PTAB

IPR2018-00138

Axis Communications Ab v. Avigilon Fortress Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Video Analytic Rule Detection System and Method
  • Brief Description: The ’661 patent discloses a video surveillance system that extracts descriptive data ("primitives" or "attributes") about objects from a video stream. The system then uses user-defined rules to analyze this stored attribute data to identify specific "events" without needing to reprocess the original video.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Kellogg - Claims 1-10, 15-18, 20-21, 23-24, 26-28, and 30-31 are anticipated by Kellogg.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kellogg (“Visual Memory,” a 1993 publication by Christopher James Kellogg).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kellogg, which was not before the examiner during prosecution, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Kellogg describes a "visual memory" system that processes video to detect objects and stores a variety of their attributes (e.g., area, duration, trajectory, class, location) in an object-oriented database. The system then uses a query mechanism, analogous to the claimed "user rule," to search the stored attributes to identify complex events like "loitering" or an "approach" event. Crucially, Petitioner asserted Kellogg teaches the key limitations added during prosecution: the detected attributes are stored independently of any subsequently defined event, and events are defined by combinations of attributes rather than being attributes themselves. This database-query approach inherently identifies events without reprocessing the video.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner emphasized that Kellogg's fundamental architecture—storing a rich set of attributes first and querying them later—directly teaches the "independence" that the patent owner relied upon to secure allowance of the claims.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kellogg in view of Brill - Claims 1-32 are obvious over Kellogg in view of Brill.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kellogg, and Brill (“Event Recognition and Reliability Improvements for the Autonomous Video Surveillance System,” a 1998 publication by Frank Brill et al.).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that to the extent Kellogg alone does not anticipate every claim, the combination with Brill renders all claims obvious. Kellogg provides the foundational system of detecting and storing object attributes for later querying. Brill supplements this by teaching specific, well-known enhancements relevant to dependent claims and claims with additional features. For instance, Brill explicitly discloses using attributes from non-video sources (e.g., badge readers, keypads) to define events, directly teaching the limitations of claim 19. Brill also describes a distributed system with networked "smart cameras" that transmit attribute data to a central surveillance shell for event detection, mapping to the networking limitations of claims 29 and 32.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Kellogg's flexible database system with Brill's teachings to achieve predictable improvements. For example, a POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Brill's non-video data sources into Kellogg's query system to enhance event detection capabilities, such as correlating a person's entry into a room (from video) with their ID badge scan (from a non-video source). Petitioner noted that both references relate to Autonomous Video Surveillance (AVS) systems developed at Texas Instruments, making their combination particularly logical.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining Kellogg's database architecture with Brill's specific input sources (non-video data) and network configurations (smart cameras) involved applying known principles to achieve the predictable result of a more robust and versatile surveillance system.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claims 1-18, 20-21, 23-24, and 26-32 are also obvious over Kellogg alone, arguing that any minor variations not explicitly disclosed would have been obvious modifications to a POSITA in view of the advanced state of the art.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "user rule that defines an event" / "event definition": Petitioner argued these terms should be construed to mean "a set of attributes and/or other parameters for identifying an event." This construction equates the claimed "rule" with a database query, which aligns with the disclosures in both the ’661 patent and the Kellogg reference.
  • "event": Proposed construction is "one or more objects engaged in an activity." This construction is based on the patent's own definitions and distinguishes the "event" (a higher-level inference) from the underlying "attributes" (raw descriptive data), which is critical for the anticipation and obviousness arguments.
  • Claim 15 Means-Plus-Function Elements: Petitioner provided constructions for the means-plus-function elements of claim 15. For the "means for identifying an event," Petitioner identified the corresponding structure as a computer system with a database and query system for storing and searching attributes, arguing this structure is fully disclosed in Kellogg.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-32 of the ’661 patent as unpatentable.