IPR2015-01216

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Unified Patents Inc. Petitioner

v.

Olivistar, LLC Patent Owner

Patent No. 7,606,843 Filing Date: February 28, 2003 Issue Date: October 20, 2009

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 843 PATENT ........................................................................................ 2

A. Overview .............................................................................................. 2 B. Prosecution History of the 843 Patent ................................................ 3

IV. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b) ......................................................................................................... 5 A. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which Review Is

Requested ............................................................................................. 5 B. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds

On Which the Challenge to the Claims Is Based ................................. 5 C. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction .................................... 6 D. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are

Unpatentable ......................................................................................... 8 E. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence .................................. 8

V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE 843 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ..................... 8 A. Ground 1: Claims 1-8, 11-14, 16-23, 29-32, 47, and 48 Are

Anticipated by Monroe ......................................................................... 8 1. Independent Claims 1 and 29 ..................................................... 9 2. Dependent Claim 2................................................................... 16 3. Dependent Claim 3................................................................... 17 4. Dependent Claims 4 and 5 ....................................................... 17 5. Dependent Claim 6................................................................... 19 6. Dependent Claim 7................................................................... 19 7. Dependent Claim 8................................................................... 19 8. Dependent Claim 11 ................................................................ 20 9. Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................ 21

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

ii

10. Dependent Claims 13 and 14 ................................................... 21 11. Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................ 22 12. Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................ 24 13. Dependent Claims 18, 19, and 20 ............................................ 25 14. Dependent Claims 21 and 22 ................................................... 26 15. Dependent Claim 23 ................................................................ 27 16. Dependent Claim 30 ................................................................ 27 17. Independent Claims 31 and 47 ................................................. 28 18. Dependent Claim 32 ................................................................ 31 19. Dependent Claim 48 ................................................................ 31

B. Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 8, 12-14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 29-32, 37, 47, and 48 Are Obvious Over Mangasarian in View of Walker .............. 32 1. Independent Claims 1 and 29 ................................................... 33 2. Dependent Claim 2................................................................... 45 3. Dependent Claim 3................................................................... 46 4. Dependent Claim 8................................................................... 46 5. Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................ 47 6. Dependent Claims 13 and 14 ................................................... 48 7. Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................ 49 8. Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................ 51 9. Dependent Claims 21 and 22 ................................................... 51 10. Dependent Claim 30 ................................................................ 52 11. Independent Claim 31 .............................................................. 53 12. Dependent Claim 32 ................................................................ 56 13. Dependent Claim 37 ................................................................ 56 14. Independent Claim 47 .............................................................. 57 15. Dependent Claim 48 ................................................................ 58

VI. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(1) ......... 59

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

iii

A. 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(a): Real Party-In-Interest ................................... 59 B. 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ............................................ 59 C. 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and

Service Information ............................................................................ 60 VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 60

iv

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1001: U.S. Patent No. 7,606,843 to Alexander et al. (the 843 patent)

Exhibit 1002: File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,606,843 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. 7,606,843

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 1-8, 11-14,

16-23, 29-32, 37, 47, and 48 of U.S. Patent No. 7,606,843 (the 843 patent). The

undersigned authorizes the Patent Office to charge the $29,200 Petition Fee, along

with any additional fees, to Deposit Account 503013, ref: 942172-605001 for

review of twenty-seven (27) claims.

I. INTRODUCTION

The 843 patent was issued on October 20, 2009 and assigned to Olivistar,

LLC (Olivistar) on May 28, 2014. The 843 patent is directed to a system and

methods of customizing data storage according to a data archive profile for

processing and storing data received from various monitoring devices based on

whether the attributes of the incoming data matches particular attributes of an

archival profile. (See, e.g., 843 patent, Ex. 1001, cl. 1). As shown below, the

system and methods recited in 1-8, 11-14, 16-23, 29-32, 37, 47, and 48 of the 843

patent were neither new nor non-obvious at the time the 843 patent was filed.

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

Petitioner certifies that the 843 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 843 PATENT

A. Overview

The 843 patent was filed on February 28, 2003, and issued on October 20,

2009. The 843 patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/361,886,

filed March 4, 2002. (See 886 App., Ex. 1002). All independent claims (1, 29, 31,

47) recite data archiving methods, or computer-readable media that includes

instructions for performing such methods, that include the common steps of (1)

obtaining incoming data from a device; (2) obtaining a data archival profile; (3)

determining whether the data archival profile include 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. (See Ex. 1001 cls. 1, 29, 31, 47). In certain claims, the attributes

in the archival profile that are used to select incoming data to be processed and

stored is one of the file type, device identifier, and device type. (Id. cls. 1, 29).

The incoming device data is directed to any data, and in certain claims,

examples of data include device state information (e.g., status of device, time of

day, value for one or more sensors associated with monitoring device, premise

identifier, or user identifier) or device information, which include video or audio

data gathered by the device. (See id. cls. 4-11, 39-41). In certain claims, the

attribute could correspond to a characteristic of a user or event. (Id. cls. 2-3). With

3

respect to processing the incoming data, in certain claims, the processing involves

filtering, normalizing, flattening, converting, or transforming the data. (See id. cls.

8-11). Further, in certain claims, the methods include archiving and/or replicating

the data into separate data repositories. (Id. cls. 12-14, 42-44). Additional steps in

certain claims include retrieving, decompressing, transforming, and returning the

archived data, which could be displayed on a screen, managing data within a

repository, and/or deleting such data. (See id. cls. 16-28).

B. Prosecution History of the 843 Patent

Applicant filed App. No. 10/377,866, which issued as the 843 patent, on

February 28, 2003. (See generally File History of 843 patent, Ex. 1002.)

During prosecution, the examiner rejected all claims as anticipated by U.S.

6,698,021 (Amini) under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). (Id. 243-45). Following

Applicants response, the examiner issued a final rejection for all claims as invalid

under 101 and under 103(a) as obvious over Amini and U.S. Pat. App.

2003/0025599 (Monroe). (Id. 289-92). The examiner cited Monroe, a motion

sensor triggered security and surveillance system, for its teaching of establishing

thresholds for determining whether the monitoring device data will be archived.

(Id.). Applicant responded by filing an RCE and a statement of common ownership

disqualifying Amini as prior art commonly owned by the assignee, Vigilos, Inc. at

the time of the invention. (Id. 298, 310). Applicant did not address Monroe in its

4

statement of common ownership. (Id. 311-12), nor did Applicant substantively

address the disclosure of Monroe or attempt to distinguish that disclosure from the

then pending claims.

The examiner issued another office action, rejecting all claimsexcept

claims 10 and 79 (video images and data) under 112 and as anticipated by U.S.

6,023,223 (Baxter) under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). (Id. 327-34). In response,

Applicant filed another RCE and amended the independent claim language to

address the 112 rejections. (Id. 385-94) and stated that Baxter fails to teach an

archival attribute of monitoring device data that establishes thresholds that

determine data archiving and not a preset trigger level set by user. (Id. 396-403).

In response to Applicants RCE and amendment, the examiner made no

comments as to Baxter but issued an Office Action rejecting all claims under 35

U.S.C. 102(e) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7,076,737 (Abbott), which

taught wearable computers that obtained sensor signals (audio, video, temperature,

etc.), stored such signals as attributes, and retrieved stored information to output

to a user. (Id. 426-33). In response, Applicant cancelled certain claims and

amended independent claims 1, 34, 69, and 86 to recite selectively archiving

incoming device data based on data attributes from an archival profile. (Id. 443-

53). The selectively archiving element included selectively storing data in a

compressed format and selectively storing the data based on an archival attribute

5

selected from the group of file type, monitoring device identifier, and monitoring

device type that collected the incoming monitoring device data. (Id.).

Following these amendments, the claims were allowed without further

comment from the examiner. (Id. 465-66).

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 1-8, 11-14, 16-23, 29-32, 37, 47, and 48 of the

843 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).

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

23, 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

6

and the patents relied upon for each ground are:

Ground Claims Basis for Challenge Ground 1 1-8, 11-14, 16-23, 29-

32, 47, 48 Anticipated under 102(e) by Monroe

Ground 2 1-3, 8, 12-14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 29-32, 37, 47, 48

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

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

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

843 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

7

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.).

Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the broadest

reasonable construction of archival attribute to encompass information included

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

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 data (see id. 9:6-7) by comparison

of the archival profile to 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. 9:22-29). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would

understand that the broadest reasonable construction of archival profile would

8

encompass a specified set of data characteristics.

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

An explanation of how claims 1-8, 11-14, 16-23, 29-32, 37, 47, and 48 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 843 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE

A. Ground 1: Claims 1-8, 11-14, 16-23, 29-32, 47, and 48 Are Anticipated by Monroe

Claims 1-8, 11-14, 16-23, 29-32, 47, and 48 are anticipated under 102(e)

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

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

manages digital surveillance information. Similar to the 843 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. 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

9

storage, processes the images and files into a compressed format, and stores the

images and other files in the servers memory or storage media. 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. Monroe further discloses permitting users to remotely search and

retrieve archived data for display.

1. Independent Claims 1 and 29

Monroe discloses all of the elements of and anticipates claims 1 and 29.

(Decl. 59-71, Ex. A cls. 1 & 29).

The preamble of claim 1 describes the system on which the method set forth

in claim 1 is performed. The system described in the preamble of claim 1 includes

monitoring devices generating monitoring device data, an archive server

processing the archival of monitoring device data, and a client computer.

Monroe discloses the same components as part of a sophisticated situational

awareness system that is network based. (Ex. 1003 25).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., id. 25, 136, 159, 162). Monroe additionally discloses a

system server [that] is a multimedia situational archival server and is typically

located on the network at a central management location. (Id. 43). The server

10

supports identification and storage of incoming images, and supports client-side

retrieval of stored images and can be used for management of the event and the

related activation signal. (Id. 43, 112, 136, 159, 162). For example, the server

tags the data with a unique identifier comprising date, time, camera or encoder

and/or file information and then stores the transmitted data on a disk drive and

optionally on a back-up tape drive or other very large storage array device such

robotic tape, optical or high-density disk storage. (Id. 43).

Monroe also discloses a CRT located at a remote monitoring station or a

LCD on a wireless portable PDA based monitoring station that constitutes a client

computer. (Id. 43). The remote viewing station [could] compris[e] a computer or

processor such as the PC 6 and one or more monitors 7. (Id. 112).

Monroe also fully discloses each of the steps required by the method of

claim 1. The method of claim 1 requires obtaining incoming monitoring device

data characterized by one or more archival attributes. Monroe discloses this step.

Monroe discloses obtaining incoming monitoring device data from the monitoring

devices described above. 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. (Id. 25, 159, 162). 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

11

the camera. (Id. 32, 109).

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. 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. (Id. 27, 109). 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. (Id.

35). 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. (Id. 26, 126). [W]hile

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

condition will be transmitted. (Id. 26).

Monroe discloses obtaining an archival profile for selectively archiving the

data. 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

12

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 id. 31-33, 36-41, 125, 163-169,

Figs. 6, 8, 9, 17). 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 techniques,

whereas the opening of a door would trigger an immediate transmission. (Id.) 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. (Id. 36). 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. (Id. 264). Specifically,

the graphical user interface provides a convenient way for a user to select areas to

13

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. (Id.). 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 id.

220-222, 264).

Monroe discloses the requirement of claim 1 that the methodology

determines whether the archival profile is associated with archival attributes. Using

the preselected parameters consisting of thresholds and masks, 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 id. 27, 31-

37, cl. 32, Fig. 2). In particular, Monroe describes a motion detection algorithm

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. (Id. 211, 264). Monroe further discloses a method for comparing data

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

14

transmit the data to a selective monitoring station. (Id. 53). 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. (Id. 42).

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 storage medium.

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

storage. (Id. 230; see also 170-71). In one example, [t]he camera's video

signal is then optionally compressed in compressors 203A through 203N. A variety

of digital video compression schemes are in common usage. 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. (Id. 211-213). In another

example, legacy monitoring devices (e.g., fire alarms, motion detectors, smoke

sensors, fire sensors, panic buttons, pull alarms) 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 id. 159). In particular, when used in combination with legacy

closed-circuit analog security cameras the signal is digitized prior to

transmission. (Id.). Monroe also discloses that after a video signal is converted

15

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

the network for transmission to a storage device. (See id. 112).

Finally, claim 1 requires, and Monroe discloses, selectively storing the

compressed data on a storage medium if the archival profile is associated with an

archival attribute. Monroe discloses one example where a camera detecting any

motion at all would generate a motion event to control storing to the archival

server. (Id. 41). 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. (Id. 211). 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. (Id. 213; see also 230, 29).

Claim 1 further requires that the archival attribute for selectively storing

device data be one of a file type, monitoring device identifier, or monitoring device

type. Monroe discloses using the monitoring device identifier, specifically a

camera identifier, as an archival attribute. As described by Monroe, [e]ach

transmitted data scene [in the disclosed method for collecting, selecting and

transmitting selected scene data available at a camera to a remote location] may be

16

tagged with unique identifying data, wherein the identifying data further includes

a camera identifier. (Id. 27, cl. 13). And, [a]s each data event, image or frame

is received, it is filed with a unique identifier comprising date, time, camera or

encoder and/or file information for enhancing storage, search and retrieval. (Id.

43, cl. 13).

Accordingly, Monroe provides express disclosure of each of the elements of

claim 1. Claim 29 is identical to claim 1, except for the requirement that

instructions to perform the method are included in a computer-readable medium.

(See Ex. 1001 cls. 1 & 29). Monroe teaches that the disclosed methodology will be

performed by processing devices executing stored instructions. (See id. 28, 36,

112, 117, 183, 195, 213, 264). Therefore, both claims 1 and 29 invalid as

anticipated by Monroe.

2. Dependent Claim 2

Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, additionally recites: wherein the

archival profile corresponds to a user archival attribute. Monroe discloses this

additional limitation. (Decl. 59, 71, Ex. A cl. 2). 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). The

selective masking, one user-specified attribute in a profile, is accomplished

17

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 id. 121-122, 264, Fig. 3). Accordingly, claim 2 is anticipated by

the disclosure of Monroe.



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

this additional limitation. (Decl. 59, 71, Ex. A cl. 3). 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. (Ex.

1003 28). 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 id. 121-122, 264, Fig. 3). The weighting values and threshold

levels allow the user to specify video capture for certain events while not capturing

video for unwanted events. Accordingly, claim 3 is anticipated by the disclosure of

Monroe.

4. Dependent Claims 4 and 5


monitoring device data includes device state information and device information

18

and wherein processing the incoming monitoring device data includes processing

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

profile and processing the device information according to a device information

portion of the archival profile.

Claim 5, which depends from claim 4, which in turn depends from claim 1,

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.

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 id. 136, 156). 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. (Id. 136). 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. (Id. 156).

In addition, Monroe discloses obtaining device state information. The device

19

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

time of day, such as local time. (See id. 136, 156, 159, 237).

Accordingly, claims 4 and 5 are anticipated by the disclosure of Monroe.

(Decl. 59, 71, Ex. A cls. 4 & 5).



additionally recites: wherein the device information includes video data.

Monroe is entitled Method and apparatus for collecting, sending, archiving

and retrieving motion video and still images and discloses that monitoring

devices, such as cameras, generate video or video signal. (See, e.g., Ex. 1003

25, 32, 54, 112, cl. 64). Accordingly, claim 6 is anticipated by Monroe. (Decl.

59, 71, Ex. A cl. 6).



additionally recites: wherein the device information includes audio data.

Monroe discloses that monitoring devices collect raw sensor data such as . .

. audio or sound for processing and archiving. (Ex. 1003 25, 42).

Accordingly, claim 7 is anticipated by the disclosure of Monroe. (Decl. 59, 71,

Ex. A cl. 7).


20

Monroe anticipates claim 8. (Decl. 59, 71, Ex. A cl. 8). Claim 8, which

depends from claim 1, additionally recites: wherein processing the incoming

monitoring device [data] includes filtering the incoming monitoring device data.

Monroe discloses that processing monitoring device data includes applying

appropriate filters. (Ex. 1003 159). Specifically, Monroe discloses that

monitoring device data, or Event signals from alarm devices, camera sensors,

and other sensor appliances, are also filtered to determine their priority hierarchy

at filter 104 prior to archiving on the central server. (Id. 162-63, Fig. 6). The

filter 104 uses the priority data as part of the notification process. (Id. 164).


Monroe anticipates claim 11. (Decl. 59, 71, Ex. A cl. 11). Claim 11,

which depends from claim 1, additionally recites: wherein processing the incoming

monitoring device includes transforming the incoming monitoring device data.

Monroe discloses transforming the monitoring device data, such as data

from legacy access control systems that read swipe badges, read proximity

badges, read keypad data, unlock strike plates on doors, lock strike plates on doors,

control sirens and lights, and other functions. (Ex. 1003 48). The output data

from the access control system can then be filtered or interpreted to a format that

can be logged and data format to generate events to log into the database and to

perform automated notification process upon. (Id.). Such interpretation of the data

21

into a format for logging constitutes transforming the data.



which depends from claim 1, additionally recites: wherein the system includes

multiple data repositories and wherein processing the incoming monitoring device

data includes archiving the incoming monitoring device data in a plurality of

separate data repositories.

Monroe discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the system

includes multiple data repositories (disk drive, back-up tape drive, storage array

device) and wherein processing the incoming monitoring device data (sensor data)

includes archiving the incoming monitoring device data in a plurality of separate

data repositories. Specifically, Monroe discloses that the archival server stores the

transmitted data on a disk drive and optionally on a back-up tape drive or other

very large storage array device such [as] robotic tape, optical or high-density disk

storage. (Ex. 1003 43, 112, Fig. 1).


Monroe anticipates claims 13 and 14. (Decl. 59, 71, Ex. A, cls. 13 & 14).

Claim 13, which depends from claim 1, additionally recites: wherein processing

the incoming monitoring device data includes selectively replicating at least a

portion of the incoming monitoring device data between separate data

22

repositories.


system includes multiple data repositories and wherein processing the monitoring

device data includes selectively replicating at least a portion of the incoming

monitoring device data in at least two data repositories.

Monroe discloses the method as recited in claim 1, and that the archival

server stores the transmitted data on a disk drive and optionally on a back-up tape

drive or other very large storage array device such [as] robotic tape, optical or

high-density disk storage. (Ex. 1003 43, 112, Fig. 1). Thus, Monroe discloses

replicating the device data into at least two separate repositories, (1) the disk drive

of the server, and (2) optionally, on back-up tape drive or large storage array

device.



which depends from claim 1, additionally recites: further comprising: obtaining a

request for retrieval of archived data; [a] obtaining an archival profile

corresponding to the archived data; [b] processing the archival profile to retrieve

archived data from a repository; and [c] returning the archived data according to

the data request.

Monroe discloses obtaining a client request for retrieval of archived data.

23

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 monitors 7, upon request by a user. (Ex. 1003 136, 112).

For example, a client may want to view all archived images from a selected

camera over some selected span of time. (Id. 137). Monroe discloses that a

Graphical User Interface (GUI) is provided to allow a user to search or browse

images in the database[, and] also allows the user to perform automated searches

through the Archive for events of interest. (Id. 256, see also 137, 231, Figs.

1, 4).

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. For example, amount of motion indication may be used [] for

still images being viewed from the server's 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.

(Id. 259). Additionally, [s]ince all detected motion data is stored on the server,

the GUI can present to the user facility-wide histogram bar chart summarizing all

motion in the facility at the time of the currently viewed image. (Id. 261).

Monroe discloses processing the archival profile to retrieve archived images

and sensor data from the servers storage. Because each data event, image or

24

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. (Id. 43).

Monroe discloses returning the archived images and/or sensor data

according to the data request. Through the GUI, Monroe returns archived images

for a user to view. (See id. 256-57, Fig. 4). 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. (Id. 257; see also 262).


Claim 17, which depends from claim 16, which in turn depends from claim

1, additionally recites: wherein processing the archival profile to retrieve archived

data from a repository includes obtaining archival retrieval parameters and

determining 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

25

information. (See id. 43). Accordingly, Monroe anticipates claim 17. (Decl.

59, 71, Ex. A cl. 17).

13. Dependent Claims 18, 19, and 20


1, additionally recites: further comprising processing the retrieved archived data

prior to returning the data according to the request.

Claim 19, which depends from claim 18, additionally recites: wherein

processing the retrieved archived data includes decompressing the archived data.

Claim 20, which depends from claim 18, additionally recites: wherein

processing the retrieved archived data includes transforming the archived data.

Monroe disclose that the video signals are digitally compressed for

transmission and decompressed at the receiving end. (Ex. 1003 17). This

disclosure of decompression renders claim 19 anticipated. In addition, claim 18 is

also anticipated since claim 18 necessarily encompasses at least the same scope as

claim 19 and, therefore, processing of claim 18 must include the

decompressing of claim 19. (See, e.g., AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac & Ugine, 344

F.3d 1234, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2003)([A]n independent claim is usually accorded a

scope greater than its dependent claims. If the dependent claims expressly recite

up to about 10% silicon, then the independent claims, which must be at least as

broad as the claims that depend from them, must include aluminum coatings with

26

up to about 10% silicon.)).

Claim 20 is anticipated for at least two reasons. First, the decompression

disclosed by Monroe that renders claims 18 and 19 anticipated is, of course, a

transformation of the data from compressed to decompressed form. In addition,

Monroe discloses that the retrieved data, such as archived video and images, can be

further processed (or more specifically, transformed) into a histogram bar chart

that summariz[es] all motion in the facility at the time of the currently viewed

image when played back to the user. (Ex. 1003 260-62, Fig. 5).

Accordingly, claims 18, 19, and 20 are anticipated by the disclosure of

Monroe. (Decl. 59, 71, Ex. A cls. 18, 19 & 20).



1, additionally recites: wherein returning the archived data includes generating

viewable display screens including the retrieved archived data.


viewable display screens include one or more static display screens.

Monroe discloses that on the GUI is displayed on an interactive monitor

screen such as, by way of example, a CRT located at a remote monitoring station

or a LCD on a wireless portable PDA based monitoring station. (Ex. 1003 43).

The GUI displays an indicator 43 shows the time and date of the image currently

27

displayed, and [a] play button 45 causes stored images from the current camera

to be displayed sequentially, and depicts the same in Fig. 4. (Id. 257, Fig. 4).

Additionally, [d]uring playback, motion events or other system alarm conditions

(such as door alarms, etc) may be indicated by flashing icons or sprites on the map

screen, or by highlighted areas in the respective image. (Id. 262). Accordingly,

Monroe anticipates claims 21 and 22. (Decl. 59, 71, Ex. A cls. 21 & 22).



viewable display screens includes a stream of display screens.

Monroe discloses the GUI can display the selection of any sequence of

playback video and dissection of the stream of images with placement of

sequential still frames on sequential panes of a split screen. (Ex. 1003 134; see

also 43, 257 ). Additionally, [s]ince the GUI supports multiple-screen displays,

and also supports multiple-images per monitor, it is possible to playback multiple

cameras from the stored image database. (Id. 267; see also 261-62, 265,

268). ). Accordingly, claim 23 is anticipated by the disclosure of Monroe. (Decl.

59, 71, Ex. A cl. 23).



which depends from claim 29, additionally recites: A computer system including a

28

processor, a memory and an operating environment, the computer system operable

to perform the method recited in claim 29.

Monroe discloses a computer system that includes intelligent cameras,

intelligent sensors, servers, and monitor stations all interconnected by wired and

wireless network connections and a graphical user interface. (Ex. 1003 25, 41,

43, Fig. 1). The intelligent sensors and cameras contain processors and memory to

process and store each image. (See id. 41, 112, 115. The server provides

additional memory for storage of image and sensor data. (See id. 29, 43, 230).

The system includes additional processors such as a notification processor. (See id.

159, 237, 244). Monroes computer system also includes application software

[that] determines how the associated image and other sensor data, such as sound, is

processed and transmitted by the system, motion detection algorithm, and other

computer instructions executable in an operating environment that enable

programmable modes. (See id. 28, 42, 264). The computer system in Monroe

performs the method of claim 29 as disclosed above. See V.A.1.


Although Claim 31 is direct to a method for generating an archival profile

it is similar in many respects to claim 1. See V.A.1. As a result, much of the same

disclosure of Monroe that anticipates claim 1 similarly anticipates elements for

claim 31. In fact, only three of the steps of the method set forth in claim 31 are not

29

also included in claim 1: [a] generating a display corresponding to the creation of

an archival profile; [b] obtaining a user specification of at least one archival

attribute for selectively archiving incoming monitoring device data; [c] storing an

archival profile that corresponds to the user specification of the at least one

archival attribute.

Monroe discloses generating a display to create an archival profile. As part

of its archival profile, Monroe discloses creating parameters configurable by a

remote user by providing a convenient user interface permitting all of the

functions to be controlled from a single interactive monitor screen. (Ex. 1003

28, 63). Monroe further discloses obtaining user specification of parameters

characterizing events for selecting archiving the image and sensor data. In addition

to parameters configurable by a remote user, Monroes system also

provides[v]ideo motion detection configurable by a remote user to select areas of

interest or disinterest in the video scene. (Id. 28). For example, the GUI

provides a convenient way for a user to select areas to mask or unmask where

the user selects 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. (Id.

264). Monroes system also generates a display with buttons, tabs, and dialog

boxes that allow a user to adjust profile configurations and event notifications. (See

id. 220-222; Figs. 9-10, 17; see also 122). Other dialog boxes allow users to

30

control[] which cameras may be used to detect motion and generate alarms and

to configure other security sensors such as door entry switches as sources of

alarms. (Id. 222). Monroe discloses storing an archival profile that corresponds

to the user selections. The user configurable parameters and masking are included

as programmable modes or pre-programmed. (See id. 28, 36, 213). Because

such user specified parameters are programmed, the parameters (which form the

archival profile) are stored on the system after creation, rather than recreated with

each use.

Element [d] of claim 31 is identical to element [a] of claim 1, see V.A.1.

Element [e] of claim 31 is similar to element [b] of claim 1 but specifies obtaining

the archival profile representing the user specification for selectively archiving the

incoming monitoring device data. (See Ex. 1001 cls. 1 & 31)(emphasis added).

However the disclosure in Monroe for claim 1[b] is the same as for this element,

see V.A.1. Elements [f]-[g] of claim 31 are identical to elements [c]-[d] of claim

1. Element [g][ii] of claim 31 is identical to element [d][ii] of claim 1, see V.A.1.

Element [g][i] of claim 31 is similar to element [d][i] of claim 1, except that claim

31 additionally recites that processing data into a compressed format is according

to the archival profile.

Accordingly, Monroe provides express disclosure of each of the elements of

claim 31. Claim 47 is identical to claim 31, except for the requirement that

31

instructions to perform the method are included in a computer-readable medium.

(See Ex. 1001 cls. 31 & 47). Monroe discloses that the methodology will be

performed by processing devices executing stored instructions. (See Ex. 1003

28, 36, 112, 117, 183, 195, 213, 264). Therefore, both claims 31 and 47 are invalid

as anticipated by Monroe. (Decl. 59, 71, Ex. A cls. 31 & 47).



which depends from claim 31, additionally recites: wherein the display includes a

display of available monitoring device archival attributes to be included in the

archival profile.

Monroe discloses providing a convenient user interface permitting all of the

functions to be controlled from a single interactive monitor screen. (Ex. 1003

63). For example, Monroe discloses displaying a grid representing the image

region and graphical slide bar used to assign weighting values for motion

detection sensitivity. (Id. 122). Also, users can 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 on a display. (Id. 264, Figs. 3-4).



which depends from claim 47, additionally recites: A computer system including a

32

processor, a memory and an operating environment, the computer system operable

to perform the method recited in claim 47.

Monroe discloses a computer system that includes intelligent cameras,

intelligent sensors, servers, and monitor stations all interconnected by wired and

wireless network connections and a graphical user interface. (Ex. 1003 25, 41,

43, Fig. 1). The intelligent sensors and cameras contain processors and memory to

process and store each image. (See id. 41, 112, 115). The server provides

additional memory for storage of image and sensor data. (See id. 29, 43, 230).

The system includes additional processors such as a notification processor. (See id.

159, 237, 244). Monroes computer system also includes application software

[that] determines how the associated image and other sensor data, such as sound, is

processed and transmitted by the system, motion detection algorithm, and other

computer instructions executable in an operating environment that enable

programmable modes. (See id. 28, 42, 264). The computer system in Monroe

performs the method of claim 47 as disclosed above. See V.A.17.

B. Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 8, 12-14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 29-32, 37, 47, and 48 Are Obvious Over Mangasarian in View of Walker

Claims 1-3, 8, 12-14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 29-32, 37, 47, and 48 are rendered

obvious under 103 by Mangasarian (Ex. 1004) in view of Walker (Ex. 1005).

Mangasarian and Walker are both directed to monitoring data on a network. While

claims of the 843 patent refer to device data broadly, Mangasarian discloses one

33

example of data, network data, that falls within that broad category of data. The

843 patent claims an archive server that manages the device data, where

Mangasarian discloses one example of such an archive server: protocol analyzers,

or sniffers, that monitor network data. (See Ex. 1004 1:14-19). Where claims of

the 843 patent refer to determining whether an archival profile is associated with

archival attributes of the data, Mangasarians protocol analyzers discloses one

example of a profile, using filters to capture and/or store only those network data

packets that meet certain criteria for later analysis. (See id. 1:19-23). Where certain

claims of the 843 patent refer to a display for creating an archival profile and

obtaining user specifications, Mangasarians protocol analyzers disclose a specific

example of a host computer with a graphical user interface to allow users to

specify routines for capturing, storing, and displaying selected data packets. (See

id. 1:55-67, 6:38-7:26).


The combination of Mangasarian and Walker renders claims 1 and 29

obvious. (Decl. 72-105, Ex. B cls. 1 & 29). Mangasarian discloses the elements

of claim 1 in at least two ways. In one approach (First Perspective), the claimed

monitoring device is a network interface card 202 and the claimed archive server is

a remote probe 107 operating in conjunction with the protocol analyzer/host 111.

(Decl. 75-79). Alternately (Second Perspective), the claimed monitoring

34

device is the remote probe 107 and the claimed archive server is the protocol

analyzer/host 111 in Fig. 1 that is connected to the host network interface in Fig. 2.

(Decl. 80).

The preamble of claim 1 describes the system on which the method set forth

in claim 1 is performed. The system described in claim 1 includes monitoring

devices generating monitoring device data, an archive server processing the

archival of monitoring device data, and a client computer.

(a) Mangasarians Disclosure Under the First Perspective

In the First Perspective of Mangasarians disclosure, Mangasarian teaches

the same components as are in the preamble of claim 1 as part of a distributed

computing environment such as an enterprise computing system. (Ex. 1004 3:17-

19). 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. (Id. 5:6-15, Fig. 2). Mangasarian further discloses an archive server in the

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

executing 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 for storage in a packet buffer and

classify/classification routines 224 that examin[e] the data packets that are

35

passing through filter routines 214 and based on the packet header and/or data

generates a classification code associated with the packet for storage in a class

tracking buffer. (Id. 5:34-56). Mangasarian also discloses a client computer as

[n]etwork appliances . . . having sufficient computational function to execute

software needed to establish and use a connection to network 101 and/or WAN

103 that may comprise workstation and personal computer hardware. (Id. 3:58-

65).

Mangasarian also fully discloses each of the steps required by the method

claim 1. Claim 1 recites obtaining monitoring device data, which Mangasarian

discloses in the description of obtaining network data packets. In Mangasarian, the

remote probe includes hardwarenetwork interface cards with local data

processing to enable packet captureto obtain incoming monitoring device data

by capturing network data packets from network connected devices. (Id. 3:17-21,

1:61-63, 1:67-2:4, 4:46-49, 5:5-16). The capture of network data by the network

interface card, as described in Mangasarian, discloses the requirement of claim 1

that incoming monitoring device data is obtained.

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

more 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. In Mangasarian, the remote probe executes filter

36

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. (Id. 5:36-39, 6:48-50).

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. (Id. 1:19-23). 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. (Id. 5:49-46, 2:30-40, 6:47-61). This class code

information for the data packets that is obtained by the protocol analyzer is the

archival attribute used to determine portions of data for download/storage from the

probe buffer. (Id. 5:66-6:5).

Where claim 1 claims obtaining an archival profile for selectively archiving

the incoming monitoring device data, Mangasarian discloses obtaining an example

of a specific profileconsisting of filter routines, classification routines, and

upload routinesfor selectively archiving the network data packets.

Mangasarians remote probe obtains an archival profile that includes filter routines

214 configurable to discriminate between packets based on any criteria that can

37

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. (Id. 5:34-

46, Figs. 2-3). The filter and classification routines are downloaded to the probe

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

processor. (Id. 5:25-26).

Where claim 1 claims 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, including packet types.

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. (Id. 2:42-47;

see also 5:34-42, cl. 13). The routines discriminate between packet types, and

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

destination node identification, and the like. (Id. 6:47-51; 1:19-23).

Mangasarian also discloses the requirement of claim 1 directed to processing

and selectively storing the incoming monitoring device data on a storage medium

38

if the archival profile is associated with one or more archival attributes.

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. (Id. 5:17-22). 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. (Id. 5:40-42). Based on the filtering and classification of captured

data packets, Mangasarians remote probe allows selected packet types to pass

into packet buffer 208. (Id. 5:34-36). Specifically, the remote probe selectively

stores data packets in a packet buffer 208 compris[ing] 256K entries 218 with

each entry 218 being 512 bytes wide. (Id. 5:51-53). The remote probe 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-one association between a class entry 216 and a buffer entry 218.

(Id. 5:45-46, 5:54-56). Also, upload routines 234 may include data processing

routines that perform analytic and/or statistical operations on packet buffer entries

218. (Id. 6:6-8).

(b) Mangasarians Disclosure Under the Second Perspective

The Second Perspective of Mangasarians disclosure also teaches the same

system components on which the method set forth in claim 1 is performed.

39

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). The data traffic is conducted by data

networks, usually in the form of data packets, between network connected

devices. (Id. 1:15-17; see also 1:67-2:4). Mangasarian further discloses a

protocol analyzer or host, that may be implemented as a server that provides

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

6:32-37).

Mangasarians protocol analyzer obtains monitoring device data from the

remote probe. The remote probe monitors network traffic and captures data packets

from the networks of interest. (Id. 2:28-40, 1:67-2:4, 4:66-5:2, 4:46-49, 5:5-22).

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

stored program code to implement filter specification routines 314, class

specification routines 324, upload routines 334, and user interface generator 344.

(Id. 6:38-40). 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. (Id. 6:38-51). Similarly, upload routines 334 provide an interface

40

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. (Id. 6:57-62; see

also 2:37-40, 3:4-7, 6:3-5). Accordingly, the user-specified filter, classification,

and upload routines form the archival profile for selectively archiving the data

packets selected by class information.

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. (Id. 6:3-5). 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. (Id. 6:15-26; see also 4:61-65). Mangasarian

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

selection of portions of packet buffer 208 to be downloaded. (Id. 6:3-5).

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. (Id. 6:26-30).

(c) Combination with Walker

41

In both the First Perspective and the Second Perspective, Mangasarian

discloses all of the elements of claim 1, except it does not expressly disclose

processing and storing the incoming monitoring device data in a compressed

format, nor does Mangasarian expressly disclose the archival attribute being one of

file type, monitoring device identifier, or monitoring device type.

(i) Walker Discloses Compression of Monitoring Data

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). Walker

describes a network monitoring system that includes a network router and a

monitoring data processor. (Id. 5:16-26; Fig. 2). 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 id. 3:25-58,

4:57-5:15, 7:45-48, 11:5-9, 14:23-25, 15:1-12). The sets of data transported by the

router include, for example, packets, frames, cells or protocol data units. (Id.

4:61-5:6). The monitoring data processor receives the monitoring data from the

multiple channels on each channel card and stores these data packets in a database.

(Id. 9:45-55).

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

42

processes, and stores captured data. A person of ordinary skill in the art reviewing

Mangasarian would recognize that Mangasarian could be improved by processing

and storing the captured data a compressed format. (Decl. 92-93, 95). A person

of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that captured data may be too large or

require too much space for transmission and storage. (Decl. 92). 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.

(Id.). Additionally, 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). Mangasarian

expressly recognizes that [a] need exists for system, methods and software to

more efficiently transport probe data. (Id. 2:14-16). 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. 92-93, 95). 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).

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

43

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

network. (Decl. 95). 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

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. (Id.).

(ii) Walker Discloses Monitoring Device Identifier as an Attribute of the Monitoring Data

Mangasarian also does not expressly disclose the archival attribute from

which the archival profile selectively stores incoming monitoring device data being

one selected from a group of file type, monitoring device identifier, and

monitoring device type. Walker, however, discloses the monitoring device

identifier as an attribute of the monitoring data. (Ex. 1005 7:21-30, 7:36-39).

Walker describes a network router that contains channel cards. (Id. 5:16-26; Fig.

2). Each channel card includes at least a packet generator, which receives the

header information of the data being transported by the router (e.g., address

information, control information, and protocol information). (Id. 4:61-5:6, 7:21-

35). The packet generator packages the monitoring data for transmission to the

monitor port and may add a unique identification number to the monitoring data

packet to identify the channel of the router 102 from which the header copies

included in the monitoring data packet were read. (Id. 7:26-28, 7:36-39). The

44

channel of the router from which the monitoring data packet originated then

becomes an attribute of the monitoring data that is transferred to the monitoring

data processor where the data is processed and analyzed. (See id. 9:45-10:4).

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

Walkers monitoring device identifier attribute with Mangasarians disclosure of

the use of such attributes in conjunction with an archival profile to selective store

data because both references are directed to monitoring data on a network and

storing such monitoring data for later analysis. (Decl. 97). A person of ordinary

skill in the art would recognize that Walker describes an additional attribute of the

monitoring data (i.e., the monitoring device at which the monitoring data was

collected), and would have found it obvious to combine such teachings with the

teachings of Mangasarian to selectively collect and archive data based on this

specific attribute of the data. (Decl. 98). Thus, claim 1 is obvious over

Mangasarian in view of Walker. (Decl. 72-105, Ex. B cl. 1).

Further, elements [a]-[e] of claim 29 are identical to elements [a]-[e] of

claim 1. (See Ex. 1001 cls. 1 & 29). Claim 29 differs from claim 1 only in the

requirement of the preamble of claim 29 that the method be embodied in

instructions stored on a computer-readable medium. (See id.). Mangasarian fully

discloses such a computer-readable medium. Specifically, Mangasarian discloses

[r]emote probes that include one or more processing units, memory, mass

45

storage, and software configured to monitor network traffic and capture all or

selected portions of the monitored traffic. (Ex. 1004 4:46-49). Probe processor

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

used to implement [filter, classify, and upload] routines. (Id. 5:16-22). 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. (Id. 5:23-33).

Mangasarian also discloses [p]rotocol analyzers that typically include

one or more processing units, memory, mass storage, and software configured to

program remote probes. (Id. 4:61-64). 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.

(Id. 6:38-40).

Accordingly, as with claim 1, claim 29 is invalid as obvious in view of the

combination of Mangasarian and Walker. (Decl. 72-105, Ex. B cl. 29).


The combination of Mangasarian and Walker renders claim 2 obvious.

(Decl. 72, 105, Ex. B cl. 2). Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, additionally

46

recites: wherein the archival profile corresponds to a user archival attribute.

Mangasarian discloses that the archival profilefilter and classification

routinesdescribe the logic and variables required to discriminate between

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

cooperate with user interface generator 344 to provide a mechanism for a user to

specify routines to be executed. (Ex. 1004 6:38-51; see also 5:23-27). Also, the

Mangasarian system has a class definition device executing in the host enabling

an analyst to specify packet classification criteria. (Id. cl. 7).




recites: wherein the archival profile corresponds to an event archival attribute.

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). Such packet selection characteristics may encompass those

related to events.




47

recites: wherein processing the incoming monitoring device [data] includes

filtering the incoming monitoring device data.

In the First Perspective, Mangasarian discloses that after obtaining

monitoring device data, the remote probe filters data packets to discriminate

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

both header information and content information in order to enable only selected

packets to pass into packet buffer 208. (Ex. 1004 5:34-39). In the Second

Perspective, Mangasarian discloses that the protocol analyzer filters data by

us[ing] the class information to enable intelligent selection of portions of packet

buffer 208 to be downloaded. (Id. 6:3-5).



(Decl. 72, 105, Ex. B cl. 12). Claim 12, which depends from claim 1,

additionally recites: wherein the system includes multiple data repositories and

wherein processing the incoming monitoring device data includes archiving the

incoming monitoring device data in a plurality of separate data repositories.

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). Additionally, Mangasarian discloses for each

of the remote probe and the protocol analyzer, [i]n addition to local memory and

48

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. (Id. 4:29-34).



obvious. (Decl. 72, 105, Ex. B cls. 13 & 14). Claim 13, which depends from

claim 1, additionally recites: wherein processing the incoming monitoring device

data includes selectively replicating at least a portion of the incoming monitoring

device data between separate data repositories.


1, additionally recites: wherein the system includes multiple data repositories and

wherein processing the monitoring device data includes selectively replicating at

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

repositories.

Mangasarian discloses that a host includes both memory and mass

storage. (See Ex. 1004 6:15-18). 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 uploaded to enable efficient data

49

uploading and enable[s] intelligent selection of portions of packet buffer 208 to

be downloaded. (Id. 3:2-7; see also 5:66-6:5, 7:17-25). Accordingly, the

foregoing disclosure in Mangasarian discloses replicating the data in at least two

data repositories, as required by both claims 13 and 14.



(Decl. 72, 105, Ex. B cl. 16). Claim 16, which depends from claim 1,

additionally recites: further comprising: obtaining a request for retrieval of

archived data; [a] obtaining an archival profile corresponding to the archived

data; [b] processing the archival profile to retrieve archived data from a

repository; and [c] returning the archived data according to the data request.

While claim 16 recites obtaining a request for retrieval of archived data,

Mangasarian discloses an example of a client computer requesting retrieval of

captured network data packets based on classification information. Specifically, 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 based upon the

classification tag associated with each captured packet. (Ex. 1004 6:34-37, cl. 5,

Fig. 1).

While claim 16 claims obtaining an archival profile corresponding to the

archived data, Mangasarian discloses one specific example of obtaining class codes

50

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. 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. (Id. 6:47-61, 5:67-6:3; see also

5:36-42). The host requests class code information from tracking buffer 216

before downloading the sizable content stored in packet buffer 208. (Id. 6:1-3).

While claim 16 recites processing the archival profile to retrieve archived

data from a repository, Mangasarian discloses software devices executing on the

host computer and operable to retrieve data from the capture unit based upon the

classification tag associated with each captured packet and analyze the retrieved

data. (Id. cl. 5). 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. (Id. 5:67-6:5, 6:57-7:3).

While claim 16 recites returning the archived data according to the data

51

request, 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. (Id. cl.

5, 7:55-63, 7:1-3, Fig. 4).



(Decl. 72, 105, Ex. B cl. 17). Claim 17, which depends from claim 16, which in

turn depends from claim 1, additionally recites: wherein processing the archival

profile to retrieve archived data from a repository includes obtaining archival

retrieval parameters and determining whether the archival request satisfies the

archival retrieval parameters.

Mangasarian also discloses obtaining retrieval parameters, such as retrieval

based upon the classification tag associated with each captured packet, and

determining whether the request satisfies the retrieval parameters, us[ing] the

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

be downloaded. (See e.g., Ex. 1004 6:3-5, 6:57-7:3, cl. 5).



obvious. (Decl. 72, 105, Ex. B cls. 21 & 22). Claim 21, which depends from

claim 16, which in turn depends from claim 1, additionally recites: wherein

52

returning the archived data includes generating viewable display screens including

the retrieved archived data.


viewable display screens include one or more static display screens.

Mangasarian discloses that the hosts user interface

IPR2015-01216

Documents

Transcript of IPR2015-01216