Petition For Inter Partes Review UNDER 35 U.S.C. 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. 42.100 ET SEQ

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

42.104(a) .........................................................................................................1
III.
THE 843 PATENT ........................................................................................2
IV.
V.
A.
Overview ..............................................................................................2
B.
Prosecution History of the 843 Patent ................................................3
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
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

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
B.
VI.
Page
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.
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
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.
7.
Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................49
8.
Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................51
9.
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
MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(1) .........59

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
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
iii
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
iv
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).
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
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
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. 44353). The selectively archiving element included selectively storing data in a
compressed format and selectively storing the data based on an archival attribute
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
5
and the patents relied upon for each ground are:

Ground
Ground 1
Claims
1-8, 11-14, 16-23, 2932, 47, 48
Ground 2
1-3, 8, 12-14, 16, 17,

Obvious under 103 over Mangasarian and
21, 22, 29-32, 37, 47, 48 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
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
6
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. 10:5259). 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
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
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
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
10
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
11
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
12
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, 3137, 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
13
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
14
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
15
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
16
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.
3.
Dependent Claim 3

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
17
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
18
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).
5.
Dependent Claim 6
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).
6.
Dependent Claim 7
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).
7.
Dependent Claim 8
19
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).
8.
Dependent Claim 11
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
20
into a format for logging constitutes transforming the data.

9.
Dependent 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.
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).
10.
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
21
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.
11.
Dependent 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.
Monroe discloses obtaining a client request for retrieval of archived data.
22
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
23
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).
12.
Dependent Claim 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.
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
24
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
25
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).
14.
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
26
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).
15.
Dependent Claim 23
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).
16.
Dependent Claim 30
which depends from claim 29, additionally recites: A computer system including a
27
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.
17.
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
28
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
29
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
30
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).
18.
Dependent Claim 32
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).
19.
Dependent Claim 48
which depends from claim 47, additionally recites: A computer system including a
31
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
32
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).
1.
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
33
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 3:1719). 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
34
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. 3:5865).
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
35
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
36
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. 5:3446, 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
37
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.
38
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
39
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
40
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,
41
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
42
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, 7:2135). 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
43
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
44
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
(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).
2.
Dependent Claim 2
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
45
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).
3.
Dependent Claim 3

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.
4.
Dependent Claim 8

46
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).
5.
Dependent Claim 12

(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
47
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).
6.

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
48
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.
7.
Dependent Claim 16

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
49
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
50
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).
8.
Dependent Claim 17

(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).
9.

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
51
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 generator that visually
depicts packet information to the user. (Ex. 1004 7:55-65, Fig. 4). Mangasarian
also discloses that the user interface components may include a video display.
(Id. 6:17-18). Mangasarian further discloses a graphical user interface including
elements graphically depicting a representation of a probe buffer using the probe
descriptor data. (Id. cl. 16).
10.
Dependent Claim 30

(Decl. 72, 105, Ex. B cl. 30). Claim 30, which depends from independent claim
29 (which is addressed above at Section V.B.1), additionally recites: A computer
system including a processor, a memory and an operating environment, the
computer system operable to perform the method recited in claim 29.
While claim 30 claims a computer system, Mangasarian discloses two
specific examples of such a system, the remote probe and the protocol analyzer.
Both the remote probe and the protocol analyzer include its respective processor,
memory, and operating environment. Specifically, the [r]emote probes 107
52
typically include one or more processing units, memory, mass storage, and
software configured to monitor network traffic and capture all or selected portions
of the monitored traffic, and [p]rotocol analyzers 111 typically include one or
more processing units, memory, mass storage, and software configured to program
remote probes 107 and retrieve all or selected portions of the captured traffic. (Ex.
1004 4:46-49, 4:61-65).
11.
Independent Claim 31

(Decl. 72, 105, Ex. B cl. 31).
The preamble of claim 31 is similar to the preamble of claim 1, except that it
claims a method for generating an archival profile rather than of selectively
archiving monitoring device data based on an archival profile. See V.B.1. Claim
31 additionally recites three elements that are not recited 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;
Mangasarian discloses a user interface with a video display, where filter
and classification routines cooperate with user interface generator 344 to provide
a mechanism for a user to specify routines to be executed by filter and
53
classification routine components. (Ex. 1004 6:15-20; 6:39-47). Similarly,

Mangasarian discloses that upload routines 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. (Id. 6:59-64, Fig. 4). Mangasarian
additionally discloses a graphical user interface including elements graphically
depicting a representation of a probe buffer using the probe descriptor data. (Id.
cl. 16).
Mangasarian also discloses that filter and classification routines cooperate
with user interface generator 344 to provide a mechanism for a user to specify
routines to be executed by filter and classification routine components where the
routines discriminate between packet types, [and] select packets having
characteristics specified in the routines. (Id. 6:39-51). Mangasarian further
discloses that filter routines are specified by an external host analysis computer.
(Id. cl. 9).
Mangasarian further discloses storing one example of a profile with filter,
classify, and upload routines that corresponds to the user specification of one
example of an attribute such as packet selection criteria. Specifically, Mangasarian
discloses that [p]robe processor . . . [may be] a Pentium-class microprocessor
having memory and/or mass storage for holding both data and program code used
to implement routines 214 [filter], 224 [classify,] and 234 [upload]. (Id. 5:16-21;
54
see also 5:23-27). Additionally, Mangasarian discloses that host processor 304
executes stored program code to implement filter specification routines 314, class
(Id. 6:38-40). As discussed above, Mangasarian discloses that filter and
classification routines cooperate with user interface generator 344 to provide a
mechanism for a user to specify routines to be executed by filter and classify
routine components where the routines discriminate between packet types, select
packets having characteristics specified in the routines. (Id. 6:39-51).
Element [d] of claim 31 is identical to element [a] of claim 1, see V.B.1.
(See Ex. 1001 cls. 1 & 31). 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
id.)(emphasis added). However, the disclosure in Mangasarian identified with
respect to claim 1[b] also discloses all of the elements of claim 31[e], see V.B.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.B.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. (Ex. 1001 cls. 1 & 31). Mangasarian does not
expressly disclose processing data into a compressed format according to an
55
archival profile. However, for the reasons discuss above with respect to claim
1[d][i], Walker teaches processing data into a compressed format and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the disclosures of
Mangasarian and Walker, see V.B.1.
12.
Dependent Claim 32

additionally recites: wherein the display includes a display of available monitoring
device archival attributes to be included in the archival profile.
Mangasarian discloses an exemplary dialog box interface generated by user
interface generator that includes a graphical representation 401 of the probe
buffer that indicates the presence of captured packets in packet buffer 208. (Ex.
1004 7:4-8, Fig. 4). The graphical representation also includes some form of
graphical depiction of the class data associated with each captured packet where
it is preferable to indicate various class types using colors and/or brightness
variations that enable a user to readily distinguish between packets of different
classes. (Id. 7:8-16, Fig. 4).
13.
Dependent Claim 37

56
additionally recites: further comprising verifying repository availability prior to

storing the archival profile.
Mangasarian discloses that the protocol analyzer provides a user interface
that enables a user to specify which packet index to start an upload from and the
size of the upload where [t]he size of the upload is selected to be consistent with
the amount of available working memory on the host computer 111. (Ex. 1004
3:8-10). Specifically, the file size may be based, for example, on the amount of
buffer space or available working memory (e.g., 63 Megabytes in FIG. 4) in host
111, and the upload can be formatted into a number of smaller, easily
manipulated files. (Id. 7:44-54). Because the file size for upload is based on the
amount of memory available, the Mangasarian system must first verify the amount
of memory available, or repository availability, prior to upload and storage of the
upload routine specifying file size and format.
14.
Independent Claim 47

(Decl. 72, 105, Ex. B cl. 47).
The preamble of claim 47 is similar to the preamble of claim 29 except that
it claims computer-executable instructions for generating an archival profile
rather than for selectively archiving monitoring device data. (See Ex. 1001 cls.
29 & 47). However the disclosure in Mangasarian for claim 29 [pre] also applies to
57
this element, see V.B.1. (See e.g., Ex. 1004 4:61-64, 5:16-33). The remaining
elements [a]-[g][ii] of claim 47 are identical to elements [a]-[g][ii] of claim 31,
and, for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 31, see V.B.11,
claim 47 is invalid as obvious.
15.
Dependent Claim 48
Claim 48, which depends from claim 47, additionally recites: A computer
system including a processor, a memory and an operating environment, the
computer system operable to perform the method recited in claim 47.
(Decl. 72, 105, Ex. B cl. 48). Mangasarian discloses two specific examples of
the claimed computer system, the remote probe and the protocol analyzer. Both the
remote probe and the protocol analyzer include its respective processor, memory,
and operating environment. Specifically, the [r]emote probes 107 typically
include one or more processing units, memory, mass storage, and software
configured to monitor network traffic and capture all or selected portions of the
monitored traffic, and [p]rotocol analyzers 111 typically include one or more
processing units, memory, mass storage, and software configured to program
remote probes 107 and retrieve all or selected portions of the captured traffic. (Ex.
1004 4:46-49, 4:61-65). The computer system in Mangasarian performs the
method of claim 47 as disclosed above. See V.B.1, V.B.10, V.B.11, and V.B.14.
58
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 843 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;
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.
59
LegacyTexas Bank, 2:15-cv-331.

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.

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
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 1-8, 11-14, 1623, 29-32, 37, 47, and 48 of the 843 patent.
Dated: May 18, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
/Joseph Melnik/
Joseph Melnik
Registration No. 48,741
JONES DAY
Lead Counsel for Petitioner
60
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Petition for
Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,606,843 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
JONES DAY
Lead Counsel for Petitioner

Petition For Inter Partes Review UNDER 35 U.S.C. 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. 42.100 ET SEQ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petition For Inter Partes Review UNDER 35 U.S.C. 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. 42.100 ET SEQ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Unified Patents Inc.

Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

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

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

Prosecution History of the 843 Patent ................................................3

IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R.

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

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

37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction ....................................6

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

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

THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST

Ground 1: Claims 1-8, 11-14, 16-23, 29-32, 47, and 48 Are

Independent Claims 1 and 29.....................................................9

Dependent Claim 2...................................................................16

Dependent Claim 3...................................................................17

Dependent Claims 4 and 5 .......................................................17

Dependent Claim 6...................................................................19

Dependent Claim 7...................................................................19

Dependent Claim 8...................................................................19

Dependent Claim 11 ................................................................20

Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................21

Dependent Claims 13 and 14 ...................................................21

Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................22

Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................24

Dependent Claims 18, 19, and 20 ............................................25

Dependent Claims 21 and 22 ...................................................26

Dependent Claim 23 ................................................................27

Dependent Claim 30 ................................................................27

Independent Claims 31 and 47.................................................28

Dependent Claim 32 ................................................................31

Dependent Claim 48 ................................................................31

Independent Claims 1 and 29...................................................33

Dependent Claim 2...................................................................45

Dependent Claim 3...................................................................46

Dependent Claim 8...................................................................46

Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................47

Dependent Claims 13 and 14 ...................................................48

Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................49

Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................51

Dependent Claims 21 and 22 ...................................................51

Dependent Claim 30 ................................................................52

Independent Claim 31 ..............................................................53

Dependent Claim 32 ................................................................56

Dependent Claim 37 ................................................................56

Independent Claim 47 ..............................................................57

Dependent Claim 48 ................................................................58

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

37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(a): Real Party-In-Interest ...................................59

37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ............................................59

37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and

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

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

THE 843 PATENT

Prosecution History of the 843 Patent

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

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

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

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