the Pierce and 20/20-W
references in the concurrent petition more clearly discuss data being recorded on a
first computer-readable medium (Limitation 1[E] below). The Pierce and 20/20-W
references also discuss at length the same kind of vehicle-based systems that Patent
Owner describes in the 292 Patent examples (such the DVM-500 car-based
system) as being incorporated in its invention. However, unlike Vasavada and
Pierce, the 20/20-W Publication used in the concurrent petition is not a patent
application or publication, and is thus not self-authenticating.
The concurrent petition further contains grounds for claims 3, 24, 29, 27,
and 43, not challenged here. Conversely, the present Petition challenges claims 12,
28, 32, and 59, which the concurrent petition does not.
2.
- 23 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
with a camera to record video. (Ex.1010, Fig.2). Each radio unit 102 and 104 is in
communication with the central control station 210. (Ex.1010, Fig.2).
According to Vasavada, the communication system "provides automated
incident alerts to a radio, automated video recording of the incident, dynamic
formation of a talkgroup, and automatic sharing of the incident information
amongst members of the talkgroup." (Ex.1010, Abstract). Vasavada further
explains that the central control station "manages resource assignments of the
radios within the communication system 100." (Ex.1010, 2:51-53).
- 24 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
b.
- 25 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
As for the corresponding structure, Fig.2 above depicts the central control
station 210 (labeled dispatch console) as a desktop computer, and is said to
comprise "one or more generic or specialized processors (or processing devices)
... and unique stored program instructions (including both software and firmware)
that control the one or more processors to implement, in conjunction with certain
non-processor circuits, some, most, or all of the functions of the method and/or
apparatus described herein." (Ex.1010, 8:38-63; Ex.1003, 157).
According to Vasavada, the central control station 210 receives signals from
the first radio unit and transmits signals to the second radio unit "within a network"
(e.g., LTE, P25, WiFi) "or other network capable of handling two-way radio and
video data." (Ex.1010, 2:31-34). To carry out communication over these networks,
- 26 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
the central control station of Vasavada includes a receiver and a transmitter as
disclosed in and claimed by the '292 Patent. (Ex.1003, 154-156).
Therefore, Vasavada discloses a central control station (i.e., a special
purpose controller, a receiver, a transmitter) that matches both the function and
corresponding structure of the recited "recording device manager." (Ex.1003,
149-160).
If it is found that the recording device manager is not a means-plus-function
limitation, the central control station nevertheless satisfies the claimed limitations
of the recording device manager, including having the at least one receiver and the
at least one transmitter. (Ex.1003, 161).
c.
- 27 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
portable two-way radio 502 having an accessory 504 coupled either wired or
wirelessly thereto in accordance with the various embodiments. The accessory 504
may be for example, a remote speaker microphone which is coupled with a digital
camera 506. The radio and/or accessory are programmed to respond to
predetermined events to trigger automatic video recording." (Ex.1010, 6:13-19).
In order to record video, the camera inherently includes an input, such as a
lens and/or image sensor, through which information of the event is received into
the camera. Therefore, Vasavada discloses first and second radio units 102 and 104
(both with a video camera having an image sensor), that match both the function
and the corresponding structure of the recited "first recording device" and "second
recording device" (See Section VIII(A)(2)(f)), respectively. (Ex.1003, 166-167,
169-170, 203; See Fig.2 below with annotations).
- 28 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
- 29 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
unit transmits a signal to the central control station (i.e., the recording device
manager as set forth in Section VIII(A)(2)(b) above) via a communication
protocol, such as IEEE 802.11 (WiFi) or cellular (e.g., LTE). (Ex.1010, 2:28-46).
As such, the first radio unit comprising a camera (e.g., the first recording device) is
synced or "communicatively coupled" with the central control station (i.e., the
recording device manager). (Ex.1003, 174-176).
Therefore, Vasavada discloses a first radio unit, such as radio unit 102,
comprising a camera having an input, such as an image sensor, which carries out
the identical function with the same structure as the "first recording device," and
which is synced or "communicatively coupled" with the central control station (i.e.,
the recording device manager).
d.
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
based on the type of event indicated by the trigger and analysis of the incident
video." (Ex.1010, 4:1-4, emphasis added).
Vasavada also explains that the central control station receives signals 202
from the first radio unit "within a network such as a long term evolution (LTE)
network, a P25 network, WiFi, or other network capable of handling two-way
radio and video data." (Ex.1010, 2:31-34). In order to receive signals, such as
signals 202, over these networks, the central control station includes a receiver as
disclosed and claimed in the '292 Patent. (Ex.1003, 153-156).
Thus, the central control station (i.e., recording device manager) includes a
receiver that receives a first communication signal (i.e., signal 202) from the first
radio unit (i.e., first recording device). (Ex.1003, 185).
- 31 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Vasavada also discloses that the first communication signal 202 received by
the receiver of the central control station was previously transmitted by the first
radio unit (e.g., first recording device) in response to an incident event alert caused
by, for example, a law enforcement officer's voice command or a gun drawn from
her holster. (Ex.1010, 4:1-49, 2:62-67; Ex.1003, 179-180). According to
Vasavada, these alert triggers "enable[] automatic video recording by the radio
unit" of "incident events 222 [first set of record data] occurring at a scene."
(Ex.1010, 3:9-15, 3:59-61; Fig.2; Ex.1003, 182).
Vasavada further discloses that "recording 222 is transmitted via a
streamlined digital signal 202" (i.e., first communication signal) to "the central
control station" (i.e., recording device manager). (Ex.1010, 3:61-63; See also Fig.4,
blocks 404-418, below with annotations).
Thus, because the video recording 222 (i.e., first set of record data) captured
by the first radio unit is sent with the first communication signal 202 to the central
control station, signal 202 is a communications signal which indicates that the first
recording device has received an instruction to begin recording. (Ex.1003, 185).
Therefore, Vasavada's central control station includes a receiver that
receives a first communication signal from the first radio unit. The first
communication signal comprises video captured by the first radio unit's camera
- 32 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
when the first radio unit is triggered to record via an officer's voice instruction or
drawn gun.
e.
- 33 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Vasavada discloses that "(e)ach radio unit comprises a camera, or other visual
recording capability, operatively coupled thereto, for recording video" (Ex.1010,
2:40-42, emphasis added), and the radio unit of Fig.5 has "an accessory 504
coupled ... thereto" that includes "a remote speaker microphone which is coupled
with a digital camera 506" for recording audio and video of the event. (Ex.1010,
6:13-17). The camera records video of the event via the input, such as an image
sensor, through which the record data of an event is received into a radio unit's
camera. (Ex.1003, 189-191).
Regarding the second requirement of limitation 1[E], Vasavada also
discloses that the record data received by the image sensor of the camera is stored
on an associated computer readable medium. (Ex.1003, 192-195). According to
Vasavada "(t)he radio 502 comprises a controller having a microprocessor, a
memory, ... as previously described in conjunction with FIG.1." (Ex.1010,
6:28-31). Vasavada describes examples of computer-readable media including "a
hard disk, ... and a Flash memory." (Ex.1010, 8:53-63). Moreover, Vasavada
explains that "(t)he communication system 100 integrates streaming video along
with local and network storage functionality thereby facilitating buffering,
transmission, and storage of the video data." (Ex.1010, 4:49-52; See also Ex.1010,
Fig.4, blocks 410, 412).
- 34 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
As discussed above, Vasavada teaches that the controller of the radio [i.e.,
first recording device] includes a first computer-readable medium, as recited in
Claim 1. If it were argued that Vasavada fails to explicitly disclose that the first set
of record data is recorded on the first computer-readable medium, Petitioner
submits that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to utilize the provided
hardware (e.g., hard disk or flash memory) as part of the disclosed "local and
network storage functionality thereby facilitating buffering, transmission, and
storage of the video data" (Ex.1010, 4:50-52; Ex.1003, 196). The described
functionality allows capture and sharing of a recorded video (Ex.1010, 4:52-54),
both of which functions rely on storing data in a computer-readable medium.
Furthermore, Vasavada notes that video from members of the talkgroup can
be used for "future analytics" (Ex.1010, 5:4-10), which again would require storage
of data in a computer-readable medium. It would have been obvious to a POSITA
to use the radio hardware disclosed in Vasavada to record the data on a computerreadable medium at least to facilitate the disclosed capture and sharing of recorded
video (data), by using prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results (KSR Intl Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-22 (2007);
MPEP 2143 (A, C)). (Ex.1003, 196).
- 35 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Therefore, each aspect of Limitation 1[E] is either explicitly taught or
obvious in view of the first recording device of Vasavada, in the form of the first
radio unit comprising a camera, with an image sensor (input) through which
information about an event enters the camera. The recorded data (video images)
generated by the image sensor are stored on a computer readable medium, such as
flash memory.
f.
- 36 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
As such, and as set forth above in Section VIII(A)(2)(c), Vasavada discloses
a second radio unit, such as radio unit 104, having a video camera with an image
sensor, which matches both the function and corresponding structure of the recited
"second recording device." (Ex.1003, 200-208).
If it is found that the second recording device is not a means-plus-function
limitation, the second radio unit 104, which includes a microphone and camera,
nevertheless satisfies the claimed limitation of the "second recording device."
(Ex.1003, 209).
Vasavada discloses that the second radio unit comprising a camera is
"communicatively coupled" to the central control station. According to Vasavada,
in response to receiving an emergency alert triggered signal, the central control
station (i.e., recording device manager) creates a new talkgroup (a selected group
of radio units including radio units 104, 106, 108) based on the type of trigger and
transmits a signal to the radio units of the talkgroup via a communication protocol,
such as IEEE 802.11 (WiFi) or cellular. (Ex.1010, 2:28-46, 4:1-6, Fig.2; Ex.1003,
210-212). "The radios in the talkgroup may also activate their own cameras and
transmit video-data streams to the central control station." (Ex.1010 at 5:58-60).
- 37 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
As such, the second radio unit 104 (e.g., the second recording device) is
synced or "communicatively coupled" with the central control station (i.e., the
recording device manager). (Ex.1003, 210-212).
Therefore, Vasavada discloses a second radio unit, such as radio unit 104,
comprising a camera having an image sensor, which carries out the identical
function with the same structure as the "second recording device," and which is
synced or "communicatively coupled" with the central control station (i.e., the
recording device manager).
g.
- 38 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
control station includes a transmitter as disclosed in the '292 Patent. (Ex.1003,
153-156).
As depicted in the flow chart of Fig.4 (below with annotations), "the central
control station creates a new talkgroup, which may also be referred to as a work
group at 420. ... The video stream, the sensor data (if applicable) along with audio
is sent to the talkgroup at 422." (Ex.1010 5:46-52, Fig.4).
As a result of receiving the video stream, sensor data and audio, the radios in
the talkgroup (i.e., second recording devices) "activate their own cameras and
transmit video-data streams [i.e., second set of record data] to the central control
station." (Ex.1010, 5:51-60; Fig.4, block 428). This is said to allow "various
vantage points to be viewed as the radios of the talkgroup approach the incident
- 39 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
scene." (Ex.1010, 5:60-61). Indeed, "each of the radio units 104, 106, 108
respectively records 314, 316, 318 in-route video 324, 326, 338 as the units
approach the incident scene." (Ex.1010, 4:11-13; Fig.3).
- 40 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
h.
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
unit's camera can be stored on an associated computer readable medium. (Ex.1010,
4:42-56, 8:53-63, Ex.1003, 224-227).
Similar to the discussion set forth with regard to analogous limitation 1[E], if
Vasavada were construed as not explicitly teaching that the second set of record
data is actually recorded on a second computer-readable medium associated with
the second recording device, a POSITA would have found it obvious to use the
provided memory elements of the radio unit 502 to record data generated by the
radio unit, including data related to video or audio. Vasavada provides several
functionalities of the disclosed system that would utilize data recorded on the
radio, including the ability to capture and share recorded video (Ex.1010, 4:52-54)
and for future analytics (Ex.1010, 5:4-10) of video from the talkgroup. (Ex.1003,
228). Without local recording on each radio, if a member of the talkgroup were
out of range of the communication system 100 (e.g., out of range of the
communication tower 150) then data from that radio would not be preserved
without local recording on the radio.
Therefore, each aspect of Limitation 1[H] is either explicitly taught or
obvious in view of the second recording device of Vasavada.
- 42 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
i.
- 43 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Therefore, Vasavada discloses that the first and second radio units are
different devices, and that video recorded by the first radio unit is different from
the video recorded by the second radio unit.
- 44 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
j.
- 45 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
In relation to Fig.4 (above with annotations), Vasavada discloses that an
emergency alert trigger instructing the first radio unit (i.e., first recording device)
to record can be initiated by a law enforcement officer via the officer's intentional
acts, such as a voice command. (Ex.1010, 2:62-67; Ex.1003, 179). If an
emergency alert to record is triggered, the camera of the first radio unit (i.e., the
first recording device) records video of the event. (Ex.1010, 5:31-39). According to
Vasavada, "the radio proceeds to enable video streaming at 414. The camera,
which may be in the radio (coupled to the vehicular or handheld portable) or part
of an accessory coupled to the radio, is turned on and begins recording." (Ex.1010,
5:36-39). Thereafter, "(t)he recorded video is transmitted to the central control
station at 418." (Ex.1010, 5:39-41).
Still referring to annotated Fig.4 above, the central control station (i.e., the
recording device manager) receives the recorded video and embedded information
and automatically creates a talkgroup (a select number of second recording
devices). (Ex.1010, Fig.4 (block 420), 5:46-50). Next, according to Vasavada,
"(t)he video stream, the sensor data (if applicable) along with audio is sent to the
talkgroup at 422" and "(t)he radios within the talkgroup start viewing the streamed
video at 424." (Ex.1010, 5:51-53). Thus, transmission of the video stream (with
signal 204 in Fig.2) to the second radio unit 104 occurs in response to reception of
- 46 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
first communication signal 202 from the first radio unit 102. (Ex.1010, Fig.2;
Ex.1003, 234).
In addition to viewing the streamed video from the central control station,
the radios in the talkgroup (i.e., second recording device) "activate their own
cameras and transmit video-data streams [i.e., second set of record data] to the
central control station." (Ex.1010, 5:58-61, Fig.4 (block 428)). This is said to allow
"various vantage points to be viewed as the radios of the talkgroup approach the
incident scene." (Ex.1010, 5:60-61). Indeed, "each of the radio units 104, 106, 108
respectively records 314, 316, 318 in-route video 324, 326, 338 as the units
approach the incident scene." (Ex.1010, 4:11-13; Fig.3). Thus, the signal 204 is a
second communication signal instructing the second recording device to record.
(Ex.1003, 233).
Vasavada also insures that both the first and second radio units are recording
by transmitting the second communication signal in response to receiving the first
communication signal. (Ex.1010, Fig.2, Ex.1003, 232-235). Transmission of the
video stream (with signal 204 in Fig.2) to the second radio unit 104 occurs in
response to reception of the record triggered signal (signal 202) from the first radio
unit 102. (Ex.1010, Fig.2, Ex.1003, 232-235).
In addition to insuring that the second radio units are recording by
transmitting the second communication signal, Vasavada further teaches insuring
- 47 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
based on the general concept of establishing a talkgroup, which requires 2-way
communication between the second radio units and the central control station to
establish the talkgroup. (Ex.1010, 5:58-61, Fig.4 (block 420)). Then, when the
talkgroup is activated by first radio unit via the central control station, Vasavada
further insures the second radio units are recording by actively receiving the
recordings back from the second radio units and retransmitting to the talkgroup to
provide "various vantage points" of the incident scene. (Ex.1010, 5:58-64, Fig.4
(block 428)).
k.
Vasavada discloses that both the first recording device (first radio unit 102
with camera) and the second recording device (second radio unit 104 with camera)
can be mounted on or carried by an officer. (Ex.1010, Figs.2, 5; Ex.1003,
237-238). Indeed, Vasavada explains that "(w)hile FIGS. 1, 2, and 3 have shown
vehicular radio units, the embodiments of the invention apply to video capable
wearable devices" and "(i)n Fig.1, the radio units are represented as vehicular radio
units, however handheld radio units having visual recording capabilities may also
be utilized." (Ex.1010, 4:57-60, 2:54-56, emphasis added). Moreover, Vasavada
explains that (t)he remote speaker microphone 504 is typically worn at the users
- 48 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
lapel/shoulder making it ideal for the camera 506 to record video events or changes
occurring at an incident scene and/or events surrounding the user, which in many
cases involve a police officer. (Ex.1010, 6:42-46).
3.
- 49 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
b.
- 50 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
such as signal 202, from a first recording device. (Ex.1003, 185). The first
communication signal, such as signal 202, indicates that the first recording device
has received an instruction initiated by a first law enforcement officer to record a
first set of record data related to an event. (Ex.1003, 185).
c.
- 51 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
As depicted in the flow chart of Fig.4, "the central control station creates a
new talkgroup, which may also be referred to as a work group at 420 .... The video
stream, the sensor data (if applicable) along with audio is sent to the talkgroup
at 422." (Ex.1010, 5:46-61, Fig.4). As a result of receiving the video stream, sensor
data and audio, the radios in the talkgroup (which includes the second recording
device) "activate their own cameras and transmit video-data streams [i.e., second
set of record data] to the central control station." (Ex.1010, 5:51-61, Fig.4 (block
428)). This allows "various vantage points to be viewed as the radios of the
talkgroup approach the incident scene." (Ex.1010, 5:60-61). Each of the radio units
(104, etc.) respectively records (314, etc.) in-route video (324, etc.) as the units
approach the incident scene. (Ex.1010, 4:1-27, Fig.3).
Thus, the central control station's processor, executing program instructions
or code on the computer readable medium, transmits the second communication
signal, such as signal 204, to the second recording device. (Ex.1003, 214-216).
The second communication signal, such as signal 204, instructs the second
recording device to begin recording. (Id).
e.
- 52 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
f.
Limitation
18[G]
communication signal.
wherein
the
second
- 53 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
c.
Limitation 36[E] requires "wherein said triggering event is selected from the
group consisting of an instruction initiated by a first law enforcement officer for
the first recording device to record; an activation, by the first law enforcement
officer, of a data recording device communicatively coupled with the recording
device manager; activation of a law enforcement vehicle's siren; activation of said
- 54 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
law enforcement vehicle's signal lights; activation of said law enforcement
vehicle's spotlight; and a vehicle crash event." (Ex.1001, Claim 1; Ex.1003, 90).
As set forth above in Section VIII(A)(2)(d), Vasavada discloses that the first
radio unit 102 (i.e., first recording device) can be triggered to record by voice
commands, which can be considered instructions initiated by a first law
enforcement officer to record. (See also, Ex.1003, 281).
f.
- 55 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
j.
Limitation
36[K]
communication signal.
wherein
the
second
- 56 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
computer readable medium claim. Claim type aside, there is no substantive
difference in the preambles. Thus, for the same reasons set forth in Section
VIII(A)(2)(a) regarding limitation 1[A], Vasavada discloses limitation 48[A].
As set forth above in Section VIII(A)(2)(a), any differences that may be
present between the preambles are disclosed in Vasavada. For example, Vasavada
discloses that the central control station (disclosed above in Section VIII(A)(2)(b)
as performing the function of the recording device manager), includes "a
computer-readable storage medium having computer readable code stored thereon
for programming a computer (e. g., comprising a processor) to perform a method
as described and claimed herein." (Ex.1003, 242-244).
b.
- 57 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
the scene." (Ex.1010, 3:9-15, 3:59-61; Fig.2). Once recorded, "(t)he recorded video
is transmitted to the central control station at 418." (Ex.1010, 5:39-41).
Further set forth above in Section VIII(A)(2)(d), the central control station
(i.e., the recording device manager) receives the recorded video and embedded
information with "signal 202" from the first radio unit. (Ex.1010, 5:46-50).
Thus, the central control station's processor, executing program instructions
or code on the computer readable medium, receives the first communication signal,
such as signal 202, from a first recording device. (Ex.1003, 185, 310). The first
communication signal, such as signal 202, indicates that the first recording device
has received an instruction initiated by a first law enforcement officer to record a
first set of record data related to an event. (Ex.1003, 185, 310).
c.
- 58 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
e.
Limitation
48[H]
communication signal.
wherein
the
second
- 59 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
6.
Vasavada also renders obvious Claims 8, 20, 42, and 54, which add to
Claims 1, 18, 36, and 48, respectively, a requirement that "wherein one of the first
set of record data and the second set of record data is selected from the group
consisting of video images, audio recordings, and metadata." (Ex.1001, Claims 8,
20, 42, 54; Ex.1003, 81, 84, 93, 99). Vasavada discloses the additional
limitations set forth in Claims 8, 20, 42, and 54.
Specifically, Vasavada discloses that the first radio unit uses a camera to
record video. (Ex.1010, 2:40-42). As such, the first set of record data is video
images recorded by the first radio unit's camera.
7.
Vasavada also renders obvious Claims 21, 39, and 51, which add to Claims
18, 36, and 48, respectively, a requirement that "wherein one of said first set of
record data and said second set of record data is metadata associated with the
event." (Ex.1001, Claims 21, 39, 51; Ex.1003, 85, 92, 98). Vasavada discloses
the additional limitations set forth in Claims 21, 39, and 51.
As set forth above in Section VII(F), the term "metadata" means "data
describing data, including but not limited to location data recorded, serial number
of recording device, user of recording device, time of recording, trigger prompting
- 60 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
recording of data, and number of recording devices triggered to record." Vasavada
discloses that "(p)rior to transmitting the video stream, the unique emergency ID,
radio ID, location data and time stamp are preferably embedded in the stream. This
embedded information can facilitate usage of the information at a later date for
evidentiary purposes." (Ex.1010, 5:41-45, Fig.4, block 416).
8.
Vasavada also renders obvious Claims 28, 32, and 47, which add to Claims
18, 1, and 36, respectively, a requirement that the first and second recording
devices are configured to be mounted on or carried by a law enforcement officer.
(Ex.1001, Claim 28, 32, 47; Ex.1003, 87, 89, 95). Vasavada discloses the
additional limitations set forth in Claims 28, 32, and 47.
As set forth in Section VIII(A)(2)(k) above, Vasavada discloses that each
radio unit can be "handheld" or a "video capable wearable device." (Ex.1003,
237-238). Indeed, Vasavada explains that "(w)hile FIGS. 1, 2, and 3 have shown
vehicular radio units, the embodiments of the invention apply to video capable
wearable devices" and "(i)n Fig.1, the radio units are represented as vehicular radio
units, however handheld radio units having visual recording capabilities may also
be utilized." (Ex.1010, 4:57-60, 2:54-56).
- 61 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Thus, both the first radio unit and the second radio unit are configured to be
mounted to or carried by a law enforcement officer.
9.
Vasavada also renders obvious Claims 38 and 50, which add to Claims 36
and 48, respectively, a first requirement that "wherein said triggering event is said
activation, by the first law enforcement officer, of said data recording device
communicatively coupled with the recording device manager" and a second
requirement that "wherein data recorded by said data recording device is metadata
associated with the event." (Ex.1001, Claims 38, 50; Ex.1003, 91, 97). Vasavada
discloses the additional limitations set forth in Claims 38 and 50.
Regarding the first requirement, Vasavada discloses that the emergency alert
trigger can be a voice command, as set forth above in Section VIII(A)(2)(d). (See
also, Ex.1003, 179-180). Voice commands are a trigger by the law enforcement
officer that activates the first reporting device 102 (i.e., first recording device) to
record. (Ex.1003, 179-180).
Regarding the second requirement, Vasavada discloses that location data,
radio ID data, and time stamp data, can be embedded with the video stream, as set
forth above in Section VIII(A)(7) regarding Claims 21, 39, and 51.
- 62 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
10.
Vasavada also renders obvious Claims 26, 30, 45 and 57, which add to
Claims 18, 1, 36, and 48, respectively, a requirement that one of the first or second
recording device is "configured to be worn on a shirt of the one of the first law
enforcement officer and the second law enforcement officer." (Ex.1001, Claims 26,
30, 45, 57; Ex.1003, 86, 88, 94, 100). Vasavada discloses the additional
limitations set forth in Claims 26, 30, 45 and 57.
As described above in Section VIII(A)(2)(k) in relation to limitation 1[K],
Vasavada discloses that each radio unit may comprise a remote speaker
microphone with a camera, which is "typically worn at the users lapel/shoulder"
(Ex.1010, 6:42-46, Fig.5). When worn on the lapel/shoulder, the camera of each
radio unit is "worn on a shirt of the one of the first law enforcement officer and the
second law enforcement officer."
11.
- 63 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Vasavada discloses that each radio unit (i.e., first and second recording
devices) is configured to be mounted on or carried by the law enforcement officers,
as set forth above in Section VIII(A)(8) regarding Claim 28.
B.
- 64 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
with or modifiable in view of embodiments that use video cameras. (Ex.1009,
Fig.14, 17 and 347, 375). Combining such embodiments found in a single prior
art reference does not require a leap of inventiveness. See Boston Scientific
Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
- 65 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results and/or the [u]se of known technique[s] to improve similar
devices (methods, or products) in the same way. (KSR 550 U.S. at 417-22; MPEP
2143(A,C); See also Ex.1003, 337).
1.
The system of Kashiwa includes one or more local cameras 1 and one or
more common cameras 2, which can each include a control unit and transmission
unit (Ex.1009, Fig.8, 11, 14). In operation, the local camera 1 acts as a recording
device with components related to recording (Ex.1009, Fig.8, 11, 14; Ex.1003,
345). Local camera 1 also manages data collection by other devices with its
ability to transmit the trigger signal to the common camera(s) and cause them to
record (Ex.1003, 346). For example, the local camera 1 transmits a trigger signal
- 66 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
TG to the common camera 2, causing the common camera 2 to record data
(Ex.1009, 0242-0243, 0250, 0255, 0289, 0292, 0295, 0337).
b.
Kashiwa discloses that local camera 1 includes a local control unit 10. As
shown in Fig.11 (above), the local control unit 10 receives inputs (e.g., a signal
from shutter switch 18, metadata MTDL from metadata generating unit 21) and
transmits outputs (e.g., trigger TG and metadata MTDL to transmission unit 11,
and signals to other components of local camera 1). (Ex.1009, 0150, Fig.8, 11, 14;
Ex.1003, 349-351). Thus, the local control unit 10 is a controller that includes a
receiver and a transmitter.
c.
- 67 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
d.
As explained above, Kashiwa discloses that the local control unit 10 receives
inputs (e.g., a signal from shutter switch 18). (Ex.1009, Fig.8, 11, 14; Ex.1003,
349-351). Shutter switch 18 is part of a recording device that includes image
capturing unit 13, signal processing unit 14, and recording playback unit 15 with
recording media 19. (Ex.1009, Fig.8, 11, 14; Ex.1003, 357-358). To the extent
that the "first recording device" is interpreted as a means-plus-function claim
element, the aforementioned components of Kashiwa provide the corresponding
structure, or its equivalent, that performs the claimed function of "recording"
image data. (Ex.1009, 0159; Ex.1003, 355-362). If the "first recording device"
is not interpreted as a mean-plus-function claim element, the claimed recording
device is nevertheless disclosed. (Ex.1003, 363).
Local control unit 10 causes recording of image data by image capturing
unit 13, image-capturing signal processing unit 14, and recording media 19 based
on the received signal from the shutter switch 18. (Ex.1009, 0159). Thus, local
control unit 10 receives a signal from the shutter switch 18 indicating that
recording has begun. (Ex.1003, 358). The image data that is recorded is a first set
- 68 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
of record data of an event. (Ex.1009, Fig.9 (step F123), 12 (step F133)). The
shutter switch 18 that generates the shutter signal is activated by a user, and can be
considered a triggering event. (The description of Fig.14-15 also indicates that
video switch 22 can be activated by a user to start recording video in local camera
1, and that shutter switch 18 can be activated after local camera 1 has begun
recording.) (Ex.1009, 0325-0326, 0334-0335; Ex.1003, 359).
e.
- 69 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Otherwise, the claimed recording device is disclosed by common camera 2.
(Ex.1003, 374).
The local control unit 10 transmits a trigger signal TG to the common
camera 2, causing the common camera 2 to record image data, which is a second
set of record data of an event. (Ex.1009, 0242-0243, 0250, 0255, 0289, 0292,
0295, 0337).
f.
Limitation
12[F]
"wherein
the
second
communication signal is transmitted to the second
recording device in response to the at least one
receiver receiving the first communication signal
from the first recording device indicating the first
recording device has begun recording in response to
said triggering event, such that the recording device
manager insures the first and second recording
devices both record the event" (Ex.1001, Claim 12;
Ex.1003, 82).
Kashiwa discloses in Fig.8, 9, 11, and 12 that the local control unit 10, in
response to receiving the first recording device's shutter signal, also outputs (F122,
F132) trigger signal TG with an ID and metadata MTDL for transmission to the
common camera 2. The signal TG causes the common camera 2 to record image
data with the ID data and metadata. (Ex.1009, Fig.9 (F221-F224), 12 (F231F234)). In this way, applying the Patent Owners interpretation that one need only
transmit a second communication signal to the second recording device instructing
the second recording device to record to make certain or sure, as described in
- 70 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Section VIII(E), the local control unit 10 ensures that common camera 2 also
records the event, along with the first recording device in local camera 1. (The
recording of the first recording device in local camera 1 is described above with
reference to limitation 12[D]; the recording of common camera 2 is described
above with reference to limitation 12[E]) (Ex.1003, 376).
g.
It is unclear whether "a first item of recorded data" is related to the "first set
of recorded data" in limitation 12[D] above. Regardless of how "a first item of
- 71 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
recorded data" is construed, Kashiwa discloses that local control unit 10 transmits
output signals, including signals to control operation of other components of local
camera 1 related to recording. (Ex.1009, 0150-0151, 0159; Ex.1003, 350).
Kashiwa also discloses (e.g., in Fig.11 above) that the local control unit 10 may
transmit metadata MTDL (e.g., a time stamp) to the recording playback unit 15 and
recording media 19 of the first recording device, where it is associated with local
image VL and recorded. (Ex.1009, 0284, 0296, and Fig.11-12 (F133); Ex.1003,
378).
i.
- 72 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
j.
It is unclear what it means for "said first and second items of recorded data"
to have "occurred at the same time." Nevertheless, however the term "occurred at
the same time" is construed, Kashiwa discloses transmitting a trigger signal for
instructing recording by a second device "at the same timing" or within the same
time frame or "time zone" as a first device, and that the recorded data (e.g., image
or video) records the same event (e.g., at different angles simultaneously).
(Ex.1009, 0013, 0044-46, 0192, 0195). Further, Kashiwa discloses storing
matching time stamps on a common image VC and local image VL so that they
can be correlated. (Ex.1003, 382-383). In sum, Kashiwa discloses first and
second items of recorded data that occurred at the same time.
k.
Kashiwa discloses (e.g., in Fig.11, above) that local control unit 10 may
transmit metadata MTDL (e.g., a time stamp) to recording playback unit 15 with
recording media 19, where it is associated with local image VL and recorded.
- 73 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
(Ex.1009, 0284, 0296, Fig.11-12 (F133)). Kashiwa also discloses that the
metadata MTDL transmitted to common camera 2 may be associated with common
image VC and recorded. (Ex.1009, 0282, 0305, 0313, Fig.8, 10, 11, 13). Since
the time stamps MTDL match, the first and second items of recorded data can be
correlated. (Ex.1009, 0305; Ex.1003, 385).
IX.
CONCLUSION.
In light of the showing provided in this Petition, Petitioner requests inter
partes review of the 292 Patent be instituted on Claims 1, 8, 12, 18, 20-21, 26, 28,
30, 32, 36, 38-39, 42, 45, 47-48, 50-51, 54, 57, and 59.
Dated this 1st day of December, 2016.
CHRISTENSEN O'CONNOR
JOHNSON KINDNESS PLLC
/Brandon C. Stallman/
Brandon C. Stallman, Reg. No. 46,468
L. Rhys Lawson, Reg. No. 57,869
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98101-2347
Telephone: 206.682.8100
Fax: 206.224.0779
E-mail: brandon.stallman@cojk.com,
litdoc@cojk.com
Attorneys for Petitioner TASER International,
Inc.
- 74 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
X.
APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS.
Ex.1001
Ex.1002
Ex.1003
Ex.1004
Ex.1005
Ex.1006
Ex.1007
Ex.1008
Ex.1009
Ex.1010
Ex.1011
Ex.1012
Ex.1013
Ex.1014
Ex.1015
- 75 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Ex.1016
Ex.1017
Ex.1018
Ex.1019
Ex.1020
Ex.1021
- 76 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
XI.
TASER International, Inc. (TASER), declares that Sections I-III and IV(E)-IX of
this Petition, exclusive of Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. 42.8, Table of
Contents, Certificate of Service, Certificate of Word Count, and Appendix of
Exhibits has a total of 13,548 words, according to the word count tool in Microsoft
Word.
- 77 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
XII. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.6(e) and 42.105(b), the undersigned hereby
certifies that on December 1, 2016, a complete and entire copy of this Petition for
Inter Partes Review has been served via U.S. Priority Mail Express upon the
following Patent Owner of record by serving the correspondence address of record
as follows:
Erise IP, P.A.
6201 College Boulevard
Suite 300
Overland Park, KS 66211
- 78 -