PTAB

IPR2013-00499

Mobotix Corp v. E Watch Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Multimedia Network Appliances for Security and Surveillance Applications
  • Brief Description: The ’429 patent discloses multimedia network appliances for security and surveillance. The appliance includes a sensor component, a processor for generating a digital output signal from the sensor signal, and a network interface to transmit that output over a digital network, and can incorporate features like video/audio compression and multiplexing.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Seeley - Claims 15-18, 23-25, 39, 43-50, 55, 60, 62-67, 71, 73, and 74 are obvious over Seeley

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Seeley (Patent 6,069,655).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Seeley, which discloses an advanced video security system, teaches every element of the base claims. Seeley’s system includes cameras (sensor component), a site control unit or SCU (processor), and a terminal adapter (network interface) for transmitting multiplexed audio and video signals over a digital ISDN network. Seeley also discloses a "video compression module" for motion video and a "frame compression unit" for still images.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground is based on inherent obviousness. Petitioner asserted that while Seeley does not explicitly name the MPEG or JPEG standards, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time would have found it obvious to implement Seeley's disclosed compression modules using these well-known standards. MPEG and JPEG were among a limited number of common, universally accepted standards for motion video and still image compression, respectively.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as this involves applying standard, predictable compression techniques to the system explicitly described in Seeley.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Seeley and Fernandez - Claims 18-21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 37, 41, 42, 70, and 75 are obvious over Seeley in view of Fernandez

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Seeley (Patent 6,069,655) and Fernandez (Patent 6,697,103).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner used Seeley as the primary reference for the base security system architecture. The combination with Fernandez was argued to render various dependent claims obvious. Fernandez was cited for its disclosure of a surveillance system that integrates numerous non-imaging sensor types, including motion detectors, smoke detectors, temperature detectors, and contact switches, which correspond to limitations in the challenged dependent claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Seeley's surveillance system with the variety of common sensor types taught by Fernandez to enhance the system's functionality and detection capabilities. Petitioner argued this combination involves using known components for their intended purpose in a known type of system to achieve predictable, improved results.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a predictable substitution of known sensor components into a standard security system framework, ensuring a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Mobotix Brochure - Claims 15-18, 20, 23-25, 43-50, 65-68, and 71 are obvious over the Mobotix Brochure

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The Mobotix Brochure (publicly distributed at CeBIT 2000).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued the Mobotix Brochure, which describes an internet-connected surveillance camera, discloses the key limitations of the claims. It teaches a CMOS image sensor, an image processor, and network interfaces (Ethernet/ISDN). The brochure expressly discloses JPEG compression for still images and support for the H.320 standard for live video, which incorporates MPEG-like compression codecs.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): The brochure describes the capability to transfer live video and a detailed still image simultaneously. Petitioner contended that while a multiplexer is not explicitly named, a POSITA would have found it obvious to use a standard multiplexer to combine the compressed live video and still image streams for simultaneous transmission. This was presented as a routine and necessary implementation detail to achieve the brochure's stated functionality.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in using a well-known component like a multiplexer to enable a disclosed feature.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations of Seeley or the Mobotix Brochure with Maram (Patent 5,019,803) and Body (WO 2000048155) to teach further sensor types, panic buttons, and access control features. A final ground asserted that claims 1-3 are obvious over the H.320 teleconferencing standard alone.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "multiplexer": Petitioner proposed the construction "a device for combining two or more input signals into at least one output signal," based on a dictionary definition and the patent’s specification.
  • "the sensor": Petitioner argued that this term in claim 1, which lacks a proper antecedent, should be construed as "the sensor component." This construction was proposed to resolve ambiguity and prevent claim 75 from being an improper duplicate of claim 42.
  • "is": For the phrase "wherein the sensor [component] is a video sensor," Petitioner argued for an open-ended construction of "is." This was asserted to be necessary to provide the broadest reasonable interpretation and to avoid rendering numerous dependent claims (e.g., "wherein the sensor component is a glass breakage sensor") improper for replacing, rather than further limiting, the base claim element.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 15-21, 23-26, 29-32, 34, 36, 39-50, 52-68, and 70-76 of the ’429 patent as unpatentable.