PTAB

IPR2017-02058

Google Inc v. Alex Is Best LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Integrated Internet Camera System and Method
  • Brief Description: The ’991 patent discloses an integrated internet camera system designed to automatically transmit, receive, and store images on a remote web server ("WSARC"). The patent asserts an improvement over prior art by enabling direct internet connection and communication without requiring an intermediary device like a personal computer.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Inoue and Nair - Claims 1-3, 10-14, and 21 are obvious over Inoue in view of Nair.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Inoue (Application # 2004/0109066) and Nair (Application # 2004/0127208).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Inoue taught a digital camera system that met nearly all limitations of the challenged claims, including automatically establishing a network connection on power-up to transmit images to and receive images from a file server. Petitioner contended, however, that Inoue did not teach automatically switching to a secondary communication mode when the primary mode becomes unavailable. Nair was asserted to supply this missing element, as it describes a system for any wireless device that provides "uninterrupted and effective wireless access" by "automatically and seamlessly" handing off communications from a primary network (e.g., WLAN) to a secondary network (e.g., WWAN) when the primary connection is lost.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Inoue and Nair to achieve the known and desirable benefits of seamless roaming and uninterrupted connectivity. This combination would have been particularly valuable for a mobile camera used by photographers like travelers or photojournalists who need to reliably upload images from various locations with differing network availability.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success, as Nair's system for seamless network switching was expressly taught as being applicable to any wireless-capable electronic device, which would include the digital camera disclosed in Inoue.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Yamazaki and Nicholas - Claims 1-3, 12-14, and 21 are obvious over Yamazaki in view of Nicholas.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yamazaki (Application # 2004/0105008) and Nicholas (Application # 2004/0133668).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Yamazaki disclosed an internet-direct camera that automatically uploads captured images to a server, thus teaching the core functionality of capturing, transmitting, and receiving images from a central repository. However, Yamazaki was argued to be deficient in teaching the automatic switching between connection modes when a primary connection fails. Nicholas was introduced to provide this functionality, as it discloses an end-user device that "provides for seamless transitions between different data communication networks," such as automatically switching from a wired LAN to a WLAN when the device is disconnected from its docking station.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Nicholas with Yamazaki's camera to solve the known problem of data transmission being interrupted by a loss of connection. This would achieve the recognized advantages of improved connection continuity, reliability, and versatility, which are particularly important for a portable electronic device.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be a predictable application of a known network management solution (from Nicholas) to a known device category (Yamazaki's camera) to yield the expected benefit of uninterrupted operation.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Kusaka and Nicholas - Claims 1-3, 12-14, and 21 are obvious over Kusaka in view of Nicholas.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kusaka (Application # 2004/0109063) and Nicholas (Application # 2004/0133668).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kusaka taught an electronic camera that automatically transmits image data to a server over a wireless link. The petition noted that during prosecution of a parent application, an Examiner found Kusaka did not explicitly teach automatically connecting on power-up or automatically switching networks when a primary connection is unavailable. Nicholas was asserted to teach both of these missing elements: it describes a device performing a network detection function as part of its "power-up sequence" and seamlessly switching between networks based on availability and pre-defined criteria.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Nicholas with Kusaka's camera to achieve benefits of simplified device startup, power conservation (by allowing the device to remain off until needed), and improved performance by automatically selecting the most advantageous network (e.g., based on cost or speed). These benefits were described as universally desirable for portable electronic devices.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because implementing Nicholas's automatic connection and switching logic in Kusaka's camera was presented as a straightforward integration of known technologies to enhance device usability and performance.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations of Yamazaki/Nair (Ground 3), Yamazaki/Nicholas/Nair (Ground 4), and Kusaka/Nicholas/Nair (Ground 6), which largely relied on the same core teachings and motivations to combine.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • For the purposes of the petition, Petitioner proposed a construction for the central term "Internet direct device" ("IDD") as including "at least a device that is capable of connecting to the Internet without the necessity of connecting to another device, such as a PC."
  • Petitioner stated that other challenged claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review for claims 1-3, 10-14, and 21 of the ’991 patent on all asserted grounds and requested that the claims be found unpatentable and cancelled.