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.

INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................1

II.

GROUNDS FOR STANDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.

42.104(a) .........................................................................................................1

III.

THE 347 PATENT ........................................................................................2

IV.

V.

A.

Overview ..............................................................................................2

B.

Prosecution History of the 347 Patent ................................................3

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

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

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)

B.

VI.

Page

11.

Dependent Claim 19 ................................................................24

12.

Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................25

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

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

ii

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

iii

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, 812, 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).

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

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.

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).
4

 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
Ground 1

Claims
1, 3, 4, 8-12, 17-20

Ground 2

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

Walker

C.

Basis for Challenge

Anticipated under 102(e) by Monroe

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
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

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).
7

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

(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.

 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

10

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

11

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]).

12

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]).

13

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,

14

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

15

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).
3.

Dependent Claim 4

Claim 4, which depends from claim 1, additionally recites: wherein the

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.

16

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, 6768, 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).
4.

Dependent Claim 8

Claim 8, which depends from claim 1, additionally recites: wherein the

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

17

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).
5.

Dependent Claim 9

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

18

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).
6.

Dependent Claim 10

Claim 10, which depends from claim 1, additionally recites: further

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

19

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. 6768, 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

20

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]).
7.

Dependent Claim 11

Claim 11, which depends from claim 1, additionally recites: wherein the

21

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,
claim 11 is anticipated by the disclosure of Monroe. (Decl. 58, 68, Ex. A cl. 11).
8.

Dependent Claim 12

Claim 12, which depends from claim 1, additionally recites: wherein the
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. 5859, 65, 68, Ex. A cl. 12). Accordingly, claim 12 is anticipated by the disclosure of
Monroe. (Decl. 58, 68, Ex. A cl. 12).
9.

Independent Claim 17

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.

22

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).
10.

Dependent Claim 18

Claim 18, which depends from claim 17, additionally recites: wherein the
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,

23

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 18 is anticipated by the disclosure of Monroe. (Decl. 58, 68, Ex. A cl. 18).
11.

Dependent Claim 19

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

24

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

12.

Dependent Claim 20

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
25

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).
1.

Independent Claim 1

The combination of Mangasarian and Walker renders claim 1 obvious.

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

26

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

27

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

28

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 1:1923; 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

29

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

30

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

31

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, 8182, 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, 8082, 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-

32

one association between a class entry 216 and a buffer entry 218. (Ex. 1004 5:4546, 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 1:672:4; 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.

33

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, 4:665:2, 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]).

34

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. 7879, 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

35

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

36

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

37

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]).
2.

Independent Claim 17

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, 5:2333; 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

38

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).

39

3.

Dependent Claim 3

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

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).
4.

Dependent Claim 4

Claim 4, which depends from claim 1, additionally recites: wherein the

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

40

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).
5.

Dependent Claim 9

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

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

41

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 4:6165, 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

42

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 5:666:5, 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).
6.

Dependent Claim 10

Claim 10, which depends from claim 1, additionally recites: further

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,

43

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

44

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

45

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).
7.

Dependent Claim 20

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;

46

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.

47

LEAD COUNSEL
Joseph Melnik
Reg. No. 48,741
jmelnik@jonesday.com
JONES DAY
1755 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, California 94303
Telephone: (650) 739-3939
Facsimile: (650) 739-3900

BACK-UP COUNSEL
An P. Doan
Reg. No. 57,085
apdoan@jonesday.com
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
jmelnik@jonesday.com
JONES DAY
1755 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, California 94303
Lead Counsel for Petitioner

48

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
jmelnik@jonesday.com
JONES DAY
1755 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, California 94303
Lead Counsel for Petitioner