ipr2015-01217

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Unified Patents Inc. Petitioner

v.

Olivistar, LLC Patent Owner

Patent No. 8,239,347 Filing Date: September 10, 2009

Issue Date: August 7, 2012 Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CUSTOMIZING THE STORAGE AND MANAGEMENT OF DEVICE DATA IN A NETWORKED ENVIRONMENT

Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. 42.100 ET SEQ.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

i

I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.

42.104(a) ......................................................................................................... 1 III. THE 347 PATENT ........................................................................................ 2

A. Overview .............................................................................................. 2 B. Prosecution History of the 347 Patent ................................................ 3

IV. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b) ......................................................................................................... 4 A. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which Review Is

Requested ............................................................................................. 4 B. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds

On Which the Challenge to the Claims Is Based ................................. 4 C. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction .................................... 5 D. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are

Unpatentable ......................................................................................... 7 E. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence .................................. 7

V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE 347 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ..................... 7 A. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-12, and 17-20 Are Anticipated by Monroe .............. 7

1. Independent Claim 1 .................................................................. 8 2. Dependent Claim 3................................................................... 16 3. Dependent Claim 4................................................................... 16 4. Dependent Claim 8................................................................... 17 5. Dependent Claim 9................................................................... 18 6. Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................ 19 7. Dependent Claim 11 ................................................................ 21 8. Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................ 22 9. Independent Claim 17 .............................................................. 22 10. Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................ 23

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

ii

11. Dependent Claim 19 ................................................................ 24 12. Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................ 25

B. Ground 2: Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 17, and 20 Are Obvious Over Mangasarian in View of Walker ........................................................ 25 1. Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 26 2. Independent Claim 17 .............................................................. 38 3. Dependent Claim 3................................................................... 40 4. Dependent Claim 4................................................................... 40 5. Dependent Claim 9................................................................... 41 6. Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................ 43 7. Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................ 46

VI. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(1) ......... 46 A. 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(a): Real Party-In-Interest ................................... 46 B. 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ............................................ 46 C. 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and

Service Information ............................................................................ 47 VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 48

iii

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1001: U.S. Patent No. 8,239,347 to Alexander et al. (the 347 patent)

Exhibit 1002: File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,239,347 to Alexander et al. (File History)

Exhibit 1003: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0025599 to Monroe (Monroe)

Exhibit 1004: U.S. Patent No. 6,708,292 to Mangasarian (Mangasarian)

Exhibit 1005: U.S. Patent No. 6,975,617 to Walker et al. (Walker)

Exhibit 1006: Declaration of Zaydoon Jawadi (Decl.)

Exhibit 1007: Petitioners Voluntary Interrogatory Responses

Exhibit 1008: Declaration of An P. Doan in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,239,347

1

Unified Patents Inc. (Petitioner) respectfully requests inter partes review

(IPR) under 35 U.S.C. 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. 42.100 of claims 1, 3, 4, 8-

12, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,239,347 (the 347 patent). The undersigned

authorizes the Patent Office to charge the $23,000 Petition Fee, along with any

additional fees, to Deposit Account 503013, ref: 942172-600001 for review of

twelve (12) claims.

I. INTRODUCTION

The 347 patent was issued on August 7, 2012 and assigned to Olivistar,

LLC (Olivistar) on May 28, 2014. The 347 patent is directed to a system and

method of custom data storage according to a data archival profile where a

processor receives data from various monitoring devices and stores the data based

on whether the attributes of the device data match particular attributes of an

archival profile. (See, e.g., 347 patent, Ex. 1001, cl. 1). As shown below, the

system and method recited in claims 1, 3, 4, 8-12, and 17-20 of the 347 patent

were neither new nor non-obvious at the time the 347 patent was filed.

II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.104(a)

Petitioner certifies that the 347 patent is available for IPR. Petitioner is not

barred or estopped from requesting IPR, nor is Petitioner in privity with any party

who is barred or estopped from challenging the patent claims on the grounds

identified herein. (See Petitioners Voluntary Interrogatory Responses, Ex. 1007).

2

III. THE 347 PATENT

A. Overview

The 347 patent was filed on September 10, 2009, and issued on August 7,

2012. The 347 patent is a continuation of, and claims priority to, U.S. Patent App.

No. 10/377,866, filed February 28, 2003, which issued as U.S. Patent No.

7,606,843 (the 843 patent), which claims priority to U.S. Provisional App. No.

60/361,886, filed March 4, 2002. Independent claim 1 (upon which claims 2-16

depend) recites a system that has (1) one or more monitoring devices that generate

data with one or more data archival attributes; (2) at least one data repository; and

(3) a monitoring device data processor that obtains an archival profile, determines

whether the archival profile matches attributes of the device data, processes that

device data into a compressed format, and selectively stores that device data on the

data repository. (See Ex. 1001 cl. 1).

In certain claims, the obtained archival profile may correspond to a type of

monitoring device data archival attribute, a user archival attribute, or an event

archival attribute. (Id. cls. 2-4). In certain claims, the device data may be device

state information (e.g., device statues, time of day, device sensor value, premise

identifier, or user identifier) or device information and can include audio and/or

video data. (See id. cls. 5-7, 18-19). In addition to compressing the incoming data,

in certain claims, the processor could also normalize, transfer, and/or replicate the

3

device data. (See id. cls. 8-9). In certain claims, following storage, the processor

may retrieve the archived data according to an archival profile, uncompress the

data, manage the data within the repository, and/or delete the archived data. (See

id. cls. 10-16, 19-20). In one claim, the system can further include a client machine

for requesting archived data. (See id. cl. 10).

Independent claim 17 recites computer-readable media that includes

instructions for performing a data archiving method, where the steps of the

method are (1) obtaining incoming data from a device; (2) obtaining a data archival

profile; (3) determining whether the data archival profile is related to at least one

attribute of the incoming data; (4) processing the incoming data with the matching

attribute(s) of the data archival profile into a compressed format; and (5) storing

the compressed data on a medium. (Id. cl. 17). Claim 17 recites the same language

as claim 29 of its parent, the 843 patentbut without the added limitation

narrowing archival attributes to specific ones. (See id. 843 patent cl. 29).

B. Prosecution History of the 347 Patent

Applicant filed App. No. 12/557,341, which issued as the 347 patent, on

August 7, 2012. (See generally File History of 347 patent, Ex. 1002). During

prosecution, the examiner rejected all claims for nonstatutory obviousness-type

double patenting over claims 1-30 of the 843 patent. (Id. 78-80). The examiner

also rejected claims 1-16 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) by U.S.

4

7,480,715 (Barker), which describes generating predictive threat assessments

from monitoring device data. (Id. 80-82). The examiner stated that claims 17-20

would be allowable with a terminal disclaimer to overcome the rejection. (Id. 82).

In response, Applicant filed a terminal disclaimer over the 843 patent and

amended independent claim 1 to include allowable subject matter of claims 17-20

(determining whether an archival profile is associated with attributes of device

data, processing such device data into a compressed format, and selectively storing

the data). (Id. 100-04, 111). Following Applicants terminal disclaimer, the

examiner allowed all claims without additional comment. (Id. 114).

IV. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)

A. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which Review Is Requested

IPR is requested for claims 1, 3, 4, 8-12, and 17-20 of the 347 patent.

B. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds On Which the Challenge to the Claims Is Based

IPR is requested in view the following prior art references:

U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0025599 to Monroe (Monroe)

(Ex. 1003), filed May 11, 2001, published February 6, 2003, and is prior art

under at least 35 U.S.C. 102(e).

U.S. Patent No. 6,708,292 to Mangasarian (Mangasarian) (Ex. 1004), filed

August 18, 2000, issued on March 16, 2004, and is prior art under at least 35

U.S.C. 102(e).

5

U.S. Patent No. 6,975,617 to Walker et al. (Walker) (Ex. 1005), filed March

23, 2001, published November 8, 2001, issued on December 13, 2005, and is

prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (e).

The specific statutory grounds on which the challenge to the claims is based

and the patents relied upon for each ground are:

Ground Claims Basis for Challenge Ground 1 1, 3, 4, 8-12, 17-20 Anticipated under 102(e) by Monroe

Ground 2 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 17, 20 Obvious under 103 over Mangasarian and Walker

C. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b), and solely for the purposes of this

review, Petitioner construes certain claim terms, based on the broadest reasonable

interpretation of their plain and ordinary meaning. At the time of the invention,

March 2002, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be a person

with a bachelors degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and at

least three (3) years of work or research experience in the field of data storage

systems that can be used to archive monitoring device data. (Decl. 32-36). For

purposes of this petition, Petitioner adopts the plain meaning for all claim terms,

except as follows:

Archival attribute. For purposes of this petition, Petitioner proposes that

the broadest reasonable construction for this claim term encompasses the following

6

meaning information included in or characteristics of the data received from the

monitoring device. This construction is fully supported by the specification of the

347 patent which describes the attributes of the collected data to include

conditions of the data that may be used to evaluate thresholds such as motion

detection (see Ex. 1001 9:35-39), different types of data (see id. 10:57-58), the

particular monitoring device that collected the data (see id. 9:39-41, 10:58), or the

time at which the data was collected (see id. 10:58-59). A person of ordinary skill

in the art would understand that the broadest reasonable construction for archival

attribute would include information included within the data itself (such as,

whether there is data indicating motion) and information regarding the

characteristics of the data (such as the collection source, time of collection, etc.).

(Decl. 21). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand

the broadest reasonable construction of archival attribute to mean information

included in or characteristics of the data received from the monitoring device.

(Decl. 21).

Archival profile. For purposes of this petition, Petitioner proposes that the

broadest reasonable construction for this claim term encompasses the following

meaning a specified set of data characteristics. This construction is fully

supported by the specification of the 843 patent which describes that the archival

profile specifies the archival parameters of the date (see Ex. 1001 9:4-5) by

7

comparison of the archival profile the specific archival attributes of the data (see

id. 10:52-59). The archival profile may be created by a user using a graphical user

interface to designate the data to be archived, such as data from particular

monitoring devices (see id. 9:21-28). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the

art would understand that the broadest reasonable construction of archival profile

would encompass a specified set of data characteristics. (Decl. 22).

D. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable

An explanation of how claims 1, 3, 4, 8-12, and 17-20 are unpatentable is set

forth below at V.

E. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence

A List of Exhibits is included and identification of specific portions of the

Exhibits supporting each ground of invalidity are included in this Petition.

V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE 347 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE

A. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-12, and 17-20 Are Anticipated by Monroe

Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-12, and 17-20 are anticipated under 102(e) by Monroe

(Ex. 1003). (Decl. 58). Monroe describes a network-based situational awareness

system (i.e., security and detection system) that collects, processes, archives, and

manages digital surveillance information. (Decl. 59). Similar to the 347 patent,

Monroe discloses the use of monitoring devices such as cameras and sensors to

collect data, which is sent to a remote server for archiving. (Decl. 59).

8

Specifically, Monroe discloses a digital surveillance system that obtains images

and/or videos captured by cameras or sensors, obtains a profile with parameters

such as motion detection thresholds, masking, and event filtering for data capture

and transfer, determines whether parameters are associated with specific criteria

that would trigger transmission for storage, processes the images and files into a

compressed format, and stores the images and other files in the servers memory or

storage media. (Decl. 59). Monroes system additionally allow users, via a

graphical user interface, to configure a profile, such as using thresholds to trigger

alarm conditions and masking to avoid triggering certain events. (Decl. 59).

Monroe further discloses permitting users to remotely search and retrieve archived

data for display. (Decl. 59).

1. Independent Claim 1

Monroe discloses all of the elements of and anticipates claim 1. (Decl. 58,

68, Ex. A cl. 1). Monroe discloses a system with monitoring devices (e.g., cameras,

sensor appliances, video appliances, legacy devices) generating monitoring device

data (e.g., sensor data; event/scene/video/image data; event signals) with archival

attributes (e.g., parameters characterizing events such as change in scene,

displacement of object, the opening of door contacts, authorized use as well as

unauthorized use), a monitoring device data processor (e.g., processor of servers,

PCs, intelligent cameras, or intelligent sensors) for obtaining an archival profile

9

(parameters related to motion/object detection event/threshold; masking)

corresponding to data archival attributes for processing the monitoring device data

according to the archival profile, and a data repository (e.g., disk drive, back-up

tape drive, storage array device) for storing monitoring device data according to

the archival profile. (Decl. 59, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[pre]-[c]).

Claim 1 describes the system for processing monitoring device data includes

monitoring devices generating monitoring device data, a monitoring device data

processor for obtaining an archival profile and processing monitoring device data

accordingly, and a data repository for storing the monitoring device data. (Decl.

Ex. A cl. 1[pre]-[c]).

Monroe discloses the above components as part of a sophisticated

situational awareness system that is network based. (Ex. 1003 25; Decl. 60,

68, Ex. A cl. 1[pre]). The monitoring devices disclosed in Monroe include

surveillance cameras, camera sensors, fire and smoke sensors, motion

sensors, and door sensors, pull alarms, panic buttons and the like. (See, e.g., Ex.

1003 25, 136, 159, 162; Decl. 61, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[a]). Monroe discloses

generating monitoring device data from the monitoring devices described above.

(Decl. 61, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[a]). The incoming monitoring device data described

by Monroe includes raw sensor data such as images, video, audio, temperature,

contact closure and the like or event signals. (Ex. 1003 25, 159, 162; Decl.

10

61, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[a]). Monroe recognizes the need for the camera or video

encoder appliance to capture . . . the image on-site and discloses collecting the

image data on a preselected basis at the camera. (Ex. 1003 32, 109, cl. 32;

Decl. 59, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[a]).

Monroe further discloses the requirement of claim 1 that this data is

characterized by archival attributes, criteria or event data that may trigger

transmission, such as a change in condition, to the archival server for storage.

(Decl. 59, 61, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[a]). For example, Monroe teaches collecting the

image data on a preselected basis at the camera, comparing [s]ubsequent data of

the scene to the data representing the scene in its original state, and transmitting

to a remote location [o]nly subsequent data representing a change [in] the original

scene. (Ex. 1003 27, 109; Decl. 59, 61, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[a]). Monroe also

describes generation and transmission of a notification signal for alerting response

personnel when a detected object [is] left in a specific location or taken from a

specific location at the time the object is detected appearing or disappearing. (Ex.

1003 35; Decl. 61, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[a]). In addition, the location, type and

priority of event are tagged at the point where a sensor picks up the event, and

for image data, the camera additionally sends a short file containing the motion

matrix and a calculated value representing the total degree of motion for the

scene. (Ex. 1003 26, 126; Decl. 61, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[a]). [W]hile periodic

11

data may be gathered at a sensor, only data indicating a change in condition will be

transmitted. (Ex. 1003 26; Decl. 61, 64, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[a]).

Monroe also discloses a monitoring device data processor. (Decl. 62, 68,

Ex. A cl. 1[b]). The above monitoring devices can be intelligent cameras and

intelligent sensors that utilize processors to process the image and sensor data.

(See Ex. 1003 25, 41, 112, 240; Decl. 62, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[b]). Monroe

discloses the monitoring device data processors obtaining an archival profile

corresponding to data archival attributes. (Decl. 62, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[b]). The

archival profile in Monroe could consist of parameters configurable by a remote

user, such as changes in data, event filtering to qualify alarm and supervisory

events, video thresholds or difference thresholds indicative of motion

detected, and masks (e.g., [v]ideo motion detection configurable by a remote

user to select areas of interest or disinterest in the video scene) to control what

data is compressed and archived. (See Ex. 1003 28, 31-33, 36, 41, 163-64, Figs.

6, 8, 9, 17; Decl. 59, 62, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[b]). For instance, Monroe discloses that

while continuous data is captured by the camera, only when a scene changes from

the previous captured image is it required that the image be transmitted to a remote

monitoring station, and more importantly, stored on the archive database. . . . [T]he

level of change is monitored at the camera and only specific criteria trigger a

transmission. For example, the rotation of a ceiling fan may be ignored by masking

12

techniques, whereas the opening of a door would trigger an immediate

transmission. (Ex. 1003 32; Decl. 64, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[b]). As described by

Monroe, masking involves pre-programming or defining regions of images or

portions of the scenes at a remote monitor so that the system can ignore

anticipated or normal motions such as a rotating fan. . . . In this manner, the camera

or encoder appliance only transmits images or video that has a pre-indication of a

change in the previous scene, greatly reducing the amount of data to be transmitted

over the chosen conduit. (Ex. 1003 36; Decl. 59, 62, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[b]). The

system disclosed in Monroe also includes a motion detection algorithm that

provides a means for selective masking particular areas of interest or disinterest

within the scene. (Ex. 1003 264; Decl. 59, 62, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[b]).

Specifically, the graphic user interface provides a convenient way for a user to

select areas to mask or unmask, through which a user could select[] the desired

regions by either clicking the mask on the desired cells [] or by using the mouse to

draw a line surrounding the desired cells, and enter a weighting value from zero

to one for the selected cells that are then used in the motion detection algorithm.

(Ex. 1003 264; Decl. 59, 62, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[b]). The parameters which form

the archival profile as disclosed by Monroe are programmed into the system by a

user at the graphical user interface. (See Ex. 1003 220-222, 264; Decl. 59, 62,

68, Ex. A cl. 1[b]).

13

Monroe discloses the requirement of claim 1 that the monitoring device

processor determines whether the archival profile is associated with archival

attributes. (Decl. 64, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[d]). Using the preselected parameters

consisting of thresholds and masks, the camera system in Monroe can determine,

as an example, the amount of motion or change in an image from frame-to-frame

by calculat[ing] the difference between two images and produces a difference

map or scene and when a scene changes from the previous captured image is it

required that the image be transmitted to a remote monitoring station, and more

importantly, stored on the archive database. (See Ex. 1003 27, 31-33, 36, 37,

Fig. 2; Decl. 64, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[d]). In particular, Monroe describes a motion

detection algorithm executing in each camera that looks for pixel value variations

between captured scenes and provides a means for selective masking particular

areas of interest or disinterest within the scene. (Ex. 1003 211, 264; Decl.

64, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[d]). Monroe further discloses a method for comparing data

generated at a remote location to determine the occurrence of an event and to

transmit the data to a selective monitoring station. (Ex. 1003 53; Decl. 64, 68,

Ex. A cl. 1[d]). In addition to a motion event, [o]ther types of simultaneous event

detection can also be activated in the sensor/camera such as acoustic (gunshot or

explosion) detection, temperature detection, etc. (Ex. 1003 42; Decl. 64, 68,

Ex. A cl. 1[d]).

14

Monroe further discloses that when it is determined that the archival profile

is associated with attributes of the incoming monitoring device data, that data

should be processed into a compressed format and stored in a data repository.

Monroe discloses that the images or video are suitably compressed prior to

storage. (Ex. 1003 230; see also 170-71; Decl. 65-66, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[e]-

[e][i]). In one example, [t]he camera's video signal is then optionally compressed

in compressors 203A through 203N[, where] [a] variety of digital video

compression schemes are in common usage[, and] [t]he compressed video is then

conveyed via network 205 to a monitor station 206, or to an archive server 208 for

image storage on disk 209 or tape 210. (Ex. 1003 212; Decl. 65-66, 68, Ex. A

cl. 1[e]-[e][i]). In another example, legacy monitoring devices (e.g., fire alarms,

motion detectors, smoke sensors, fire sensors, panic buttons, pull alarms) may be

incorporated into the system disclosed by Monroe and the signals generated by

such devices may be transmitted, archived and retrieved similar to the monitoring

devices previously discussed. (See Ex. 1003 159; Decl. 65-66, 68, Ex. A cl.

1[e]-[e][i]). In particular, when used in combination with legacy closed-circuit

analog security cameras . . . the signal is digitized prior to transmission. (Ex. 1003

159; Decl. 65, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[e]-[e][i]). Monroe also discloses that after a

video signal is converted into digital form, it may be compressed by a compressor

before being conveyed to the network. (See Ex. 1003 112; Decl. 65-66, 68,

15

Ex. A cl. 1[e]-[e][i]).

Monroe further discloses at least one data repository as required in claim 1.

Data repositories (or storage mediums) disclosed in Monroe include the archival

server disk drive, back-up tape drive, or other large storage array devices such

robotic tape, optical or high-density disk storage. (See Ex. 1003 43, 112, 227, cl.

1, Figs. 1, 6, 7; Decl. 63, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[c]). Monroe discloses selectively

storing the compressed data in a data repository, disclosed above, if the archival

profile is associated with an archival attribute. (Decl. 66, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[e] &

1[e][ii]). Monroe discloses one example where a camera detecting any motion at

all would generate a motion event to control storing to the archival server. (Ex.

1003 41; Decl. 63, 66, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[e] & 1[e][ii]). The compressed video is

then conveyed via network 205 to a monitor station 206, or to an archive server

208 for image storage on disk 209 or tape 210. (Ex. 1003 212; Decl. 63, 66,

68, Ex. A cl.1[e] & 1[e][ii]). Monroes system only archives select portions of data

because, [d]ue to the large bandwidth of a streaming video signal it is often

undesirable for the archival server 8 to store all of the video, or even the still

images, captured by the plurality of cameras so the various cameras may be

programmed to transmit to the network only those video scenes, or still images,

which contain motion of interest. (Ex. 1003 213; see also 230, 29; Decl.

63-64, 66, 68, Ex. A cl. 1[e] & 1[e][ii]). Accordingly, claim 1 is invalid as

16

anticipated by Monroe. (Decl. 58, 68, Ex. A cl. 1).

2. Dependent Claim 3

Claim 3, which depends from claim 1, additionally recites: wherein the

archival profile corresponds to a user archival attribute.

As properly construed, Monroe discloses this additional limitation. In

particular, Monroe discloses that the archival profile corresponds to parameters

configurable by a remote user such as masking[v]ideo motion detection

configurable by a remote user to select areas of interest or disinterest in the video

scene. (Ex. 1003 28; Decl. 59, 62, 67-68, Ex. A cl. 3). The selective masking,

one user-specified attribute in a profile, is accomplished through a graphical user

interface (GUI) that allows users to select or draw areas of interest and enter

appropriate weighting values corresponding to motion detection sensitivity. (See

Ex. 1003 121-22, 264, Fig. 3; Decl. 62, 67-68, Ex. A cl. 3). Accordingly,

claim 3 is anticipated by the disclosure of Monroe. (Decl. 58, 68, Ex. A cl. 3).



archival profile corresponds to an event archival attribute. Monroe also discloses

this additional limitation. (Decl. 62, 67, 68, Ex. A cl. 4). Specifically, Monroe

discloses that the archival profile may be set for [v]ideo motion detection used to

trigger generation, storage, or transmission of compressed digital images. (Id.

17

28; Decl. 59, 62, 67-68, Ex. A cl. 4). The video motion detection trigger can be

configured through a graphical user interface (GUI) that allows users to select or

draw areas of interest and enter appropriate weighting values corresponding to

motion detection sensitivity. (See Ex. 1003 121-22, 264, Fig. 3; Decl. 62, 67-

68, Ex. A cl. 4). The weighting values and threshold levels allow the user to

specify video capture for certain events while not capturing video for unwanted

events. (Decl. 59, 62, 67-68, Ex. A cl. 4). Accordingly, claim 4 is anticipated by

the disclosure of Monroe. (Decl. 58, 68, Ex. A cl. 4).



monitoring device data processor further performs processing on the incoming

monitoring device data, the processing performed including one selected from the

group of normalizing, compressing, and transforming the incoming monitoring

device data.

Monroe discloses the monitoring device data processor processing

(compressing) incoming monitoring device data. (Decl. 58, 68, Ex. A cl. 8).

Monroe discloses that the images or video are suitably compressed prior to

storage. (Ex. 1003 230; see also 170-71; Decl. 65, 68, Ex. A cl. 8). In one

example, [t]he camera's video signal is then optionally compressed in

compressors 203A through 203N[, where] [a] variety of digital video compression

18

schemes are in common usage[, and] [t]he compressed video is then conveyed via

network 205 to a monitor station 206, or to an archive server 208 for image storage

on disk 209 or tape 210. (Ex. 1003 212; Decl. 65-66, 68, Ex. A cl. 8). In

another example, legacy monitoring devices may be incorporated in to the system

disclosed by Monroe and the signals generated by such devices may be

transmitted, archived and retrieved similar to the monitoring devices previously

discussed. (See Ex. 1003 159; Decl. 65, 67-68, Ex. A cl. 8). In particular,

when used in combination with legacy closed-circuit analog security cameras . . .

the signal is digitized prior to transmission. (Ex. 1003 159; Decl. 65, 68, Ex.

A cl. 8). Monroe also discloses that after a video signal is converted into digital

form, it may be compressed by a compressor before being conveyed to the

network. (See Ex. 1003 112; Decl. 65, 68, Ex. A cl. 8). Accordingly claim 8 is

anticipated by the disclosure of Monroe. (Decl. 58, 68, Ex. A cl. 8).


Claim 9, which depends from claim 1, additionally recites: further

comprising multiple data repositories and wherein the monitoring device data

processor selectively replicating at least a portion of the incoming monitoring

device data in at least two data repositories.

Monroe discloses multiple data repositories, such as the archival server disk

drive and optionally[,] a back-up tape drive or other very large storage array device

19

such robotic tape, optical or high-density disk storage. (Ex. 1003 43, 112, Fig.

1; Decl. 63, 66, 68, Ex. A cl. 9). As discussed above, Monroe discloses the

monitoring device data processor (e.g., the intelligent camera or sensor)

transmitting compressed data to the server for storage, see V.A.1. (See Ex. 1003

211-13; Decl. 65-66, 68, Ex. A cl. 9). Thus, Monroe discloses the monitoring

device data processor replicating the device data in at least two repositories, the

disk drive of the server, and back-up tape drive or large storage array device.

(Decl. 63, 66, 68, Ex. A cl. 9). Accordingly, claim 9 is anticipated by the

disclosure of Monroe. (Decl. 58, 68, Ex. A cl. 9).



comprising at least one client machine requesting archived data, [a] wherein the

monitoring device data processor further obtains an archival profile

corresponding to the archived data, [b] processes the archival profile to retrieve

archived data from a repository, [c] returns the archived data according to the

data request.

Monroe discloses at least one client machine requesting archived data. (Ex.

1003 136, 112; Decl. 62, 67-68, Ex. A cl. 10). Monroes system supports

client-side retrieval of stored images and can send motion video to a viewing

station comprising a computer or processor such as the PC 6 and one or more

20

monitors 7, upon request by a user. (Ex. 1003 136, 112; Decl. 62, 67-68, Ex.

A cl. 10[pre]). For example, a client may want to view all archived images from a

selected camera over some selected span of time. (Ex. 1003 137; Decl. 67-68,

Ex. A cl. 10[pre]). Monroe discloses that a Graphical User Interface (GUI) is

provided to allow a user to search or browse images in the database[, and] [t]he

GUI also allows the user to perform automated searches through the Archive for

events of interest. (Ex. 1003 256, see also 137, 231, Figs. 1, 4; Decl. 67-

68, Ex. A cl. 10[pre]).

Monroe discloses the processors discussed above, see V.A.1, obtaining an

archival profile (set of parameters related to events configurable by users)

corresponding to the archived data (stored sensor data). (Decl. 62, 67-68, Ex. A

cl. 1[b] & 10[a]). Monroe discloses a user obtaining an archival profile of detected

motion according to user configured parameters that corresponds to the archived

images and sensor data. (Decl. 62, 67-68, Ex. A cl. 10[a]). For example,

amount of motion indication may be used [] for still images being viewed from

the servers archive, and [w]hen used with archived still images, all camera icons

on the map may be used to indicate the degree of motion detected by the

represented camera at the currently viewed time. (Ex. 1003 259; Decl. 62,

67-68, Ex. A cl. 10[a]). Additionally, [s]ince all detected motion data is stored on

the server, the GUI can present to the user facility-wide histogram bar chart

21

summarizing all motion in the facility at the time of the currently viewed image.

(Ex. 1003 261; Decl. 62, 67-68, Ex. A cl. 10[a]).

Monroe also discloses processing the archival profile to retrieve archived

images and sensor data from the servers storage. (Decl. 62, 67-68, Ex. A cl.

10[b]). Because each data event, image or frame [] received, [] is filed with a

unique identifier comprising date, time, camera or encoder and/or file

information, Monroes system allows [for] full search capability by date, time,

event, user, and/or camera on command, greatly enhancing retrieval and

reconstruction of events. (Ex. 1003 43; Decl. 59, 62, 67-68, Ex. A cl. 10[b]).

Monroe discloses returning the archived images and/or sensor data

according to the data request. (Decl. 59, 67-68, Ex. A cl. 10[c]). Through the

GUI, Monroe returns archived images for a user to view. (See Ex. 1003 257, Fig.

4; Decl. 59, 62, 67-68, Ex. A cl. 10[c]). For example, the bottom of the screen

contains a series of controls used for image searching and browsing, and [a] play

button 45 causes stored images from the current camera to be displayed

sequentially. (Ex. 1003 257; see also 262; Decl. 59, 67-68, Ex. A cl. 10[c]).

Accordingly, claim 10 is anticipated by the disclosure of Monroe. (Decl. 58, 68,

Ex. A cl. 10[pre]-[c]).



22

monitoring device data processor obtains archival retrieval parameters from the

archival profile and determines whether the archival request satisfies the archival

retrieval parameters.

Monroe discloses obtaining retrieval parameters, such as retrieval by date,

time, event, user, and/or camera, and determining whether the request satisfies the

retrieval parameters, since each data event, image or frame [] received, [] is filed

with a unique identifier comprising date, time, camera or encoder and/or file

information. (See Ex. 1003 43; Decl. 59, 62, 68, Ex. A cl. 11). Accordingly,




monitoring device data processor further uncompresses the archived data.

Monroe disclose that the video signals are digitally compressed for

transmission and decompressed at the receiving end. (Ex. 1003 17; Decl. 58-

59, 65, 68, Ex. A cl. 12). Accordingly, claim 12 is anticipated by the disclosure of

Monroe. (Decl. 58, 68, Ex. A cl. 12).


Claim 17 recites a performing a method of identical or substantially similar

steps as required in claim 1. (Decl. 58, 68, Ex. A cls. 1 & 17). Elements [a]-[b]

of claim 17 corresponds to elements [a]-[b] of claim 1. (Decl. 58, 68, Ex. A cls.

23

1[a]-[b] & 17[a]-[b]). Elements [c]-[d][ii] of claim 17 corresponds to elements [d]-

[e][ii] of claim 1, except that claim 17 refers to a storage medium where claim 1

refers to a data repository. (Decl. 58, 68, Ex. A cls. 1[d]-[e][ii] & 17[c]-

[d][ii]). The disclosure in Monroe for respective elements of claim 1 are the same

for corresponding elements of claim 17, see V.A.1. (Decl. 58, 68, Ex. A cls. 1

& 17).

The preamble of claim 17 requires instructions to perform the above method

are included in a computer-readable medium. Monroe teaches that the disclosed

methodology will be performed by processing devices executing stored

instructions. (See Ex. 1003 28, 36, 112, 117, 183, 195, 213, 264; Decl. 58,

59, 68, Ex. A cl. 17[pre]). Therefore, claim 17 is invalid as anticipated by Monroe.

(Decl. 58, 68, Ex. A cl. 17).



monitoring device data includes device state information and wherein processing

the incoming monitoring device data includes processing the device state

information according to a device state portion of the archival profile.

Monroe discloses that monitoring device data includes device state

information, such as ON/OFF status of the device or local time of day, which is

processed according to the archival profile. (See Ex. 1003 136, 156; Decl. 59,

24

61, 68, Ex. A cl. 18). Monroe discloses that events detected at remote locations

and generating signals in response to such detection can also be incorporated in the

system for transmitting event data via the network 5 to the server including on a

much simpler basis, the archiving and retrieval of these simple ON/OFF event

signals. (Ex. 1003 136; Decl. 59, 61, 68, Ex. A cl. 18). Monitoring devices

also generate time-related device state information because each camera must be

equipped with its own local clock, and cameras append their local time to the

image data. (Ex. 1003 156; Decl. 59, 61, 68, Ex. A cl. 18). Accordingly,



Claim 19, which depends from claim 18, which further depends from claim

17, additionally recites: wherein the device state information can include data

selected from a group consisting of a status of a monitoring device, a time of day,

value for one or more sensors associated with the monitoring device, a premises

identifier, and a user identifier.

As discussed above, see V.A.10, Monroe discloses device state

information. (See Ex. 1003 136, 156; Decl. 59, 61, 68, Ex. A cl. 18 & 19).

The device state information can be status of a monitoring device, such as ON/OFF

status, or a time of day, such as local time. (See Ex. 1003 136, 156, 159, 237;

Decl. 59, 61, 68, Ex. A cl. 19). Accordingly, claim 19 is anticipated by the

25

disclosure of Monroe. (Decl. 58, 68, Ex. A cl. 19).


Claim 20, which depends from claim 17, additionally recites substantially

similar elements as claim 10. (Decl. 58, 68, Ex. A cls. 10, 17 & cl. 20).

Elements [a]-[d] of claim 20 correspond to elements [pre]-[c] of claim 10,

respectively, see V.A.6. (Decl. 58, 68, Ex. A cls. 10[pre]-[c] & 20[a]-[d]).

Accordingly, claim 20 is anticipated by the disclosure of Monroe. (Decl. 58, 68,

Ex. A cl. 20).

B. Ground 2: Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 17, and 20 Are Obvious Over Mangasarian in View of Walker

Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 17, and 20 are rendered obvious under 103 by

Mangasarian (Ex. 1004) in view of Walker (Ex. 1005). (Decl. 69). Mangasarian

and Walker are both directed to monitoring data on a network. (Decl. 89). While

claims of the 347 patent refer to device data, Mangasarian discloses one example

of monitoring device data, network data, that falls within that category of data.

(Decl. 70). The 347 patent claims a monitoring device data processor that

manages the device data, where Mangasarian discloses one example of such a

monitoring device data processor: protocol analyzers, or sniffers, that monitor

network data. (Ex. 1004 1:14-19; Decl. 70). Where claims of the 347 patent

refer to determining whether an archival profile is associated with archival

attributes of the data, Mangasarians protocol analyzer discloses one example of a

26

profile, using filters to capture and/or store only those network data packets that

meet certain criteria for later analysis. (See Ex. 1004 1:19-23; Decl. 70). Protocol

analyzers also allow for remote management through use of a remote probe to

monitor and gather data and a host computer to display and analyze data. (See Ex.

1004 1:55-67; Decl. 70). Mangasarian discloses a protocol analyzer system with

network interface cards and remote probes that capture data network data packets,

a remote probe buffer and/or protocol analyzer memory or mass storage to store

data packets according to the routines profile, and a remote probe processor and

protocol analyzer processor that obtains a profile with filter routines, classification

routines, and upload routines that obtains data packets on a network captured by a

remote probe, determines whether the routines are associated with attributes that

match packet selection criteria, processes, and selectively stores the data packets in

the buffer of the remote probe or in the memory or mass storage of the protocol

analyzer host. (Decl. 70). Mangasarian does not expressly disclose processing

and selectively storing the data packets in a compressed format. (Decl. 71).

However, Walker discloses compressing monitoring data (e.g., packets, frames,

cells or protocol data units) prior to transmission. (Decl. 71, 95).


The combination of Mangasarian and Walker renders claim 1 obvious.

Mangasarian discloses a system with monitoring devices (e.g., network interface

27

cards or remote probes) generating monitoring device data (e.g., network interface

cards or remote probes capturing network data packets) with archival attributes

(e.g., packet selection criteria), a monitoring device data processor (e.g., remote

probe processor or protocol analyzer processor) for obtaining an archival profile

(e.g., filter routines; classification routines; upload routines) corresponding to data

archival attributes (e.g., packet selection criteria) for processing the monitoring

device data according to the archival profile, and a data repository (e.g., remote

probe buffer or protocol analyzer memory or storage) for storing monitoring device

data according to the archival profile. (Decl. 70, 72, 74, 95, Ex. B cl. 1).

Mangasarian discloses the elements of claim 1 in at least two ways. (Decl.

72). In one approach (First Perspective), the claimed monitoring device is a

network interface card 202, the claimed monitoring device data processor is a

processor of remote probe 107 operating in conjunction with the protocol

analyzer/host 111, and the claimed data repository is the remote probes packet

buffer and/or class tracking buffer. (See e.g., Ex. 1004 4:46-49, 5:6-15, 5:16-22,

5:34-36, 5:45-46, 5:51-56, Figs. 1, 2; Decl. 72, 74, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[a]-[c]).

Alternately (Second Perspective), the claimed monitoring device is the

remote probe 107, the claimed monitoring device data processor is the processor of

protocol analyzer/host 111 in Fig. 1 that is connected to the host network interface

in Fig. 2, and the claimed data repository is the protocol analyzer/host memory or

28

mass storage. (See Ex. 1004 6:38-40, 6:15-26, Figs. 1, 2; see also 4:61-65; Decl.

72, 75, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[a]-[c]). Under either approach, additional data repositories

include one or more locations of shared storage such as disk farm (not shown)

that provides mass storage capacity beyond what an individual [remote probe or

protocol analyzer] device can efficiently use and manage. (Ex. 1004 4:29-36, Fig.

1; Decl. 75, 82, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[c]).

Claim 1 describes the system for processing monitoring device data that

includes monitoring devices generating monitoring device data, a monitoring

device data processor for obtaining an archival profile and processing monitoring

device data accordingly, and a data repository for storing the monitoring device

data. (Decl. Ex. B cl. 1[pre]-[c]).

(a) Mangasarians Disclosure Under the First Perspective

In the First Perspective of Mangasarians disclosure, Mangasarian teaches

the same components as part of a distributed computing environment such as an

enterprise computing system. (Ex. 1004 3:17-19; Decl. 74, 95, Ex. B cl.

1[pre]). Mangasarian discloses a monitoring device that is a network interface card

coupled to the managed network segment to monitor all network traffic of interest

and may include local data processing and buffer memory to enable packet

capture. (Ex. 1004 5:6-10, 5:12-15, Fig. 2; Decl. 74, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[a]).

Where claim 1s monitoring device data is characterized by one or more

29

archival attributes, Mangasarian discloses that the network data is characterized by

a specific example of such an archival attribute, packet selection criteria such as

packet type. (Decl. 76, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[a]). In Mangasarian, the remote probe

executes filter routines that discriminate between packets based on any criteria

that can be read from a data packet including both header information and content

information. In other words, these routines discriminate between packet types,

[and] select packets having characteristics specified in the routines. (Ex. 1004

5:36-39, 6:48-50; Decl. 74, 77-78, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[a]). Typical protocol

analyzers will include filters that specify selection criteria for packets such as

type, size, source node identification, destination node identification, and the like

to identify and log packets that meet the criteria for later analysis. (Ex. 1004 1:19-

23; Decl. 80, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[a]). The remote probe then classifies the filtered

data packets according to a preselected classification system and each captured

packet is marked with an indicia of its classification or classification code based

on the packet header and/or data. (Ex. 1004 5:34-42, 2:31-40, 6:47-61; Decl.

74, 76, 78, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[a]). This class code information for the data packets that

is obtained by the protocol analyzer is an example of the archival attribute used to

determine portions of data for download/storage from the probe buffer. (Ex. 1004

5:66-6:5; Decl. 76, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[a]).

Mangasarian further discloses a monitoring device data processor in the

30

form of a remote probe (operating in conjunction with the protocol analyzer/host)

with one or more processing units such as a Pentium-class microprocessor that

executes filter and classification routines. (Ex. 1004 4:46-49, 5:16-22, 5:34-42;

Decl. 74, 81, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[b]).

Where claim 1 claims a monitoring device data processor obtaining an

archival profile corresponding to one or more data archival attributes, Mangasarian

discloses the processor of the remote probe obtaining an example of a specific

profileconsisting of filter routines, classification routines, and upload routines.

(Decl. 77-79, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[b]). Mangasarians remote probe processor obtains

an archival profile that includes filter routines 214 configurable to discriminate

between packets based on any criteria that can be read from a data packet including

both header information and content information and classify/classification

routines 224 that examin[e] the data packets that are passing through filter

routines 214 and based on the packet header and/or data generates a classification

code associated with the packet. (Ex. 1004 5:34-42, Figs. 2-3; Decl. 74, 77-79,

95, Ex. B cl. 1[b]). The filter and classification routines are downloaded to the

probe processor via the host network interface or permanently stored in the probe

processor. (Ex. 1004 5:25-26; Decl. 77, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[b]). Mangasarian

discloses that the remote probe processor also processes the archival profile. (Decl.

77-79, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[b]). In Mangasarian, the processing unit of the remote

31

probe executes filter routines 214, classify routines 224 and upload routines 234

among other programs. (Ex. 1004 5:17-22; see also 5:36-39, 6:48-50; Decl. 74,

77-78, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[b]).

Where claim 1 claims the monitoring device data processor determining

whether the archival profile is associated with one or more archival attributes of

the incoming monitoring device data, Mangasarian discloses using an example of a

specific profileconsisting of filter routines, classification routines, and upload

routinesto determine whether data packets have attributes matching packet

selection criteria. (Decl. 80, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[d]). Specifically, Mangasarian

discloses that remote probe filter routines operate to select packets meeting

predefined criteria and classify/classification routines operate to associate a class

code with each of the selected packets. (Ex. 1004 2:42-47; see also 5:34-42, cl.

13; Decl. 74, 80, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[d]). The routines discriminate between packet

types, and selection criteria for packets [include] type, size, source node

identification, destination node identification, and the like. (Ex. 1004 6:47-51;

1:19-23; Decl. 80-81, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[d]).

While claim 1 claims a monitoring device data processor processing and

selectively storing the incoming monitoring device data in a data repository if the

archival profile is associated with one or more archival attributes, Mangasarian

discloses the remote probe processor processing and selectively storing the

32

network data packets selected by class information in examples of specific data

repositories, such as in the buffer of the probe or memory or mass storage of the

protocol analyzer host, if the filter routines, classification routines, and/or upload

routines are associated with attributes matching selection criteria. (Decl. 74, 81-

82, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[e]-[e][ii]).

Mangasarian discloses a remote [p]robe processor 204 [that] comprises . . .

a Pentium-class microprocessor having memory and/or mass storage for holding

both data and program code. (Ex. 1004 5:17-22; Decl. 74, 78, 81-82, 95, Ex. B

cl. 1[e]-[e][ii]). The probe processor executes routines that examin[e] the data

packets that are passing through filter routines 214 and based on the packet header

and/or data generates a classification code associated with the packet. (Ex. 1004

5:40-42; Decl. 74, 78, 81-82, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[e]-[e][ii]). Based on the filtering

and classification of captured data packets, Mangasarians remote probe allows

selected packet types to pass into packet buffer 208. (Ex. 1004 5:34-36; Decl.

74, 78, 80-82, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[e]-[e][ii]). Specifically, the remote probe processor

selectively stores data packets in a packet buffer 208 compris[ing] 256K entries

218 with each entry 218 being 512 bytes wide. (Ex. 1004 5:51-53; Decl. 74, 80-

82, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[e]-[e][ii]). The remote probe processor also stores the generated

classification codes for the filtered data packets in a packet class tracking buffer

206 that includes an entry 216 for every stored packet thereby making a one-to-

33

one association between a class entry 216 and a buffer entry 218. (Ex. 1004 5:45-

46, 5:54-56; Decl. 74, 80-82, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[e]-[e][ii]). Also, upload routines

234 may include data processing routines that perform analytic and/or statistical

operations on packet buffer entries 218. (Ex. 1004 6:6-8; Decl. 78-79, 95, Ex.

B cl. 1[e]-[e][ii]).

(b) Mangasarians Disclosure Under the Second Perspective

The Second Perspective of Mangasarians disclosure also teaches the same

system components set forth in claim 1. (Decl. 75, Ex. B cl. 1[pre]-[c]).

Mangasarian discloses a system, including [r]emote probes . . . to monitor

network traffic and capture all or selected portions of the monitored traffic. (Ex.

1004 3:17-21, 1:61-63, 1:67-2:4, 4:46-49; Decl. 75, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[pre]-[a]).

The data traffic is conducted by data networks, usually in the form of data

packets, between network connected devices. (Ex. 1004 1:15-17; see also 1:67-

2:4; Decl. 75, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[a]). Mangasarian further discloses a protocol

analyzer or host with [p]rocessor 304 that is implemented by a central

processing unit that may be implemented as a server that provides packet

retrieval and analysis services on behalf of a client. (Ex. 1004 1:17-19, 4:61-65,

6:15-16, 6:32-37; Decl. 75, 79-81, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[b]). The protocol analyzer

processor processes archival of monitoring device data as discussed in detail

below, see infra p. 34-35.

34

Mangasarians remote probe generates monitoring device data. (Decl. 75,

95, Ex. B cl. 1[a]). The remote probe monitors network traffic and captures data

packets from the network that are of interest. (Ex. 1004 2:28-40, 1:67-2:4, 4:66-

5:2, 4:46-49, 5:5-22; Decl. 70,73, 75, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[a]).

Further, related to the remote probes routines, the protocol analyzer

[p]rocessor 304 executes stored program code to implement filter specification

routines 314, class specification routines 324, upload routines 334, and user

interface generator 344. (Ex. 1004 6:38-40; Decl. 75, 77, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[b]).

The protocol analyzers filter and classification routines cooperate with user

interface generator 344 to provide a mechanism for a user to specify routines to be

executed by the probe processor and describe the logic and variables required to

discriminate between packet types, select packets having characteristics specified

in the routines, and encode a class code for storage in class tracking buffer. (Ex.

1004 6:38-51; Decl. 75, 77, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[b]). Similarly, upload routines 334

provide an interface 400 (shown in FIG. 4) that enables a user to select portions of

the contents of packet buffer 208 for upload using the class code information. (Ex.

1004 6:57-62; see also 2:37-40, 3:4-7, 6:3-5; Decl. 75, 77-78, 95, Ex. B cl.

1[b]). The user-specified filter, classification, and upload routines form the archival

profile for selectively archiving the data packets selected by class information.

(Decl. 79, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[b]).

35

As required by claim 1, the archival profile is then applied to the archival

attribute, which in Mangasarian is the class code information. After obtaining the

class code information for data packets from the remote probe, using upload

routines, [h]ost 111 then uses the class information to enable intelligent selection

of portions of packet buffer 208 to be downloaded. (Ex. 1004 6:3-5; Decl. 78-

79, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[b]).

In the second application, the host in Mangasarian includes a processor

and [p]rocessor 304 includes sufficient memory and mass storage to store and

manipulate the portions of packet buffer 208 that are downloaded for analysis.

(Ex. 1004 6:15-26; see also 4:61-65; Decl. 75, 78, 81, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[b] & 1[e]).

Mangasarian discloses that [h]ost 111 then uses the class information to enable

intelligent selection of portions of packet buffer 208 to be downloaded. (Ex. 1004

6:3-5; Decl. 75, 78, 81, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[d]-[e]). Mangasarian further discloses

selectively storing data in stating that memory requirements for host processor

may be relaxed as compared to conventional host analyzer systems as the host 111

does not need to manipulate the entire contents of a probe buffer at one time. (Ex.

1004 6:26-30; Decl. 80-82, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[e][ii]).

(c) Combination with Walker

Mangasarian discloses all the above elements of claim 1 but does not

expressly disclose processing and storing the incoming monitoring device data in a

36

compressed format. However, Walker teaches processing monitoring data into a

compressed format. (Ex. 1005 7:45-48, 11:5-9, 14:22-25, 15:7-12; Figs. 2, 4, 6;

Decl. 84, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[e][i]).

Walker describes a network monitoring system that includes a network

router and a monitoring data processor. (Ex. 1005 5:16-26, Fig. 2; Decl. 84, 95).

The router contains channel cards that gather data packets from a network, copy

information from the headers of the data, generate monitoring data packets with

header information and timestamps, and compress the data packets to reduce the

amount of data to be transferred prior to transferring the data packets to the

monitoring data processor. (See Ex. 1005 3:25-35, 4:57-5:15, 7:45-48, 11:5-9,

14:23-25, 15:7-12; Decl. 84, 95). The sets of data transported by the router

include, for example, packets, frames, cells or protocol data units. (Ex. 1005

4:61-5:6; Decl. 84, 95). The monitoring data processor receives the monitoring

data from the multiple channels on each channel card and stores these data packets

in a database. (Ex. 1005 9:45-55; Decl. 84, 95).

Mangasarian describes a protocol analyzer that captures, filters, classifies,

processes, and stores captured data. (Decl. 70, 95, Ex. B cl. 1). A person of

ordinary skill in the art reviewing Mangasarian would recognize that Mangasarian

could be improved by processing and storing the captured data in a compressed

format. (Decl. 86). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that

37

captured data may be too large or require too much space for transmission and

storage. In such situations, a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that it

would be advantageous to have the ability to process and store data in a

compressed format. (Decl. 86). Mangasarian states that one problem in the prior

art is the massive quantity of data captured in a typical environment creates a

significant obstacle in remote management and slowly transporting it over the

networks requires an unacceptable amount of time. (Ex. 1004 2:5-17; Decl.

87). Mangasarian expressly recognizes that [a] need exists for system, methods

and software to more efficiently transport probe data. (Ex. 1004 2:14-16; Decl.

87). While Mangasarian partially solves this problem through use of filtering, a

person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that compressing data for

storage and transport would further increase efficiency. (Decl. 87). Walker

teaches, in its disclosure of a network monitoring system, processing monitoring

device data into a compressed format prior to transmission. (See Ex. 1005 7:45-48,

11:5-9, 14:22-25, 15:7-12; Decl. 88, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[e][i]).

A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine

Walkers processing of data into a compressed format with Mangasarian because

both references are directed to a system and method of monitoring data on a

network. (Decl. 89). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that

Walker describes compression as a way to reduce the amount of data to be

38

transferred through the network, and would have found it obvious to combine such

teachings with the teachings of Mangasarian to more efficiently transport probe

data. (Decl. 89). Accordingly, claim 1 is obvious over Mangasarian in view of

Walker. (Decl. 89, 95, Ex. B cl. 1[e][i]).


Claim 17 recites a performing a method of identical or substantially similar

steps as required in claim 1. (Decl. 69, 95, Ex. B cls. 1 & 17). Elements [a]-[b]

of claim 17 corresponds to elements [a]-[b] of claim 1. (Decl. 69, 95, Ex. B cls.

1[a]-[b] & 17[a]-[b]). Elements [c]-[d][ii] of claim 17 corresponds to elements [d]-

[e][ii] of claim 1, except that claim 17 refers to a storage medium where claim 1

refers to a data repository. (Decl. 69, 95, Ex. B cls. 1[d]-[e][ii] & 17[c]-[d][ii]).

The disclosure in Mangasarian and Walker for respective elements of claim 1 are

the same for corresponding elements of claim 17, see V.B.1. (Decl. 69, 95, Ex.

B cls. 1[e][i] & 17[d][i]).

The preamble of claim 17 requires instructions to perform the above method

are included in a computer-readable medium. (Decl. 69, 95, Ex. B cl. 17[pre]).

Mangasarian teaches that the disclosed methodology will be performed by a

remote probe executing stored instructions. (See Ex. 1004 4:46-49, 5:16-22, 5:23-

33; Decl. 90, 95, Ex. B cl. 17[pre]). In the first application, Mangasarian

discloses a computer-readable medium, [r]emote probes that include one or

39

more processing units, memory, mass storage, and software configured to monitor

network traffic and capture all or selected portions of the monitored traffic. (Ex.

1004 4:46-49; Decl. 74, 90, 95, Ex. B cl. 17[pre]-[a]). Probe processor 204

comprises, for example, a Pentium-class microprocessor [with] program code used

to implement [filter, classify, and upload] routines. (Ex. 1004 5:16-22; Decl. 74,

90, 95, Ex. B cls. 17[pre] & 1[b]). The [p]rogram code [is] in the form of

executable code, scripts, applets, or the like describing filter routines 214 and

classification routines 224 is generated on a host and are either downloaded to

probe processor or stored in [probe] processor 204 that is customized by

downloading parameters and/or code components to implement specific filters and

classification operations. (Ex. 1004 5:23-33; Decl. 77, 90, 92, 95, Ex. B cl.

17[pre][d][ii]).

In the second application, the medium disclosed is the [p]rotocol analyzers

that typically include one or more processing units, memory, mass storage, and

software configured to program remote probes. (Ex. 1004 4:61-64; Decl. 75-80,

90, 95, Ex. B cl. 17[pre]). The protocol analyzer [p]rocessor 304 executes stored

program code to implement filter specification routines 314, class specification

routines 324, upload routines 334, and user interface generator 344. (Ex. 1004

6:38-40; Decl. 75-80, 90, 95, Ex. B cl. 17[pre]-[d][ii]). Accordingly, claim 17 is

invalid as obvious over Mangasarian and Walker. (Decl. 69, 95, Ex. B cl. 17).

40



archival profile corresponds to a user archival attribute.

Mangasarian discloses the system as recited in claim 1, wherein the archival

profile (filter routines; classification routines; upload routines) corresponds to a

user archival attribute (criteria specified by a user that are used to select data

packets). (Decl. 91-92, 95, Ex. B cl. 3). Specifically, Mangasarian discloses that

the archival profilefilter and classification routinesdescribe the logic and

variables required to discriminate between packet types [and] select packets having

characteristics specified in the a user to specify routines to be executed. (Ex. 1004

6:38-51; see also 5:23-27; Decl. 78-80, 95, Ex. B cl. 3). Also, the Mangasarian

system has a class definition device executing in the host enabling an analyst to

specify packet classification criteria. (Ex. 1004 cl. 7; Decl. 91-92, 95, Ex. B cl.

3). Accordingly, claim 3 is invalid as obvious over Mangasarian and Walker.

(Decl. 69, 95, Ex. B cl. 3).



archival profile corresponds to an event archival attribute.

Mangasarian discloses the system as recited in claim 1, wherein the archival

profile (filter routines; classification routines; upload routines) corresponds to an

41

event archival attribute (criteria specified by a user that are used to select data

packets, including those related to events). (Decl. 91-92, 95, Ex. B cl. 4).

Specifically, Mangasarian discloses that the archival profilefilter and

classification routinesdescribe the logic and variables required to discriminate

between packet types [and] select packets having characteristics specified in the

routines. (Ex. 1004 6:38-51; Decl. 78-80, 95, Ex. B cl. 4). Such packet

selection characteristics may encompass those related to events. (Decl. 92, 95,

Ex. B cl. 4). Accordingly, claim 4 is invalid as obvious over Mangasarian and

Walker. (Decl. 69, 95, Ex. B cl. 4).



comprising multiple data repositories wherein the monitoring device data

processor selectively replicates at least a portion of the incoming monitoring

device data in at least two data repositories.

While claim 9 claims multiple data repositories, Mangasarian discloses

specific examples of multiple data repositories: a packet buffer and class tracking

buffer for storage in the remote probe, and memory and auxiliary devices for mass

storage in the protocol analyzer host. (Decl. 82, 95, Ex. B cl. 9). In the First

Perspective, Mangasarian discloses that the remote probe has a packet buffer with

a separate entry for storing every packet and a class tracking buffer with a separate

42

entry for every class code associated with its respective data packet. (Ex. 1004

5:47-56; Decl. 74, 82, 95, Ex. B cl. 9). In the Second Perspective, Mangasarian

discloses that the protocol analyzer has both memory and auxiliary devices to

provide . . . mass storage for storage of the captured data packets. (Ex. 1004 4:61-

65, 6:15-18; Decl. 75, 82, 95, Ex. B cl. 9). Additionally, under both reads,

Mangasarian discloses for each of the remote probe and the protocol analyzer, [i]n

addition to local memory and storage associated with each device, it is often

desirable to provide one or more locations of shared storage such as disk farm (not

shown) that provides mass storage capacity beyond what an individual device can

efficiently use and manage. (Ex. 1004 4:29-34; Decl. 82, 95, Ex. B cl. 9).

Where claim 9 claims that the monitoring device data processor selectively

replicates at least a portion of the incoming monitoring device data in at least two

data repositories, Mangasarian discloses one example, selectively replicating

portions of the data packets from the probe buffer to protocol analyzer. (See Ex.

1004 6:15-18; Decl. 82, 95, Ex. B cl. 9). Specifically, Mangasarian discloses

that a host includes both memory and mass storage. (See Ex. 1004 6:15-18,

3:2-7; see also 5:66-6:5, 7:17-25; Decl. 82, 95, Ex. B cl. 9). The Mangasarian

host computer memory availability may be less than the size of the probe buffer

so that the host does not upload the entire set of packets from the probe, which

allows a user to specify and select which contents of the probe buffer are

43

uploaded to enable efficient data uploading and enable[s] intelligent selection of

portions of packet buffer 208 to be downloaded. (Ex. 1004 3:2-7; see also 5:66-

6:5, 7:17-25; Decl. 82, 95). Because Mangasarian also discloses that [i]n

addition to local memory and storage associated with each device, it is often

desirable to provide one or more locations of shared storage such as disk farm (not

shown) that provides mass storage capacity beyond what an individual device can

efficiently use and manage, Mangasarian also teaches replicating data in

additional repositories outside the host analyzer. (Ex. 1004 4:29-34; Decl. 82,

95, Ex. B cl. 9). Accordingly, claim 9 is invalid as obvious over Mangasarian and

Walker. (Decl. 69, 95, Ex. B cl. 9).



comprising at least one client machine requesting archived data, [a] wherein the

monitoring device data processor further obtains an archival profile

corresponding to the archived data, [b] processes the archival profile to retrieve

archived data from a repository, [c] returns the archived data according to the

data request.

While claim 10 recites at least one client machine requesting archived data,

Mangasarian discloses an example of a client machine requesting retrieval of

captured network data packets. (Decl. 91, 95, Ex. B cl. 10[pre]). Specifically,

44

the host provides packet retrieval [] services on behalf of a client implemented in

one of appliances in order to retrieve data from the capture unit. (Ex. 1004

6:34-37, cl. 5, Fig. 1; Decl. 91, 95, Ex. B cl. 10[pre]).

While claim 10 claims the monitoring device data processor further obtains

an archival profile corresponding to the archived data, Mangasarian discloses one

specific example of the processor of the host analyzer obtaining class codes

resulting from filter routines and classification routines and upload routines that

allow communication of class codes to analyzer host corresponding to network

data packets stored in remote probes data buffer. (Decl. 91-93, 95, Ex. B cl.

10[a]). Specifically, Mangasarian discloses filter and classification routines

describe the logic and variables required to discriminate between packet types,

select packets having characteristics specified in the routines, and encode a class

code for storage in class tracking buffer, and [u]pload routines comprise routines

used to communicate class codes 216 and packet buffer entries 218 to host 111.

(Ex. 1004 6:47-61, 5:67-6:3; see also 5:36-42; Decl. 78-79, 91-93, 95, Ex. B cl.

10[a]). The host requests class code information from tracking buffer 216 before

downloading the sizable content stored in packet buffer 208. (Ex. 1004 6:1-3;

Decl. 78-80, 91-93, 95, Ex. B cl. 10[a]).

While claim 10 recites that the monitoring device data processor processes

the archival profile to retrieve archived data from a repository, Mangasarian

45

discloses one example of the processor of the protocol analyzer processing the

archival profile, using class codes resulting from filter routines and classification

routines to select portions of data, to retrieve one specific example of data from

one example of a data repository, selected packet buffer entries from packet buffer

in remote probe. (Decl. 92-93, 95, Ex. B cl. 10[b]). Mangasarians system has a

host [p]rocessor 304 [that] executes stored program code to implement filter

specification routines 314, class specification routines 324, upload routines 334,

and user interface generator 344. (Ex. 1004 6:38-40; Decl. 75, 77, 95, Ex. B cl.

10[b]). Using the routines, the host processor is operable to retrieve data from the

capture unit based upon the classification tag associated with each captured packet

and analyze the retrieved data. (Ex. 1004 cl. 5; Decl. 92-93, 95, Ex. B cl.

10[b]). Specifically, Mangasarian discloses that after upload routines enable[] a

user to select portions of the contents of packet buffer 208 for upload using the

class code information, the host requests class code information and then uses

the class information to enable intelligent selection of portions of packet buffer 208

to be downloaded. (Ex. 1004 5:67-6:5, 6:57-7:3; Decl. 77-78, 82, 92-93, 95,

Ex. B cl. 10[b]).

While claim 10 recites that the monitoring device processor returns the

archived data according to the data request, Mangasarian discloses one example of

the host processor returning specific data, network data packets corresponding to

46

selected class code. (Decl. 93, 95, Ex. B cl. 10[c]). Specifically, Mangasarian

discloses that the host retrieve[s] data from the capture unit based upon the

classification tag associated with each captured packet, and in conjunction with

user interface generator 344, can visually depict the data. (Ex. 1004 cl. 5, 7:55-63,

7:1-3, Fig. 4; Decl. 93, 95, Ex. B cl. 10[c]). Accordingly, claim 10 is invalid as

obvious over Mangasarian and Walker. (Decl. 69, 95, Ex. B cl. 10).


Claim 20, which depends from claim 17, additionally recites substantially

similar elements as claim 10. (Decl. 69, 95, Ex. B cls. 10, 17 & 20). Elements

[a]-[d] of claim 20 correspond to elements [pre]-[c] of claim 10, respectively, see

V.B.6. (Decl. 69, 95, Ex. B cls. 10[pre]-[c] & 20[a]-[d]). Accordingly, claim

20 is invalid as obvious over Mangasarian and Walker. (Decl. 69, 95, Ex. B cl.

20).

VI. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(1)

A. 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(a): Real Party-In-Interest

The real party-in-interest for Petitioner is Unified Patents Inc.

B. 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters

The 347 patent is asserted in 21 litigations pending in the Eastern District of

Texas. Petitioner is not a party to any of the litigations: Olivistar, LLC v.

Facebook, Inc., 2:14-cv-1099; Olivistar, LLC v. Ally Fin. Inc., 2:15-cv-310;

47

Olivistar, LLC v. Amegy Bank Natl Assn, 2:15-cv-311; Olivistar, LLC v. Am.

Bank of Tex., 2:15-cv-313; Olivistar, LLC v. Bank of Am. Corp., 2:15-cv-314;

Olivistar, LLC v. WoodForest Natl Bank, 2:15-cv-315; Olivistar, LLC v. BOK Fin.

Corp., 2:15-cv-316; Olivistar, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 2:15-cv-318;

Olivistar, LLC v. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc., 2:15-cv-319; Olivistar, LLC v.

The Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp., 2:15-cv-331; Olivistar, LLC v. Capital One, Natl

Assn, 2:15-cv-321; Olivistar, LLC v. Citicorp, 2:15-cv-322; Olivistar, LLC v. City

Bank, 2:15-cv-323; Olivistar, LLC v. First United Bank & Trust Co., 2:15-cv-324;

Olivistar, LLC v. HSBC USA Inc., 2:15-cv-325; Olivistar, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase

& Co., 2:15-cv-326; Olivistar, LLC v. TD Bank US Holding Co., 2:15-cv-327;

Olivistar, LLC v. PlainsCapital Bank, 2:15-cv-328; Olivistar, LLC v. Regions

Bank, 2:15-cv-329; Olivistar, LLC v. TD Bank US Holding Co., 2:15-cv-327;

Olivistar, LLC v. The PNC Fin. Servs. Group, Inc., 2:15-cv-330; Olivistar, LLC v.

LegacyTexas Bank, 2:15-cv-331.

These judicial matters may affect, or be affected by, decisions made in this

proceeding.

C. 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information

Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.

48

LEAD COUNSEL BACK-UP COUNSEL Joseph Melnik Reg. No. 48,741 [email protected] JONES DAY 1755 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, California 94303 Telephone: (650) 739-3939 Facsimile: (650) 739-3900

An P. Doan Reg. No. 57,085 [email protected] JONES DAY 1755 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, California 94303 Telephone: (650) 739-3939 Facsimile: (650) 739-3900

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this

Petition. Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at the above addresses.

VII. CONCLUSION

Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 4, 8-12,

and 17-20 of the 347 patent.

Dated: May 18, 2015 Respectfully submitted, /Joseph Melnik/

Joseph Melnik Registration No. 48,741 [email protected] JONES DAY 1755 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, California 94303 Lead Counsel for Petitioner

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Petition for

Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,239,347 and all supporting exhibits were

served on May 18, 2015, upon the following parties via UPS delivery:

Sean S. Wooden Andrews Kurth LLP 1350 I Street, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005

Dated: May 18, 2015 /Joseph Melnik/ Joseph Melnik Registration No. 48,741 [email protected] JONES DAY 1755 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, California 94303 Lead Counsel for Petitioner

I. INTRODUCTIONII. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.104(a)III. THE 347 PATENTA. OverviewB. Prosecution History of the 347 Patent

IV. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)A. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which Review Is RequestedB. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds On Which the Challenge to the Claims Is BasedC. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3): Claim ConstructionD. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are UnpatentableE. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence

V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE 347 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLEA. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-12, and 17-20 Are Anticipated by Monroe1. Independent Claim 12. Dependent Claim 33. Dependent Claim 44. Dependent Claim 85. Dependent Claim 96. Dependent Claim 107. Dependent Claim 118. Dependent Claim 129. Independent Claim 1710. Dependent Claim 1811. Dependent Claim 1912. Dependent Claim 20

B. Ground 2: Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 17, and 20 Are Obvious Over Mangasarian in View of Walker1. Independent Claim 12. Independent Claim 173. Dependent Claim 34. Dependent Claim 45. Dependent Claim 96. Dependent Claim 107. Dependent Claim 20

VI. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(1)A. 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(a): Real Party-In-InterestB. 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(2): Related MattersC. 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information

VII. CONCLUSION

ipr2015-01217

Documents

independent claim

claim construction

patent trial

llc patent owner patent

united states patent

construed claims

partes review

table of contents page