PTAB

IPR2017-02059

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 connect directly to the internet to seamlessly transmit, store, and archive images and audio without requiring an intermediary device like a personal computer. The core inventive concept centers on a device that automatically connects to a communications network on power-up and automatically switches to a different available connection if the primary one fails.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Nicholas - Claims 22, 23, 25, 27-29, 32, 33, and 35-38 are anticipated by Nicholas under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

  • 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 limitation of the challenged claims. Nicholas describes an "end user device" for seamless roaming across multiple networks. Specifically, the device performs a network detection function as part of its "power-up sequence" to automatically connect to an optimal, primary network (e.g., a wired LAN). Nicholas further teaches that when this primary connection becomes unavailable (e.g., when a user is "roaming in an office"), the device "automatically switches" to another available mode of communication, such as a wireless network, to provide "continuous network connection." Petitioner contended this disclosure directly maps to the key limitations of independent claims 22 and 32 regarding automatic connection on power-up and automatic switching upon connection failure.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Inoue in view of Nair - Claims 22, 23, 25, 27-29, 32, 33, and 35-38 are obvious over Inoue in view of Nair under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Inoue (Application # 2004/0109066) and Nair (Application # 2004/0127208).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Inoue discloses a digital camera that meets the first key limitation of the claims: it "automatically establishes a network connection" upon being "powered on." However, Inoue fails to teach the second key limitation of automatically switching to another network if the primary one becomes unavailable. Petitioner argued that Nair supplies this missing element. Nair discloses technology for any wireless device to have "uninterrupted and effective wireless access" by "automatically and seamlessly" handing off communications from a primary network (e.g., a WLAN) to a secondary one (e.g., a WWAN) when the primary connection is lost.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Inoue and Nair to improve the functionality and reliability of Inoue's internet-connected camera. The combination would provide users, such as mobile photojournalists, with the convenience of Inoue's automatic power-up connection and the robust, uninterrupted connectivity of Nair's seamless network switching. This would allow for reliable image uploads from various locations without requiring manual intervention, a clear and desirable improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: The integration of known wireless handoff protocols (from Nair) into a wireless-capable device (like Inoue's camera) was a straightforward application of existing technologies with predictable results.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Umeda in view of Inoue - Claims 22, 23, 25, 27-29, 32, 33, and 35-38 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 presented this as an alternative combination where the roles of the prior art are reversed from Ground 2. Umeda discloses a mobile communication system for videoconferencing that provides for seamless roaming by automatically switching to another available network when a primary network "lacks capability" (i.e., becomes unavailable). Umeda, however, does not explicitly teach automatically connecting to a network upon power-up. Inoue supplies this missing element, teaching a camera that automatically establishes a network connection during an "activation process" when powered on.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Inoue's power-up connection feature into Umeda's videoconferencing system to ensure a truly seamless user experience. By connecting to the network immediately upon activation, Umeda's device would be ready to receive incoming requests for video conferences without delay, which is a critical function for such a system.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining a known power-up connection routine with a device designed for constant connectivity would have been a simple and predictable modification for a POSITA.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that dependent claims 25, 27, 28, and 35-37 are also obvious over the combination of Inoue, Nair, and Narayanaswami (a 2004 IEEE article). This ground reinforced arguments that adding audio and communication features was obvious, as Narayanaswami documented the well-known trend and benefits of integrating digital cameras into mobile phones (as taught by Nair).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Internet direct device" ("IDD"): Petitioner proposed this term should be construed to mean "at least a device that is capable of connecting to the Internet without the necessity of connecting to another device, such as a PC." This construction was central to framing the scope of the invention and distinguishing it from systems reliant on a separate computer for internet access, aligning the claims with the teachings of the prior art references, which describe standalone connected devices.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 22, 23, 25, 27-29, 32, 33, and 35-38 of the ’991 patent as unpatentable.