PTAB

IPR2019-00236

Axis Communications AB v. Avigilon Fortress Corporation

Title: Video Surveillance System Employing Video Primitives
Brief Description: The ’912 patent relates to a video surveillance system that separates the process of analyzing video to extract low-level data ("primitives" or "attributes") from the process of analyzing that data to determine the occurrence of higher-level "events." This distributed architecture aims to reduce bandwidth and processing requirements by transmitting only the compact attribute data for event analysis, rather than the full video stream.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Talmon (Patent 8,004,563).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Talmon discloses every element of the challenged claims. Talmon describes a distributed video surveillance system where a first processor (a local encoder at the camera) performs low-level feature extraction to generate a "feature stream" of attributes (e.g., shape, size, velocity). This stream is transmitted over a communications network to a separate, second processor (a remote image processing server). The second processor analyzes a combination of these attributes to detect events (e.g., "exceptional static objects," "accidents") without needing to reprocess the original video, thereby satisfying the core limitations of independent claims 1, 6, 9, 12, and 18.
- Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that Talmon’s system inherently meets the "independence" limitations, as the first processor continuously detects basic attributes regardless of the specific event being searched for by the second processor. It also meets the "analyzing only" limitations because the second processor receives only the feature stream, not the full video, for event detection.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Talmon (Patent 8,004,563) and Aspectus ("Aspectus Video Intelligence VI-SystemTM" Brochure).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Talmon teaches the fundamental two-processor architecture, and Aspectus provides additional, reinforcing details of a commercially available system implementing Talmon's teachings. Aspectus describes a system with "VideoOutposts" (cameras/encoders) performing feature extraction and a "VI-Server" that processes the resulting data streams to detect events. It provides a concrete example of a user-defined event ("a vehicle stops for more than 1 minute, and a person leaves the vehicle unattended") that requires combining multiple attributes, reinforcing the teachings of Talmon.
- Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) reviewing Talmon would be motivated to look to Aspectus, its commercial implementation, to understand how the patented system's features were practically realized. The combination would be a predictable integration of a patented system with its corresponding commercial product literature.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Talmon (Patent 8,004,563) and Brill ("Event Recognition and Reliability Improvements for the Autonomous Video Surveillance System").
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground again relied on Talmon for the base system. Petitioner argued Brill provides specific, advanced teachings on event detection that a POSITA would use to enhance Talmon. Brill discloses a similar distributed system with "smart cameras" sending activity attributes to a central "Video Surveillance Shell" for event filtering. Critically, Brill teaches a graphical user interface that allows a user to define complex events by combining multiple attributes (e.g., a "Loiter by the door" event combining object class "person," activity "loiter," a specific region, and a duration).
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to implement the user-definable event detection functionality generally described in Talmon would be motivated to incorporate the specific and advanced methods taught by Brill. Brill provides an enabling disclosure for creating complex, multi-attribute event rules, which would be a predictable improvement to Talmon’s system.
- Expectation of Success: Given the compatible distributed architectures of both Talmon and Brill, a POSITA would have a high expectation of success in combining Brill's event definition and filtering techniques with Talmon's core system for attribute extraction and transmission.

"Independence-based limitations" (e.g., "attributes...independent of a selection of the first event"): Petitioner argued this phrase does not mean the attribute-detecting processor must be unaware of potential events of interest. Instead, it means the process of detecting attributes is not altered or affected by the subsequent process of analyzing those attributes to find an event. This construction is positioned against the Patent Owner's asserted interpretation that the prior art is distinguishable because it detects predefined events.
"Event that is not one of the determined attributes": Petitioner asserted that, based on the patent's own disclosure and prosecution history, a claimed "event" must be a combination of at least two attributes. A single detected attribute (e.g., "object appears") is not a claimed "event." This construction is used to argue that prior art systems detecting complex behaviors meet this limitation, even if the prior art sometimes refers to simple activities as "events."
"Filtering": Petitioner argued this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning of selecting, processing, or analyzing, and not a special, narrow construction limited to processing unbounded data streams, as previously argued by the Patent Owner.

Disputed Priority Date: A central contention is that the '912 patent is not entitled to a priority date earlier than April 5, 2005. Petitioner argued that the parent applications, including the '707 application, do not disclose the claimed two-processor system where one processor determines attributes and a separate second processor determines events based on those attributes. Petitioner contended this architecture was first introduced in the application filed in 2005. This argument is critical, as it establishes Talmon (published 2004) as valid prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(e).

Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under §325(d). The petition asserted it presents new issues of patentability because the primary references (Talmon, Aspectus, and Brill) were never applied against the claims during prosecution or the prior reexaminations.
Furthermore, Petitioner argued that instituting review is appropriate because the Examiner made a clear error during reexamination by granting the '912 patent an earlier priority date based on a mischaracterization of the parent applications' disclosure.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4 and 6-36 of Patent 7,868,912 as unpatentable.