PTAB

IPR2017-02055

Google Inc v. Alex Is Best LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Integrated Internet Camera System And Method
  • Brief Description: The ’542 patent relates to an integrated Internet camera system designed for simple installation and operation. The system enables devices to seamlessly and automatically transmit, receive, and store images, video, or audio over the Internet, and to switch between different modes of communication if a primary connection fails.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Nicholas - Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 19, and 20 are anticipated by Nicholas under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nicholas (Application # 2004/0133668).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Nicholas, which was not considered during prosecution, discloses every element of the challenged claims. Nicholas describes an "end user device" capable of communicating multimedia over the Internet, which functions as the claimed "Internet direct device." This device includes an optional camera and microphone (the "imaging system") and a processor that controls communication interfaces for transmitting and receiving voice, video, and data. Critically, Nicholas teaches that the device automatically performs a network detection function as part of its power-up sequence to connect to an optimal, primary network (e.g., a wired LAN) and automatically provides for "seamless transitions" to a secondary network (e.g., WLAN) if the primary connection becomes unavailable, such as when a user is "roaming in an office." These teachings were asserted to map directly onto the limitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 19.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Nair in view of Umeda - Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 19, and 20 are obvious over Nair in view of Umeda under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nair (Application # 2004/0127208) and Umeda (Application # 2002/0150228).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Nair discloses a wireless device, such as a cellular phone, that provides the core functionality of the challenged claims for audio communications. Nair's device automatically connects to a primary network on power-up (e.g., a preferred, high-speed WLAN) and seamlessly hands off communications to a secondary network (e.g., a WWAN/cellular network) when the primary connection is lost. Petitioner argued that Nair teaches all claim limitations except for the handling of video images. Umeda, which is in the same field, remedies this deficiency by disclosing a communication system for adding video-calling and videoconferencing features to devices like cellular phones.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Umeda's video capabilities with Nair's seamless audio network-switching system for clear and predictable reasons. The combination would satisfy known market demand for videoconferencing functionality and would have been a logical step to create a more competitive and full-featured product. Nair itself discloses a web browser, and a POSITA would recognize that existing off-the-shelf videoconferencing technology could be run through such a browser to meet customer demand.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in this combination, as it involved integrating a known feature (video calling from Umeda) into a known device architecture (Nair's wireless device with network hand-off) to achieve a predictable result.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Umeda in view of Inoue - Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 19, and 20 are obvious over Umeda in view of Inoue under §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Umeda (Application # 2002/0150228) and Inoue (Application # 2004/0109066).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Umeda discloses a mobile communication system for videoconferencing that can roam between different networks. Umeda teaches switching to another available network when a primary connection becomes "incapable" or unavailable. However, Umeda does not explicitly teach the claimed feature of automatically connecting to a designated primary mode of connection on power-up. Inoue was argued to supply this missing element, as it discloses a digital camera that, when powered on, "automatically establishes a network connection" and selects a "primary mode of connection" (e.g., a WLAN) for transmitting images.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Inoue's power-up auto-connection feature with Umeda's videoconferencing system to enhance its functionality. Umeda's goal of a "seamless network" connection for videoconferencing implies that the device must always be available to receive an incoming call. This is only possible if the device automatically connects to a network upon power-up. Therefore, a POSITA would be motivated to incorporate the routine taught by Inoue to ensure Umeda's system was always ready and truly seamless.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating a known power-up connection routine from Inoue into Umeda's communication device would have been a straightforward and predictable design modification for a POSITA seeking to create a robust and reliable videoconferencing system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Internet direct device" ("IDD"): Petitioner proposed that this term should be construed to include at least a device capable of connecting to the Internet without the necessity of connecting to another device, such as a PC. This construction is central to applying prior art references that disclose standalone devices like cell phones, PDAs, and integrated cameras.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 19, and 20 of the ’542 patent as unpatentable.