Taser Vs Digital Ally IPR Challenge To '292 Patent #2

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
8,781,292
Paper No. ______
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Petitioner
v.
DIGITAL ALLY, INC.
Patent Owner
____________________
Case IPR__________
Patent No. 8,781,292
Issued: July 15, 2014
Filed: September 27, 2013
Reexamination Certificate: January 14, 2016
____________________
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,781,292
UNDER 35 U.S.C. 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. 42.100 ET SEQ.
____________________
12/01/16 9:17 AM
Case IPR__________
US Patent 8,781,292
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION. ..........................................................................................1
II.
STANDING. ....................................................................................................1
III.
FEE. .................................................................................................................2
IV.
MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R 42.8(b)). ...........................................2
V.
VI.
A.
Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R 42.8(b)(1)). ......................................2
B.
Related Proceedings (37 C.F.R 42.8(b)(2)). .......................................2

1.
District Court...............................................................................2
2.
Concurrent IPR Petition. .............................................................3
C.
Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R 42.8(b)(3)). .............................3
D.
Service Information (37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(4)). .....................................3
E.
Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. 42.10(b)). ............................................4
STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED. ...................................................4

A.
Identification of Prior Art and Challenged Claims. ..............................4
B.
Supporting Evidence Relied Upon For the Challenged Claims............4
C.
Summary of Unpatentability. ................................................................5
OVERVIEW OF THE '292 PATENT. ............................................................6

A.
Effective Filing Date of the '292 Patent. ...............................................6
B.
State of the Art as of the '292 Priority Date. .........................................6
C.
Summary of the '292 Patent. .................................................................9

1.
Technical Overview of the '292 Patent. ......................................9
2.
Claims of the '292 Patent. .........................................................11

-i-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
D.
Summary of Prosecution History. .......................................................12
E.
Summary of Ex Parte Reexam. ...........................................................13
F.
Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA). ...............................13
VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION. .........................................................................14

A.
"communicatively coupled" (All Challenged Claims Except

Claims 12, 18, 20-21, 26 and 28). .......................................................15
B.
"recording device" (All Claims). .........................................................16
C.
input (All Claims). ...........................................................................17
D.
"recording device manager" (Claims 1 and 36). .................................18
E.
"insures" (All Claims). ........................................................................19
F.
"metadata" (Claim 21, 38-39, 42, 51, 54). ..........................................20
VIII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY. .........21

A.
Ground 1: Claims 1, 8, 18, 20-21, 26, 28, 30, 32, 36, 38-39, 42,
45, 47-48, 50-51, 54, 57, and 59 are Unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. 103 as Obvious in view of US Patent No. 8,805,431 to
Vasavada (Ex.1010). ...........................................................................21
1.
Distinction from Concurrent IPR Petition. ...............................22
2.
Independent Claim 1 is Obvious in View of Vasavada. ...........23

a.
Limitation 1[A] "A multiple recording device

management system, comprising" (Ex.1001, Claim
1; Ex.1003, 80)..............................................................23
b.
Limitation 1[B] - "a recording device manager

including at least one receiver and at least one
transmitter" (Ex.1001, Claim 1; Ex.1003, 80). .............25
c.
Limitation 1[C] - "a first recording device

communicatively coupled with the recording
- ii -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
device manager." (Ex.1001, Claim 1; Ex.1003,
80). ................................................................................27
d.
Limitation 1[D] "wherein said at least one

receiver is configured to receive a first
communication signal from the first recording
device indicating the first recording device has
received an instruction initiated by a first law
enforcement officer to record a first set of record
data related to an event" (Ex.1001, Claim 1;
Ex.1003, 80). .................................................................30
e.
Limitation 1[E] "wherein the first recording

device includes a first input for receiving the first
set of record data, and wherein the received first
set of record data is recorded on a first computerreadable medium associated with the first
recording device." (Ex.1001, Claim 1; Ex.1003,
80). ................................................................................33
f.
Limitation 1[F] "a second recording device

communicatively coupled with the recording
device manager" (Ex.1001, Claim 1; Ex.1003,
80). ................................................................................36
g.
Limitation 1[G] "wherein said at least one

transmitter is configured to transmit a second
communication signal to the second recording
device instructing the second recording device to
begin recording a second set of record data related
to the event." (Ex.1001, Claim 1; Ex.1003, 80). ..........38
h.
Limitation 1[H] "wherein the second recording

device includes a second input for receiving the
second set of record data, and wherein the received
second set of record data is recorded on a second
computer-readable medium associated with the
second recording device." (Ex.1001, Claim 1;
Ex.1003, 80). .................................................................41
- iii -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
3.
i.
Limitation 1[I] "wherein the first recording

device is different from the second recording
device, such that the first set of record data
recorded by the first recording device is different
than the second set of record data recorded by the
second recording device." (Ex.1001, Claim 1;
Ex.1003, 80). .................................................................43
j.
Limitation 1[J] "wherein the second

communication signal is transmitted to the second
recording device in response to the at least one
receiver of the recording device manager receiving
the first communication signal from the first
recording device indicating the first recording
device has received said instruction initiated by the
first law enforcement officer to record, such that
the recording device manager insures the first
recording device records the first set of record data
using the first input, and the second recording
device records the second set of record data using
the second input." (Ex.1001, Claim 1; Ex.1003,
80). ................................................................................45
k.
Limitation 1[K] "wherein one of the first

recording device and the second recording device
is configured to be mounted on or carried by one
of the first law enforcement officer and a second
law enforcement officer" (Ex.1001, Claim 1;
Ex.1003, 80). .................................................................48
Independent Claim 18 Is Obvious in View of Vasavada..........49

a.
Limitation 18[A] Preamble..........................................49
b.
Limitation 18[B] receive, by the recording

device manager. ..............................................................50
c.
Limitation 18[C] wherein the first recording

device. .............................................................................51
- iv -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
4.
d.
Limitation 18[D] transmit, by the recording

device manager. ..............................................................51
e.
Limitation 18[E] wherein the second recording

device. .............................................................................52
f.
Limitation 18[F] first recording device is

different...........................................................................53
g.
Limitation 18[G] wherein the second

communication signal. ....................................................53
h.
Limitation 18[H] wherein one of the first

recording device..............................................................53

a.
b.
Limitation 36[B] a recording device manager. ...........53
c.
Limitation 36[C] a first recording device. ...................54
d.
Limitation 36[D] wherein said at least one

receiver. ..........................................................................54
e.
Limitation 36[E] wherein said triggering event. .........54
f.
Limitation 36[F] wherein the first recording

device. .............................................................................55
g.
Limitation 36[G] a second recording device. ..............55
h.
Limitation 36[H] wherein said at least one

transmitter. ......................................................................55
i.
Limitation 36[I] wherein the second recording

device. .............................................................................55
j.
Limitation 36[J] wherein the first recording

device is different. ..........................................................56
-v-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
5.
k.
Limitation 36[K] wherein the second

l.
Limitation 36[L] wherein one of the first


a.
b.
Limitation 48[B] receive, by a recording device

manager...........................................................................57
c.
Limitation 48[C] wherein said triggering event. .........58
d.
Limitation 48[D] wherein the first recording

device. .............................................................................58
e.
Limitation 48[E] transmit, by the recording

device manager. ..............................................................59
f.
Limitation 48[F] wherein the second recording

device. .............................................................................59
g.
Limitation 48[G] wherein the first recording

device is different. ..........................................................59
h.
Limitation 48[H] wherein the second

i.
Limitation 48[I] wherein one of the first

6.
Dependent Claims 8, 20, 42, and 54 Are Obvious in

View of Vasavada. ....................................................................60
7.
Dependent Claims 21, 39, and 51 Are Obvious in View

of Vasavada. ..............................................................................60
8.
Dependent Claims 28, 32, and 47 Are Obvious in View

of Vasavada. ..............................................................................61
- vi -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
B.
9.
Dependent Claims 38 and 50 Are Obvious in View of

Vasavada. ..................................................................................62
10.
Dependent Claims 26, 30, 45 and 57 are Obvious in

View of Vasavada. ....................................................................63
11.
Dependent Claim 59 Is Obvious in View of Vasavada. ...........63
Ground 2: Claim 12 is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. 103 as

Being Obvious Over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0274705
to Kashiwa (Ex.1009). .........................................................................64
1.
Distinction from Concurrent IPR Petition. ...............................66
2.
Independent Claim 12 Is Obvious in View of Kashiwa. ..........66

a.
Limitation 12[A] - "a recording device manager

for use in a multiple recording device management
system, the recording device manager comprising:"
(Ex.1001, Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82). ...............................66
b.
Limitation 12[B] - "a controller including at least

one receiver and at least one transmitter" (Ex.1001,
Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82). ................................................67
c.
Limitation 12[C] "an internal clock" (Ex.1001,

Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82). ................................................67
d.
Limitation 12[D] "wherein said at least one

receiver is configured to receive a first
communication signal from a first recording device
indicating the first recording device has begun
recording, in response to a triggering event, a first
set of record data related to an event" (Ex.1001,
Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82). ................................................68
e.
Limitation 12[E] "wherein said at least one

communication signal to a second recording device
instructing the second recording device to begin
- vii -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
recording a second set of record data related to the
event" (Ex.1001, Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82).....................69
f.
Limitation 12[F] "wherein the second

receiver receiving the first communication signal
from the first recording device indicating the first
recording device has begun recording in response
to said triggering event, such that the recording
device manager insures the first and second
recording devices both record the event" (Ex.1001,
Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82). ................................................70
g.
Limitation 12[G] "wherein said controller is

configured to obtain a time reading from the
internal clock and create a time stamp
corresponding to the time reading" (Ex.1001,
Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82). ................................................71
h.
Limitation 12[H] "wherein said at least one

transmitter is configured to transmit a first time
stamp to the first recording device corresponding
to a specific time reading for a first item of
recorded data" (Ex.1001, Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82). ......71
i.
Limitation 12[I] "wherein said at least one

transmitter is configured to transmit a second time
stamp to the second recording device
corresponding to said specific time reading for a
second item of recorded data" (Ex.1001, Claim 12;
Ex.1003, 82). .................................................................72
j.
Limitation 12[J] "wherein said first and second

items of recorded data occurred at the same time"
(Ex.1001, Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82). ...............................73
k.
Limitation 12[K] "wherein as a result of the first

and second time stamps each identifying said
specific time reading, said first item of recorded
- viii -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
data recorded by the first recording device has the
same time stamp as said second item of recorded
data recorded by the second recording device to
correlate the respective particular items of
recorded data between the first and second
recording devices." (Ex.1001, Claim 12; Ex.1003,
82). ................................................................................73
IX.
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................74
X.
APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS. .........................................................................75
XI.
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT. ..........................................................77
XII. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. .....................................................................78
- ix -
Case IPR__________
US Patent 8,781,292
I.
INTRODUCTION.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. 42.100 et seq., TASER
International, Inc. ("TASER" or "Petitioner") petitions for Inter Partes Review of
claims 1, 8, 12, 18, 20-21, 26, 28, 30, 32, 36, 38-39, 42, 45, 47-48, 50-51, 54, 57,
and 59 ("challenged claims") of U.S. Patent No. 8,781,292, as amended by the Ex
Parte Reexamination Certificate ("'292 Patent")(Ex.1001). The '292 Patent has
been assigned to Digital Ally, Inc., who is believed to be the "Patent Owner."
This Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, and thus a trial for
inter partes review must be instituted. Evidence in this Petition demonstrates the
challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103. Petitioner respectfully
requests the challenged claims be rejected and cancelled.
II.
STANDING.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.104(a), Petitioner hereby certifies that the '292
Patent is available for inter partes review. The '292 Patent issued on July 15, 2014,
more than nine months prior to the filing of this Petition. An ex parte
reexamination certificate for the 292 Patent also issued on January 14, 2016
(Ex.1001, p.17).
Petitioner further certifies under 37 C.F.R. 42.104(a) that it is not barred or
estopped from requesting inter partes review of the '292 Patent on the grounds
-1-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
identified below. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 315(b), this Petition is timely because it is
filed within one year after Patent Owner served its complaint against Petitioner in
Digital Ally, Inc. v. TASER International, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02032-CM-JPO,
now pending in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas
Litigation).
III.
FEE.
The undersigned submitted payment by deposit account with the filing of
this Petition authorizing the Office to charge fees required under C.F.R. 42.15(a).
IV.
MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R 42.8(b)).

A.
Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R 42.8(b)(1)).
TASER International, Inc., located at 17800 North 85th Street, Scottsdale,

AZ, 85255, is the sole real party-in-interest.
B.
Related Proceedings (37 C.F.R 42.8(b)(2)).

1.
District Court.
Digital Ally, Inc. v. TASER International, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02032CM-JPO, now pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Kansas (Kansas Litigation) (Ex.1007, 26).
Digital Ally, Inc. v. Enforcement Video, LLC d/b/a/ Watchguard Video, Case
No. 2:16-cv-02349-JTM-JPO ("Watchguard Litigation"), (Ex.1008, 22).
-2-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
2.
Concurrent IPR Petition.
Petitioner is also filing another, concurrent petition for inter partes review of
the 292 Patent. The concurrent petition addresses additional claims, and focuses
on different prior art closely matching the exemplary equipment discussed in the
292 Patent. The art in this concurrent petition further rebuts statements made by
the Patent Owner during prosecution to secure claim allowance, as well as Patent
Owners contention that the 292 Patent represents its invention of camera autoactivation technology.
The differences between the two petitions with respect to the art presented,
the challenged claims, and their respective disclosures are further discussed below
in Sections VIII(A) and (B), which set forth the detailed grounds for the present
Petition.
C.
Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R 42.8(b)(3)).
In accordance with 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a), TASER designates

Brandon C. Stallman, Reg. No. 46,468, as Lead Counsel, and L. Rhys Lawson,
Reg. No. 57,869, as Back-up Counsel.
D.
Service Information (37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(4)).
Counsel for Petitioner can be reached at Christensen O'Connor Johnson

Kindness PLLC; 1201 Third Ave., Suite 3600, Seattle, Washington, 98101; Tel.
-3-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
(206) 682-8100; Fax (206) 224-0779. TASER consents to service by electronic
mail at: brandon.stallman@cojk.com; rhys.lawson@cojk.com; litdoc@cojk.com.
E.
Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. 42.10(b)).
A Power of Attorney is filed concurrently with this Petition.

V.
STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 311, and 37 C.F.R. 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b),
Petitioner respectfully requests cancellation of the challenged claims of the '292
Patent for the following reasons.
A.
Identification of Prior Art and Challenged Claims.

1.
Ground 1: Claims 1, 8, 18, 20-21, 26, 28, 30, 32, 36, 38-39, 42,
45, 47-48, 50-51, 54, 57, and 59 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,805,431 to Vasavada ("Vasavada," Ex.1010).
2.
Ground 2: Claim 12 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
being obvious over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0274705, to Kashiwa

(Kashiwa, Ex.1009).
B.
Supporting Evidence Relied Upon For the Challenged Claims.
The evidence to support the above challenges and the identification of where
each claim limitation is found in the prior art references are provided below. This
Petition and Dr. Henry Houhs Declaration (Ex.1003) demonstrate the challenged
claims are not patentable.
-4-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
C.
Summary of Unpatentability.
The '292 Patent generally describes recording device management systems

for managing the recording of event data by multiple recording devices from
different vantage points. Based on Patent Owner's admitted prior art (Ex.1001,
1:29-57), the purported inventive concept includes a recording device manager that
automatically signals a second, synced recording device to record event data based
on the recording status of a first, synced recording device (Ex.1007, 9-11).
The use of a "recording device manager" in this manner was not new. A
number of prior art systems employ such methodologies to record event data from
different vantage points using multiple recording devices. (Ex.1003, 116-134). In
fact, as set forth in detail below, a number of third parties had previously described
such technology. Petitioner's own product designs and public presentations also
included automatic activation of video recording devices, years before the '292
Patents priority date (Ex.1003, 117-120).
Ground 1 is based on prior art patent Vasavada, which teaches this type of
"manager." In Vasavada, the manager automatically transmits a record request
signal to a second recording device in response to receiving a signal indicating a
first recording device has been instructed to record. (Ex.1010).
Ground 2 is based on prior art publication Kashiwa, which teaches a system
for coordinating multiple recordings of an event using automatic triggering of
-5-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
additional recording devices in response to receiving a signal indicating a first
recording device has been instructed to record. (Ex.1009).
VI.
OVERVIEW OF THE '292 PATENT.

A.
Effective Filing Date of the '292 Patent.
The '292 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,452 B2 ("'452

Patent"). The '292 Patent was filed on September 27, 2013, and claims priority to
the '452 Patent's August 14, 2013, filing date. Based on the record, there is no
reason to believe the priority date of any 292 Patent claim is earlier than
August 14, 2013.
B.
State of the Art as of the '292 Priority Date.
As of this priority date, the concept of a connected system of cameras and

other triggering devices was well-known in the prior art, including Petitioner's own
disclosures. In addition to Vasavada and Kashiwa, the patent art and public record
are replete with references teaching systems such as those claimed in the '292
Patent.
Examples of prior art systems included the ICOP 20/20 system (subject of
the second, separate petition for inter partes review referenced above), Kister
(discussed during the 292 Patent re-examination; Ex.1006), TASERs TACOM
wireless system (described below), and systems disclosed in various other patents
and prior publications (e.g., Exs.1015-1021; Ex.1003, 116-134). Many of these
-6-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
systems focused on in-car recording systems with video cameras, along with
officer-worn microphones and/or cameras. It was also well-known that one such
device could trigger another, or that one trigger could synchronously start multiple
video or audio recorders to capture event data from various vantage points. Id.
Such recording systems were so well-known that law enforcement customers
were describing them in requests for proposal and detailed specifications (Ex.1014
pp.5-7,
9-12,
15-16;
public
at
least
by
4/4/2013;
http://www.ci.pomona.ca.us/mm/finance/bids/S0901.6_Mobile_Video_Recording_
Sys.pdf; Ex.1003, 133). Similarly, the International Association of Chiefs of
Police issued a minimum specifications document stating that such systems
should include multiple recording devices, synchronization of recordings, and
auto-activation of recordings (Ex.1017 pp.18, 10, 13, 22-23, 25-26; Sections
1.4.17, 1.4.51, 4.1.1., 4.2.15, 4.2.16, 4.2.22, 4.2.24, 5.4.1-5; Ex.1003, 132).
TASER was also active in this space years before Patent Owners priority
date. In the early 2000s, TASER conceived what would become the "Axon"
network of devices and applications, a connected device ecosystem that included
automatically triggered cameras worn by law enforcement officers.
TASER gave several public presentations describing its "TACOM" (TASER
Communications) system, including CEO Rick Smith's April 28, 2009, slide
presentation below at the Evidence.com Technology Summit in Scottsdale, AZ:
-7-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
The TACOM system facilitated communication between connected devices,

including cameras, such that when one triggering event occurred, other devices
were alerted and could act accordingly. The cameras could be triggered by
activation of a vehicles light bar, a weapon, or even another camera. TACOM also
enabled time synchronization, event triggering and logging between devices,
including officer-mounted cameras and TASER weapons.
The following slide, presented on July 27, 2009 at a TASER Master
Instructor Conference in Fort McDowell, AZ, further illustrates the connected
TACOM system, including sync communication between a weapon (via trigger
pull) and an on-officer camera system.
-8-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
In the illustrated TACOM system, the data from the CEW and on-officer
camera could be communicated to a computer-based evidence system (TASER's
Evidence.com system, as shown). This coordination allowed for synchronization of
data recordings from connected devices when transferred to Evidence.com.
Thus, it was well-known from many prior art sources, including TASER, to
provide an automatically-triggered system of synced devices for recording events,
and to time stamp and coordinate the multiple data sets generated.
C.
Summary of the '292 Patent.

1.
Technical Overview of the '292 Patent.
The '292 Patent is said to solve the problems of the prior art by providing a
computer program, method, apparatus, and system for managing multiple
-9-
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
recording devices (Ex.1001, 1:61-64). According to the '292 Patent, the multiple
recording device management system includes a multiple recording device
managing apparatus, referred to in the challenged claims as the "recording device
manager" (Ex.1001, 1:65-67). The multiple recording device management system
also includes a vehicle recording device, such as a video camera, synced to the
recording device manager and a personal recording device, such as a video camera,
synced to the multiple-recording-device manager (Ex.1001, Abstract). According
to the '292 Patent, the recording device manager can be either a disparate device or
can be incorporated into the vehicle recording device or the personal recording
device (Ex.1001, 8:15-19).
The basic components of the claimed system are shown in Fig.1 of the '292
Patent, reproduced below:
- 10 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
With reference to Fig.1 above, the recording device manager 12 operates by
first receiving a first communication signal from either the vehicle recording
device 14 or the personal recording device 18 (the first, synced, recording device).
The communication signal is said to indicate that the first, synced, recording
device has begun recording or has received instructions by a user, such as a law
enforcement officer, to record an event. In response to receiving the first
communication signal, the recording device manager 12 transmits a second
communication signal to the other one of the vehicle recording device 14 or the
personal recording device 18 (the second, synced, recording device). The second
communication signal instructs the second, synced recording device to begin
recording the event (Ex.1001, 2:1-8).
By automatically signaling the second, synced, recording device to record
data of the event based on the recording status of the first, synced recording device,
the invention is said to address the problems in the prior art associated with
manually managing recording devices, thus insuring that both recording devices
record data of the event (Ex.1001, 2:1-8; Ex.1007, 10, 11).
2.
Claims of the '292 Patent.
Claims 1, 12, 18, 36, and 48 of the challenged claims are independent. Each
of the remaining challenged claims depends, directly or indirectly, from one of
these independent claims. Claim 1 is representative of the challenged claims.
- 11 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
D.
Summary of Prosecution History.
Based on the claims as originally filed on September 27, 2013, a first Office
Action was issued rejecting Claims 1-12 and 19-20 as being anticipated by, or
obvious in view of, United States Patent Publication No. 2012/0189286 A1
(Takayama) (Ex.1005, 01/31/2014 Office Action, pp.60-67). On March 19,
2014, the Patent Owner filed a response to the USPTO that amended the claims to
recite that the first recording device records a first set of record data from a first
input and the second recording device records a second set of record data from a
second input (Ex.1005, Applicant Response of 03/19/2014, p.49). The Patent
Owner argued that Takayama records "a single set of data from a single input," and
that Takayama only teaches a single video camera, whose output is then stored
onto various media. (Ex.1005, Applicant Response of 03/19/2014, p.49). The
Patent Owner distinguished their invention as record[ing] the same event ... from
different vantage points and thus, would receive different sets of record data.
(Ex.1005, Applicant Response of 03/19/2014, pp.49-50). The Patent Owner further
amended the claims to clarify that the claimed recording devices captured different
record data. (Ex.1005, Applicant Response of 03/19/2014, pp.38-41).
As a result of the submitted amendment, the application was allowed and
issued as US Patent No. 8,781,292 on July 15, 2014.
- 12 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
E.
Summary of Ex Parte Reexam.
On August 17, 2015, the USPTO granted ex parte reexamination of the

'292 Patent, Reexamination Request No. 90/013,489 (292 Reexam). In granting
the 292 Reexam, the USPTO examiner rejected all claims of the '292 Patent as
anticipated or rendered obvious in view of U.S. Publication No. 2008/0800705 to
Kister et al. (Kister)(Ex.1006, Office Action of 08/17/2015, pp.238-262).
On October 16, 2015, Patent Owner responded by amending the rejected
claims and traversing the rejection in view of Kister. As a result of the submitted
amendment, a reexamination certificate issued as US Patent No. 8,781,292 on
January 14, 2016.
F.
Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
A POSITA in the field of the '292 Patent in August, 2013 would have been
someone with at least a bachelors degree in electrical engineering or a related field
(including but not limited to computer or network engineering), with two years of
additional experience in the area of data communications and data storage
(Ex.1003, 78). The additional two years of experience could be either in an
industrial setting or in an educational setting, such as in the course of obtaining an
advanced degree (Ex.1003, 78).
- 13 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION.
A claim subject to inter partes review (IPR) is given its broadest
reasonable construction (BRI) in light of the specification of the patent in which
it appears. 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b). Under the BRI standard, words of the claim
must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the
specification and prosecution history. Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Sipnet EU
S.R.O., 806 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed.Cir.2015).
Petitioner below proposes the broadest reasonable interpretation of certain
claim language, as understood by a POSITA as of the filing date of the '292 Patent.
37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3). Petitioner also below sets forth claim terms that were
either defined in the specification or are subject to 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Petitioner submits that all remaining claim terms should be accorded their
plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a POSITA. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48700
(2012). Petitioner reserves all rights regarding claim constructions presented
during litigation, including the Kansas Litigation, as they do not necessarily
correspond to a broadest reasonable interpretation approach. Different standards
may be involved in litigation and Patent Office proceedings. Cuozzo Speed
Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016).
- 14 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
A.
"communicatively coupled" (All Challenged Claims Except

Claims 12, 18, 20-21, 26 and 28).
The '292 Patent defines the term "communicatively coupled" to mean

"synced." (Ex.1001, 3:26-30). The specification uses the term "synced" throughout
the specification in relation to the communication link between recording devices
and the recording device manager. (See, e.g., Ex.1001, Abstract).
The '292 Patent describes "synced" in terms of both wired and wireless
connections for the purpose of transmitting and receiving communication signals
between known devices. (Ex.1001, 3:21-35; 4:11-26). The '292 Patent additionally
describes the syncing between recording devices and the recording device manager
as "device-syncing." (Ex.1001, Fig.5, 2:48-50). Moreover, the specification
explains that syncing can be accomplished over a communications network, such
as Wi-Fi, via use of SSIDs (Ex.1001, 13:20-23). As such, Petitioner believes the
appropriate construction for communicatively coupled in view of the 292 Patent
specification is synced.
In the Kansas Litigation, the Patent Owner proposed a construction of the
term "communicatively coupled" to require only "a communication path between
devices." (Ex.1013, p.20). Petitioner demonstrates unpatentability based on both
constructions.
- 15 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
B.
"recording device" (All Claims).
The term "recording device" is a means plus function limitation under 35

U.S.C. 112(f). Although "means" is not recited, the rebuttable presumption should
be overcome, as the term "recording device" lacks sufficiently definite structure.
This claim term uses the generic placeholder or nonce term "device." (MPEP
2181(I)). And the term "recording" that modifies the nonce word "device" is
written as a present participle ("'ing"), which does nothing more than to identify
the function for the "device" to perform. To be sure, the function associated with
the nonce term "device" is "recording." In other words, a recording device is a
"device [means] for recording."
In the Kansas Litigation, the Patent Owner has proposed that "recording
device" be construed as "a device that records information." (Ex.1013, p.4).
Petitioner asserts this merely attempts to circumvent the functional claiming in the
292 Patent by rewriting the claim language. Regardless, it is clear from the 292
Patent specification that whichever construction applies, recording devices at
least include structures such as video cameras, audio recorders, and chemical
analyzers, as well as a number of video camera products produced by Patent
Owner, and their equivalents. (Ex.1001, 3:40-48; 11:13-19, 11:43-63; Ex.1003,
114).
Petitioner demonstrates unpatentability based on both constructions.
- 16 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
C.
input (All Claims).
The corresponding structure that performs the function of "recording" must

also include the recited first/second "input for receiving the [first/second] set of
record data." (Ex.1001, Claims 1, 18, 36, and 48). The claims also recite that the
"[first/second] recording device records the [first/second] set of record data using
the [first/second] input." (Ex.1001, Claims 1, 18, 36, and 48). Importantly, the
specification fails to use the term "input" in relation to a "recording device." The
only discussion of "input" as it relates to the tem "recording device" appears in the
original prosecution history. (Ex.1005, Applicant Response of 03/19/2014, pp.4851).
In view of the claims and the prosecution history, a POSITA would
understand the corresponding structure of "input" to include a component, e.g., a
sensor, through which information from the event is delivered into the recording
device. Video cameras, audio recorders, and chemical analyzers, as well as Patent
Owners enumerated devices, all inherently include components that can be
deemed as inputs, such as sensors, "for receiving a [first/second] set of record data
of the event." For example, a video camera includes an image sensor for receiving
image information into the camera and an audio recorder includes an audio
transducer for receiving sound information into the audio recorder. (Ex.1003,
186-191).
- 17 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
D.
"recording device manager" (Claims 1 and 36).
The term "recording device manager" is a means plus function limitation

under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Although "means" is not recited, the rebuttable
presumption should be overcome as this claim term lacks sufficiently definite
structure. It uses the generic placeholder or nonce term "manager," with modifiers
that only address which components are to be "managed."
The function set forth in Claims 1 and 36 for "manager" is "managing the
synced recording devices by receiving communication signals from the first
recording device, and transmitting communication signals to the second recording
device in response to receiving the first communications." (Ex.1001, Claims 1, 36).
The '292 Patent explains the functions of the recording device manager throughout
the specification. (Ex.1001, Abstract, 5:56-67, 4:27-53; 8:31-45; 14:43-58).
The '292 Patent sets forth the corresponding structure that performs the
function of "managing" throughout the specification. (Ex.1001, 8:31-45, 9:37-10:6,
10:23-46).
According
to
the
'292
Patent,
the
"recording
device
manager 12 includes ... a receiver 30 for receiving from either the vehicle
recording device 14 or the personal recording device 18 information, including a
signal, that such recording device has started recording; a transmitter 32 for
transmitting a signal; ... and a controller 36 for performing algorithms, managing
- 18 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
data, and generating signals and receiving information indicative of triggering
events." (Ex.1001, 8:31-41).
In one embodiment, the '292 Patent specification describes the controller as
including "electronic circuitry, a processing element, a memory element, computer
hardware, and computer software ... for performing algorithms for managing the
recording devices 14, 18, as described below." (Ex.1001, 9:42-48). The '292 Patent
explains the structure of the receiver and the transmitter in terms of wireless or
wired circuitry or connectors that receive communication signals and transmit
communication signals, respectively (Ex.1001, 9:60-10:6). The '292 Patent also
sets forth the algorithms performed by the controller for carrying out the claimed
function (Ex.1001, Abstract, 5:56-67, 4:27-53; 8:31-45; 14:43-58).
As properly construed, the corresponding structure for this claim limitation
(as described in the specification and equivalents thereof) is a receiver, a
transmitter, and a special purpose controller programmed to perform the disclosed
algorithm.
E.
"insures" (All Claims).
In the Kansas Litigation, Petitioner and the Patent Owner have agreed to a
construction of "insures" as meaning "make certain or sure." (Ex.1012, p.6). The
Patent Owner contends in the Kansas Litigation that the recording device manager
can meet this limitation by simply transmitting a second communication signal to
- 19 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
the second recording device instructing the second recording device to record
(Ex.1013, pp.19-20).
Under a BRI approach, Petitioner will apply the Patent Owners position on
insures for purposes of this Petition, and demonstrate unpatentability on that
basis. Petitioner will also demonstrate where the applied references teach
additional features that actually make certain or sure, should the Board require
more than the interpretation advocated by the Patent Owner to meet this claim
term. In the context of the Kansas Litigation, Petitioner does not concede that
merely transmitting a signal to a recording device instructing it to record makes
certain or sure that the second device is actually recording.
F.
"metadata" (Claim 21, 38-39, 42, 51, 54).
In the Kansas Litigation, Petitioner and the Patent Owner have agreed to a
construction of "metadata" as meaning "data about a data recording, including but
not limited to a time stamp, location, user, device serial number, number of
recording devices, or trigger type." (Ex.1012, p.6).
Petitioner accepts this construction of the term "metadata" for purposes of
this Petition, and demonstrates unpatentability based on this construction.
- 20 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
VIII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY.

Provided below is a detailed discussion of why the challenged claims of the
'292 Patent are rendered obvious. This showing establishes a reasonable likelihood
of prevailing as to each ground of invalidity with respect to the challenged claims,
and is supported by the Declaration of Dr. Henry Houh (Ex.1003).
A.
Ground 1: Claims 1, 8, 18, 20-21, 26, 28, 30, 32, 36, 38-39, 42, 45,
47-48, 50-51, 54, 57, and 59 are Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
103 as Obvious in view of US Patent No. 8,805,431 to Vasavada
(Ex.1010).
Vasavada qualifies as prior art under 102(a)(2) because it is a U.S. patent

(issued 08/12/14) based on an application filed July 31, 2012, which is prior to the
filing date of the '292 Patent (Ex.1010, face). Vasavada was not cited during
prosecution of the '292 Patent or its reexamination proceeding.
Addressing the same problem facing the inventors of the '292 Patent,
Vasavada relates to a communication system and method for automated video
recording of an incident by multiple video cameras (Ex.1010, Abstract). According
to Vasavada, the communication system includes two or more portable or
vehicular radios in communication with a central control station (Ex.1010,
Abstract, Fig.2). Each portable or vehicular radio is equipped with a camera to
record video (Ex.1010, 2:40-44).
- 21 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
In Vasavada, an alert triggers video recording of incident information from a
first radio (Ex.1010, Abstract, 2:11-13). The first radio, in response to the alert,
transmits a signal, including video recorded by the first radio's camera, to the
central control station (Ex.1010, 3:59-67). The central control station receives the
signal from the first radio, and retransmits the signal to a dynamically formed
talkgroup comprised of a number of second portable or vehicular radios (Ex.1010,
3:46-51, 4:1-9). Upon receiving the signal from the central control station, each
second radio of the talkgroup begins recording in-route video as they approach the
incident scene. (Ex.1010, 2:20-22, 4:10-30). This allows various vantage points of
the event to be recorded and stored, which may be accessed at a later date for
evidentiary reasons. (Ex.1010, 5:60:60, 7:15-19).
In transmitting and receiving signals, the communication system can employ
a number of communication protocols, including cellular (e.g., LTE), IEEE 802.11
(WiFi), etc. (Ex.1010, 2:28-37).
1.
Distinction from Concurrent IPR Petition.
With reference to the concurrently-filed petition for inter partes review, the
grounds above for Vasavada are arguably stronger than the Pierce and 20/20-W
Publication" (by ICOP) grounds in the concurrent petition because Vasavada more
explicitly discloses the triggering of a second camera to record. The Vasavada
reference also focuses on multiple officer-mounted cameras, as opposed to the
- 22 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Pierce and 20/20-W vehicular system that involves one officer-mounted camera
(along with other data capture devices, such as a microphone). However, the
Vasavada-based grounds are arguably weaker because the Pierce and 20/20-W
references in the concurrent petition more clearly discuss data being recorded on a
first computer-readable medium (Limitation 1[E] below). The Pierce and 20/20-W
references also discuss at length the same kind of vehicle-based systems that Patent
Owner describes in the 292 Patent examples (such the DVM-500 car-based
system) as being incorporated in its invention. However, unlike Vasavada and
Pierce, the 20/20-W Publication used in the concurrent petition is not a patent
application or publication, and is thus not self-authenticating.
The concurrent petition further contains grounds for claims 3, 24, 29, 27,
and 43, not challenged here. Conversely, the present Petition challenges claims 12,
28, 32, and 59, which the concurrent petition does not.
2.
Independent Claim 1 is Obvious in View of Vasavada.

a.
Limitation 1[A] "A multiple recording device

management system, comprising" (Ex.1001, Claim 1;
Ex.1003, 80).
As depicted in Fig.2 below, Vasavada discloses a communication system

that includes a first portable or vehicular radio unit 102 equipped with a camera to
record video and at least one second portable or vehicular radio unit 104 equipped
- 23 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
with a camera to record video. (Ex.1010, Fig.2). Each radio unit 102 and 104 is in
communication with the central control station 210. (Ex.1010, Fig.2).
According to Vasavada, the communication system "provides automated
incident alerts to a radio, automated video recording of the incident, dynamic
formation of a talkgroup, and automatic sharing of the incident information
amongst members of the talkgroup." (Ex.1010, Abstract). Vasavada further
explains that the central control station "manages resource assignments of the
radios within the communication system 100." (Ex.1010, 2:51-53).
Therefore, Vasavada discloses a communication system that manages the

collection and sharing of incident data between a plurality of recording devices,
thereby teaching the recited limitation (Ex.1003, 144-146).
- 24 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
b.
Limitation 1[B] - "a recording device manager

including at least one receiver and at least one
transmitter" (Ex.1001, Claim 1; Ex.1003, 80).
The term "recording device manager" was construed above in Section

VII(D) under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Vasavada discloses limitation 1[B].
With regard to performing the claimed function, Vasavada discloses that the
central control station 210 "manages resource assignments of the radios within the
communication system 100." (Ex.1010, 2:51-53, Fig.2). With reference to Fig.2
below, the flowchart of Fig.4 (Ex.1010, Fig.4), and their related disclosure,
Vasavada explains that the central control station 210 receives signal 202, which
includes incident data 222, from the first radio unit 102, and "establishes a
talkgroup based on the type of event indicated by the trigger and analysis of the
incident video." (Ex.1010, 4:1-9, Fig.2; Ex.1003, 151-153). According to
Vasavada, the "recorded signal of incident events 222 is then retransmitted [by the
central control station 210] via signals 204, 206, 208 to [radio] units 104, 106, and
108." (Id). In response to receiving the signals 204, 206, and 208, the radio units
104, 106, 108 begin recording. (Ex.1010, 5:58-64, Fig.4 box 428; Ex.1003, 151).
- 25 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
As for the corresponding structure, Fig.2 above depicts the central control
station 210 (labeled dispatch console) as a desktop computer, and is said to
comprise "one or more generic or specialized processors (or processing devices)
... and unique stored program instructions (including both software and firmware)
that control the one or more processors to implement, in conjunction with certain
non-processor circuits, some, most, or all of the functions of the method and/or
apparatus described herein." (Ex.1010, 8:38-63; Ex.1003, 157).
According to Vasavada, the central control station 210 receives signals from
the first radio unit and transmits signals to the second radio unit "within a network"
(e.g., LTE, P25, WiFi) "or other network capable of handling two-way radio and
video data." (Ex.1010, 2:31-34). To carry out communication over these networks,
- 26 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
the central control station of Vasavada includes a receiver and a transmitter as
disclosed in and claimed by the '292 Patent. (Ex.1003, 154-156).
Therefore, Vasavada discloses a central control station (i.e., a special
purpose controller, a receiver, a transmitter) that matches both the function and
corresponding structure of the recited "recording device manager." (Ex.1003,
149-160).
If it is found that the recording device manager is not a means-plus-function
limitation, the central control station nevertheless satisfies the claimed limitations
of the recording device manager, including having the at least one receiver and the
at least one transmitter. (Ex.1003, 161).
c.
Limitation 1[C] - "a first recording device

communicatively coupled with the recording device
manager." (Ex.1001, Claim 1; Ex.1003, 80).
Vasavada discusses and depicts portable or vehicular radio units throughout

its disclosure that perform the function of "recording" using, e.g., radio units
comprising cameras having an input, such as an image sensor, through which
information is received into the camera. (Ex.1003, 166-167).
With regard to performing the claimed function and its corresponding
structure, Vasavada discloses that "(e)ach radio unit comprises a camera, or other
visual recording capability, operatively coupled thereto, for recording video."
(Ex.1010, 2:40-42, emphasis added). According to Vasavada, "FIG.5 shows a
- 27 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
portable two-way radio 502 having an accessory 504 coupled either wired or
wirelessly thereto in accordance with the various embodiments. The accessory 504
may be for example, a remote speaker microphone which is coupled with a digital
camera 506. The radio and/or accessory are programmed to respond to
predetermined events to trigger automatic video recording." (Ex.1010, 6:13-19).
In order to record video, the camera inherently includes an input, such as a
lens and/or image sensor, through which information of the event is received into
the camera. Therefore, Vasavada discloses first and second radio units 102 and 104
(both with a video camera having an image sensor), that match both the function
and the corresponding structure of the recited "first recording device" and "second
recording device" (See Section VIII(A)(2)(f)), respectively. (Ex.1003, 166-167,
169-170, 203; See Fig.2 below with annotations).
- 28 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
If it is found that the first recording device is not a means-plus-function

limitation, each radio unit, which includes a microphone and camera, nevertheless
satisfies the claimed limitation of the first and/or second recording device,
including having a first/second input for receiving record data. (Ex.1003, 172,
209).
Vasavada also discloses that the first radio unit comprising a camera is
"communicatively coupled" to the central control station. (See Fig.2 above).
Vasavada states that "the plurality of radio units are communicating over the
network utilizing two-way radio communication." (Ex.1010, 2:47-49). As
explained in Vasavada, in response to a triggered emergency alert, the first radio
- 29 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
unit transmits a signal to the central control station (i.e., the recording device
manager as set forth in Section VIII(A)(2)(b) above) via a communication
protocol, such as IEEE 802.11 (WiFi) or cellular (e.g., LTE). (Ex.1010, 2:28-46).
As such, the first radio unit comprising a camera (e.g., the first recording device) is
synced or "communicatively coupled" with the central control station (i.e., the
recording device manager). (Ex.1003, 174-176).
Therefore, Vasavada discloses a first radio unit, such as radio unit 102,
comprising a camera having an input, such as an image sensor, which carries out
the identical function with the same structure as the "first recording device," and
which is synced or "communicatively coupled" with the central control station (i.e.,
the recording device manager).
d.
Limitation 1[D] "wherein said at least one receiver

is configured to receive a first communication signal
recording device has received an instruction initiated
by a first law enforcement officer to record a first set
of record data related to an event" (Ex.1001, Claim 1;
Ex.1003, 80).
As described above in Section VII(B), the structure of the "recording device

manager" includes a "receiver." As described in relation to Fig.2, Vasavada
discloses that the "central control station 210 (i.e., the recording device manager of
Section VIII(A)(2)(c)), for example a dispatch center or incident commander,
receives signal 202 [i.e., first communication signal] and establishes a talkgroup
- 30 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
based on the type of event indicated by the trigger and analysis of the incident
video." (Ex.1010, 4:1-4, emphasis added).
Vasavada also explains that the central control station receives signals 202
from the first radio unit "within a network such as a long term evolution (LTE)
network, a P25 network, WiFi, or other network capable of handling two-way
radio and video data." (Ex.1010, 2:31-34). In order to receive signals, such as
signals 202, over these networks, the central control station includes a receiver as
disclosed and claimed in the '292 Patent. (Ex.1003, 153-156).
Thus, the central control station (i.e., recording device manager) includes a
receiver that receives a first communication signal (i.e., signal 202) from the first
radio unit (i.e., first recording device). (Ex.1003, 185).
- 31 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Vasavada also discloses that the first communication signal 202 received by
the receiver of the central control station was previously transmitted by the first
radio unit (e.g., first recording device) in response to an incident event alert caused
by, for example, a law enforcement officer's voice command or a gun drawn from
her holster. (Ex.1010, 4:1-49, 2:62-67; Ex.1003, 179-180). According to
Vasavada, these alert triggers "enable[] automatic video recording by the radio
unit" of "incident events 222 [first set of record data] occurring at a scene."
(Ex.1010, 3:9-15, 3:59-61; Fig.2; Ex.1003, 182).
Vasavada further discloses that "recording 222 is transmitted via a
streamlined digital signal 202" (i.e., first communication signal) to "the central
control station" (i.e., recording device manager). (Ex.1010, 3:61-63; See also Fig.4,
blocks 404-418, below with annotations).
Thus, because the video recording 222 (i.e., first set of record data) captured
by the first radio unit is sent with the first communication signal 202 to the central
control station, signal 202 is a communications signal which indicates that the first
recording device has received an instruction to begin recording. (Ex.1003, 185).
Therefore, Vasavada's central control station includes a receiver that
receives a first communication signal from the first radio unit. The first
communication signal comprises video captured by the first radio unit's camera
- 32 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
when the first radio unit is triggered to record via an officer's voice instruction or
drawn gun.
e.
Limitation 1[E] "wherein the first recording device

includes a first input for receiving the first set of
record data, and wherein the received first set of
record data is recorded on a first computer-readable
medium associated with the first recording device."
(Ex.1001, Claim 1; Ex.1003, 80).
As set forth above in Section VIII(A)(2)(c), Vasavada's disclosed structure

of the "first recording device" is a radio unit comprising a camera having an input,
such as an image sensor, through which information is received into the camera.
- 33 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Vasavada discloses that "(e)ach radio unit comprises a camera, or other visual
recording capability, operatively coupled thereto, for recording video" (Ex.1010,
2:40-42, emphasis added), and the radio unit of Fig.5 has "an accessory 504
coupled ... thereto" that includes "a remote speaker microphone which is coupled
with a digital camera 506" for recording audio and video of the event. (Ex.1010,
6:13-17). The camera records video of the event via the input, such as an image
sensor, through which the record data of an event is received into a radio unit's
camera. (Ex.1003, 189-191).
Regarding the second requirement of limitation 1[E], Vasavada also
discloses that the record data received by the image sensor of the camera is stored
on an associated computer readable medium. (Ex.1003, 192-195). According to
Vasavada "(t)he radio 502 comprises a controller having a microprocessor, a
memory, ... as previously described in conjunction with FIG.1." (Ex.1010,
6:28-31). Vasavada describes examples of computer-readable media including "a
hard disk, ... and a Flash memory." (Ex.1010, 8:53-63). Moreover, Vasavada
explains that "(t)he communication system 100 integrates streaming video along
with local and network storage functionality thereby facilitating buffering,
transmission, and storage of the video data." (Ex.1010, 4:49-52; See also Ex.1010,
Fig.4, blocks 410, 412).
- 34 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
As discussed above, Vasavada teaches that the controller of the radio [i.e.,
first recording device] includes a first computer-readable medium, as recited in
Claim 1. If it were argued that Vasavada fails to explicitly disclose that the first set
of record data is recorded on the first computer-readable medium, Petitioner
submits that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to utilize the provided
hardware (e.g., hard disk or flash memory) as part of the disclosed "local and
network storage functionality thereby facilitating buffering, transmission, and
storage of the video data" (Ex.1010, 4:50-52; Ex.1003, 196). The described
functionality allows capture and sharing of a recorded video (Ex.1010, 4:52-54),
both of which functions rely on storing data in a computer-readable medium.
Furthermore, Vasavada notes that video from members of the talkgroup can
be used for "future analytics" (Ex.1010, 5:4-10), which again would require storage
of data in a computer-readable medium. It would have been obvious to a POSITA
to use the radio hardware disclosed in Vasavada to record the data on a computerreadable medium at least to facilitate the disclosed capture and sharing of recorded
video (data), by using prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results (KSR Intl Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-22 (2007);
MPEP 2143 (A, C)). (Ex.1003, 196).
- 35 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Therefore, each aspect of Limitation 1[E] is either explicitly taught or
obvious in view of the first recording device of Vasavada, in the form of the first
radio unit comprising a camera, with an image sensor (input) through which
information about an event enters the camera. The recorded data (video images)
generated by the image sensor are stored on a computer readable medium, such as
flash memory.
f.
Limitation 1[F] "a second recording device

communicatively coupled with the recording device
manager" (Ex.1001, Claim 1; Ex.1003, 80).
The term "recording device manager" was construed above in Section

VII(D) under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Vasavada discloses limitation 1[F].
According to Vasavada, the central control station (i.e., recording device
manager as set forth above in Section VIII(A)(2)(b)) communicates with a number
of second radio units (e.g., radio units 104, etc.). Each second radio unit performs
the function of "recording" using "a radio unit comprising a camera." Indeed,
"(e)ach radio unit comprises a camera, or other visual recording capability,
operatively coupled thereto, for recording video." (Ex.1010, 2:40-42, emphasis
added). Each radio unit's camera includes an input, such as an image sensor,
through which information about the event is received.
- 36 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
As such, and as set forth above in Section VIII(A)(2)(c), Vasavada discloses
a second radio unit, such as radio unit 104, having a video camera with an image
sensor, which matches both the function and corresponding structure of the recited
"second recording device." (Ex.1003, 200-208).
If it is found that the second recording device is not a means-plus-function
limitation, the second radio unit 104, which includes a microphone and camera,
nevertheless satisfies the claimed limitation of the "second recording device."
(Ex.1003, 209).
Vasavada discloses that the second radio unit comprising a camera is
"communicatively coupled" to the central control station. According to Vasavada,
in response to receiving an emergency alert triggered signal, the central control
station (i.e., recording device manager) creates a new talkgroup (a selected group
of radio units including radio units 104, 106, 108) based on the type of trigger and
transmits a signal to the radio units of the talkgroup via a communication protocol,
such as IEEE 802.11 (WiFi) or cellular. (Ex.1010, 2:28-46, 4:1-6, Fig.2; Ex.1003,
210-212). "The radios in the talkgroup may also activate their own cameras and
transmit video-data streams to the central control station." (Ex.1010 at 5:58-60).
- 37 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
As such, the second radio unit 104 (e.g., the second recording device) is
recording device manager). (Ex.1003, 210-212).
Therefore, Vasavada discloses a second radio unit, such as radio unit 104,
comprising a camera having an image sensor, which carries out the identical
function with the same structure as the "second recording device," and which is
recording device manager).
g.
Limitation 1[G] "wherein said at least one

communication signal to the second recording device
event." (Ex.1001, Claim 1; Ex.1003, 80).
As set forth in Section VIII(A)(2)(b) above, the structure of the recording

device manager includes a "transmitter." With regard to Fig.2 (below with
annotations), Vasavada discloses that the central control station 210 (i.e., recording
device manager) transmits a signal 204 (i.e., second communication signal) to the
second radio unit 104 (i.e., a second recording device) over a communications
network, such as cellular or WiFi, instructing the second radio unit 104 to begin
recording data related to the event. (Ex.1010, 2:31-46; Fig.2; Ex.1003, 215). In
order to transmit a signal, such as signal 204, over these networks, the central
- 38 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
control station includes a transmitter as disclosed in the '292 Patent. (Ex.1003,
153-156).
As depicted in the flow chart of Fig.4 (below with annotations), "the central
control station creates a new talkgroup, which may also be referred to as a work
group at 420. ... The video stream, the sensor data (if applicable) along with audio
is sent to the talkgroup at 422." (Ex.1010 5:46-52, Fig.4).
As a result of receiving the video stream, sensor data and audio, the radios in
the talkgroup (i.e., second recording devices) "activate their own cameras and
transmit video-data streams [i.e., second set of record data] to the central control
station." (Ex.1010, 5:51-60; Fig.4, block 428). This is said to allow "various
vantage points to be viewed as the radios of the talkgroup approach the incident
- 39 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
scene." (Ex.1010, 5:60-61). Indeed, "each of the radio units 104, 106, 108
respectively records 314, 316, 318 in-route video 324, 326, 338 as the units
approach the incident scene." (Ex.1010, 4:11-13; Fig.3).
Therefore, Vasavada's central control station includes a transmitter that transmits a

second communication signal to the second radio unit. The second communication
signal instructs the second radio unit's camera to begin recording.
- 40 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
h.
Limitation 1[H] "wherein the second recording

device includes a second input for receiving the
second set of record data, and wherein the received
second set of record data is recorded on a second
computer-readable medium associated with the
second recording device." (Ex.1001, Claim 1; Ex.1003,
80).
The cameras of Vasavada (e.g., 102) are described as having similar

functionality amongst the radios in the talkgroup (e.g., Ex.1010, 3:9-19).
Accordingly, the analysis of limitation 1[H] is almost identical to that of limitation
1[E] above. If camera 102 of Vasavada is the claimed "first recording device" then
any of cameras 104, 106, and/or 108 teach the "second recording device."
(Ex.1003, 228).
As set forth above in Sections VIII(A)(2)(c) and VIII(A)(2)(f), the structure
of the "second recording device" is a second radio unit comprising a camera that
includes an input, such as a sensor, through which information is received into the
device. (Ex.1010, 2:40-42), and the radio unit of Fig.5 has an accessory 504 for
recording audio and video of the event. (Ex.1010, 6:13-17). The second radio unit's
camera records video of the event via the input, such as a lens and image sensor,
through which the record data of an event is received or delivered into a radio unit.
(Ex.1003, 218-222).
Regarding the second requirement of limitation 1[H], Vasavada also
discloses that the record data received by the image sensor of the second radio
- 41 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
unit's camera can be stored on an associated computer readable medium. (Ex.1010,
4:42-56, 8:53-63, Ex.1003, 224-227).
Similar to the discussion set forth with regard to analogous limitation 1[E], if
Vasavada were construed as not explicitly teaching that the second set of record
data is actually recorded on a second computer-readable medium associated with
the second recording device, a POSITA would have found it obvious to use the
provided memory elements of the radio unit 502 to record data generated by the
radio unit, including data related to video or audio. Vasavada provides several
functionalities of the disclosed system that would utilize data recorded on the
radio, including the ability to capture and share recorded video (Ex.1010, 4:52-54)
and for future analytics (Ex.1010, 5:4-10) of video from the talkgroup. (Ex.1003,
228). Without local recording on each radio, if a member of the talkgroup were
out of range of the communication system 100 (e.g., out of range of the
communication tower 150) then data from that radio would not be preserved
without local recording on the radio.
Therefore, each aspect of Limitation 1[H] is either explicitly taught or
obvious in view of the second recording device of Vasavada.
- 42 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
i.
Limitation 1[I] "wherein the first recording device

is different from the second recording device, such
that the first set of record data recorded by the first
recording device is different than the second set of
record data recorded by the second recording
device." (Ex.1001, Claim 1; Ex.1003, 80).
In comparing Fig.2 above with Fig.3 (below with annotations), Vasavada

discloses that the first radio unit 102 (i.e., the first recording device) and the second
radio unit 104 (i.e., the second recording device) are different units, and that the
first set of record data (depicted, e.g., as reference 222 in Fig.2 above) is different
than the second set of record data (depicted, e.g., as reference 324 in Fig.3 below).
(Ex.1010, 4:1-27, Figs.2, 3; Ex.1003, 230). This allows various vantage points of
the event to be recorded and stored for access at a later date for evidentiary
reasons. (Ex.1010, 5:60-63, 7:15-19, Figs.2, 3).
Vasavada, Fig.3 (partial with annotations)
- 43 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Therefore, Vasavada discloses that the first and second radio units are
different devices, and that video recorded by the first radio unit is different from
the video recorded by the second radio unit.
- 44 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
j.
Limitation 1[J] "wherein the second communication

signal is transmitted to the second recording device in
response to the at least one receiver of the recording
device manager receiving the first communication
signal from the first recording device indicating the
first recording device has received said instruction
initiated by the first law enforcement officer to
record, such that the recording device manager
insures the first recording device records the first set
of record data using the first input, and the second
recording device records the second set of record data
using the second input." (Ex.1001, Claim 1; Ex.1003,
80).
- 45 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
In relation to Fig.4 (above with annotations), Vasavada discloses that an
emergency alert trigger instructing the first radio unit (i.e., first recording device)
to record can be initiated by a law enforcement officer via the officer's intentional
acts, such as a voice command. (Ex.1010, 2:62-67; Ex.1003, 179). If an
emergency alert to record is triggered, the camera of the first radio unit (i.e., the
first recording device) records video of the event. (Ex.1010, 5:31-39). According to
Vasavada, "the radio proceeds to enable video streaming at 414. The camera,
which may be in the radio (coupled to the vehicular or handheld portable) or part
of an accessory coupled to the radio, is turned on and begins recording." (Ex.1010,
5:36-39). Thereafter, "(t)he recorded video is transmitted to the central control
station at 418." (Ex.1010, 5:39-41).
Still referring to annotated Fig.4 above, the central control station (i.e., the
recording device manager) receives the recorded video and embedded information
and automatically creates a talkgroup (a select number of second recording
devices). (Ex.1010, Fig.4 (block 420), 5:46-50). Next, according to Vasavada,
"(t)he video stream, the sensor data (if applicable) along with audio is sent to the
talkgroup at 422" and "(t)he radios within the talkgroup start viewing the streamed
video at 424." (Ex.1010, 5:51-53). Thus, transmission of the video stream (with
signal 204 in Fig.2) to the second radio unit 104 occurs in response to reception of
- 46 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
first communication signal 202 from the first radio unit 102. (Ex.1010, Fig.2;
Ex.1003, 234).
In addition to viewing the streamed video from the central control station,
the radios in the talkgroup (i.e., second recording device) "activate their own
cameras and transmit video-data streams [i.e., second set of record data] to the
central control station." (Ex.1010, 5:58-61, Fig.4 (block 428)). This is said to allow
"various vantage points to be viewed as the radios of the talkgroup approach the
incident scene." (Ex.1010, 5:60-61). Indeed, "each of the radio units 104, 106, 108
respectively records 314, 316, 318 in-route video 324, 326, 338 as the units
approach the incident scene." (Ex.1010, 4:11-13; Fig.3). Thus, the signal 204 is a
second communication signal instructing the second recording device to record.
(Ex.1003, 233).
Vasavada also insures that both the first and second radio units are recording
by transmitting the second communication signal in response to receiving the first
communication signal. (Ex.1010, Fig.2, Ex.1003, 232-235). Transmission of the
video stream (with signal 204 in Fig.2) to the second radio unit 104 occurs in
response to reception of the record triggered signal (signal 202) from the first radio
unit 102. (Ex.1010, Fig.2, Ex.1003, 232-235).
In addition to insuring that the second radio units are recording by
transmitting the second communication signal, Vasavada further teaches insuring
- 47 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
based on the general concept of establishing a talkgroup, which requires 2-way
communication between the second radio units and the central control station to
establish the talkgroup. (Ex.1010, 5:58-61, Fig.4 (block 420)). Then, when the
talkgroup is activated by first radio unit via the central control station, Vasavada
further insures the second radio units are recording by actively receiving the
recordings back from the second radio units and retransmitting to the talkgroup to
provide "various vantage points" of the incident scene. (Ex.1010, 5:58-64, Fig.4
(block 428)).
k.
Limitation 1[K] "wherein one of the first recording

device and the second recording device is configured
to be mounted on or carried by one of the first law
enforcement officer and a second law enforcement
officer" (Ex.1001, Claim 1; Ex.1003, 80).
Vasavada discloses that both the first recording device (first radio unit 102
with camera) and the second recording device (second radio unit 104 with camera)
can be mounted on or carried by an officer. (Ex.1010, Figs.2, 5; Ex.1003,
237-238). Indeed, Vasavada explains that "(w)hile FIGS. 1, 2, and 3 have shown
vehicular radio units, the embodiments of the invention apply to video capable
wearable devices" and "(i)n Fig.1, the radio units are represented as vehicular radio
units, however handheld radio units having visual recording capabilities may also
be utilized." (Ex.1010, 4:57-60, 2:54-56, emphasis added). Moreover, Vasavada
explains that (t)he remote speaker microphone 504 is typically worn at the users
- 48 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
lapel/shoulder making it ideal for the camera 506 to record video events or changes
occurring at an incident scene and/or events surrounding the user, which in many
cases involve a police officer. (Ex.1010, 6:42-46).
3.
Independent Claim 18 Is Obvious in View of Vasavada.

a.
Limitation 18[A] Preamble.
The preamble of Claim 18 recites "managing multiple recording devices."

(Ex.1001, Claim 18; Ex.1003, 83). The only difference between the preamble of
Claim 18 and the preamble of Claim 1 is that Claim 1 is a system claim while
Claim 18 is a computer readable medium claim. Claim type aside, there is no
substantive difference in the preambles. Thus, for the same reasons set forth in
Section VIII(A)(2)(a) regarding limitation 1[A], Vasavada discloses limitation
18[A] of Claim 18.
Any differences that may be present between the preambles are disclosed in
Vasavada. For example, Vasavada discloses that the central control station
(disclosed above in Section VIII(A)(2)(b) as performing the function of the
recording device manager), includes "a computer-readable storage medium having
computer readable code stored thereon for programming a computer (e.g.,
comprising a processor) to perform a method as described and claimed herein."
(Ex.1003, 242-244).
- 49 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
b.
Limitation 18[B] receive, by the recording device

manager.
Limitation 18[B] requires the step of "receive, by a recording device

manager, a first communication signal from a first recording device indicating the
first has received an instruction initiated by a first law enforcement officer to
record a first set of record data related to an event." (Ex.1001, Claim 18; Ex.1003,
83). Vasavada discloses limitation 18[B].
As set forth above in Section VIII(A)(2)(d), Vasavada discloses that an
emergency alert instructing the first radio unit 104 (i.e., first recording device) to
record can be initiated by a law enforcement officer via the officer's intentional
acts, such as a voice command. (Ex.1010, 2:62-67; Ex.1003, 179-180). According
to Vasavada, this alert trigger "enables automatic video recording by the radio
unit" of "incident events 222 occurring at the scene." (Ex.1010, 3:9-15, 3:59-61;
Fig.2). Once recorded, "(t)he recorded video is transmitted to the central control
station at 418." (Ex.1010, 5:39-41).
Further set forth above in Section VIII(A)(2)(d), the central control station
(i.e., the recording device manager) receives the recorded video and embedded
information with "signal 202" from the first radio unit. (Ex.1010, 5:46-50).
Thus, the central control station's processor, executing program instructions
or code on a computer readable medium, receives the first communication signal,
- 50 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
such as signal 202, from a first recording device. (Ex.1003, 185). The first
communication signal, such as signal 202, indicates that the first recording device
has received an instruction initiated by a first law enforcement officer to record a
first set of record data related to an event. (Ex.1003, 185).
c.
Limitation 18[C] wherein the first recording device.
Limitation 18[C] is identical to Limitation 1[E] of Claim 1. (Ex.1001, Claim

18; Ex.1003, 83). See analysis of claim limitation 1[E].
d.
Limitation 18[D] transmit, by the recording device

manager.
Limitation 18[D] requires the step of "transmit, by the recording device

manager, a second communication signal to a second recording device instructing
the second recording device to begin recording a second set of record data related
to the event." (Ex.1001, Claim 18; Ex.1003, 83).
As set forth above in Section VIII(A)(2)(g), Vasavada discloses that the
central control station (i.e., recording device manager) transmits a signal 204 (i.e.,
second communication signal) to the second radio unit 104 (i.e., a second
recording device) over a communications network, such as cellular or WiFi,
instructing the second radio unit to begin recording data related to the event.
(Ex.1010, 2:28-46, Fig.2; Ex.1003, 214-216).
- 51 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
As depicted in the flow chart of Fig.4, "the central control station creates a
new talkgroup, which may also be referred to as a work group at 420 .... The video
stream, the sensor data (if applicable) along with audio is sent to the talkgroup
at 422." (Ex.1010, 5:46-61, Fig.4). As a result of receiving the video stream, sensor
data and audio, the radios in the talkgroup (which includes the second recording
device) "activate their own cameras and transmit video-data streams [i.e., second
set of record data] to the central control station." (Ex.1010, 5:51-61, Fig.4 (block
428)). This allows "various vantage points to be viewed as the radios of the
talkgroup approach the incident scene." (Ex.1010, 5:60-61). Each of the radio units
(104, etc.) respectively records (314, etc.) in-route video (324, etc.) as the units
approach the incident scene. (Ex.1010, 4:1-27, Fig.3).
or code on the computer readable medium, transmits the second communication
signal, such as signal 204, to the second recording device. (Ex.1003, 214-216).
The second communication signal, such as signal 204, instructs the second
recording device to begin recording. (Id).
e.
Limitation 18[E] wherein the second recording

device.
Limitation 18[E] is identical to Limitation 1[H] of Claim 1. (Ex.1001, Claim

18; Ex.1003, 83). See analysis of claim limitation 1[H].
- 52 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
f.
Limitation 18[F] first recording device is different.
Limitation 18[F] is identical to Limitation 1[I] of Claim 1. (Ex.1001, Claim

18; Ex.1003, 83). See analysis of claim limitation 1[I].
g.
Limitation
18[G]
communication signal.
wherein
the
second
Limitation 18[G] is nearly identical to Limitation 1[J] of Claim 1, aside from

minor grammatical differences. (Ex.1001, Claim 18; Ex.1003, 83). See analysis of
claim limitation 1[J].
h.
Limitation 18[H] wherein one of the first recording

device.
Limitation 18[H] is identical to Limitation 1[K] of Claim 1. (Ex.1001, Claim

18; Ex.1003, 83). See analysis of claim limitation 1[K].
4.

a.
The preamble of Claim 36 is identical to the preamble of Claim 1. (Ex.1001,

Claim 36; Ex.1003, 90). For the same reasons set forth in Section VIII(A)(2)(a)
regarding limitation 1[A], Vasavada discloses the preamble of Claim 36.
b.
Limitation 36[B] a recording device manager.
Limitation 36[B] is identical to Limitation 1[B] of Claim 1. (Ex.1001, Claim

36; Ex.1003, 90). See analysis of claim limitation 1[B].
- 53 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
c.
Limitation 36[C] a first recording device.
Limitation 36[C] is identical to Limitation 1[C] of Claim 1. (Ex.1001, Claim

36; Ex.1003, 90). See analysis of claim limitation 1[C].
d.
Limitation 36[D] wherein said at least one receiver.
Limitation 36[D] is almost identical to Limitation 1[D] of Claim 1.

(Ex.1001, Claim 36; Ex.1003, 90). The primary difference is that 36[D] recites "a
first communication signal from the first recording device indicating the first
recording device has begun recording, in response to a triggering event, a first set
of record data related to an event." (Ex.1001, Claim 36; Ex.1003, 90). See
analysis of claim limitation 1[D]. In particular, as described above in Section
VIII(A)(2)(d), Vasavada discloses that the first radio unit begins to record the first
set of record data related to an event in response to a triggering event, such as a
voice command or a gun drawn from a holster. (Ex.1010, 2:62-67, 4:1-9).
e.
Limitation 36[E] wherein said triggering event.
Limitation 36[E] requires "wherein said triggering event is selected from the
group consisting of an instruction initiated by a first law enforcement officer for
the first recording device to record; an activation, by the first law enforcement
officer, of a data recording device communicatively coupled with the recording
device manager; activation of a law enforcement vehicle's siren; activation of said
- 54 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
law enforcement vehicle's signal lights; activation of said law enforcement
vehicle's spotlight; and a vehicle crash event." (Ex.1001, Claim 1; Ex.1003, 90).
As set forth above in Section VIII(A)(2)(d), Vasavada discloses that the first
radio unit 102 (i.e., first recording device) can be triggered to record by voice
commands, which can be considered instructions initiated by a first law
enforcement officer to record. (See also, Ex.1003, 281).
f.
Limitation 36[F] wherein the first recording device.
Limitation 36[F] is identical to Limitation 1[E] of Claim 1. (Ex.1001, Claim

g.
Limitation 36[G] a second recording device.
Limitation 36[G] is identical to Limitation 1[F] of Claim 1. (Ex.1001, Claim

36; Ex.1003, 90). See analysis of claim limitation 1[F].
h.
Limitation 36[H] wherein said at least one

transmitter.
Limitation 36[H] is identical to Limitation 1[G] of Claim 1. (Ex.1001, Claim

36; Ex.1003, 90). See analysis of claim limitation 1[G].
i.
Limitation 36[I] wherein the second recording

device.
Limitation 36[I] is identical to Limitation 1[H] of Claim 1. (Ex.1001, Claim

- 55 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
j.
Limitation 36[J] wherein the first recording device

is different.
Limitation 36[J] is identical to Limitation 1[I] of Claim 1. (Ex.1001, Claim

k.
Limitation
36[K]
wherein
the
second
Limitation 36[K] is almost identical to Limitation 1[J] of Claim 1. (Ex.1001,

Claim 36; Ex.1003, 90). The primary difference is that 36[K] recites "the first
recording device has begun recording in response to said triggering event."
(Ex.1001, Claim 36). See analysis of claim limitation 1[J].
In particular, as set forth above in Section VIII(A)(2)(j), Vasavada discloses
that the first radio unit begins recording in response to a triggering event, such as
voice commands or drawing a gun from a holster. (Ex.1010, 2:62-67, 4:1-149).
l.
Limitation 36[L] wherein one of the first recording

device.
Limitation 36[L] is identical to Limitation 1[K] of Claim 1. (Ex.1001, Claim

5.

a.
The preamble of Claim 48 recites "managing multiple recording devices."

(Ex.1001, Claim 1; Ex.1003, 96). The only difference between the preamble of
Claim 48 and Claim 1 is that Claim 1 is a system claim while Claim 48 is a
- 56 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
computer readable medium claim. Claim type aside, there is no substantive
difference in the preambles. Thus, for the same reasons set forth in Section
VIII(A)(2)(a) regarding limitation 1[A], Vasavada discloses limitation 48[A].
As set forth above in Section VIII(A)(2)(a), any differences that may be
present between the preambles are disclosed in Vasavada. For example, Vasavada
discloses that the central control station (disclosed above in Section VIII(A)(2)(b)
as performing the function of the recording device manager), includes "a
computer-readable storage medium having computer readable code stored thereon
for programming a computer (e. g., comprising a processor) to perform a method
as described and claimed herein." (Ex.1003, 242-244).
b.
Limitation 48[B] receive, by a recording device

manager.
Limitation 48[B] is almost identical to Claim 18[B]. (Ex.1001, Claim 48;

Ex.1003, 96). The only difference is a "triggering event."
As set forth above in Section VIII(A)(2)(d), Vasavada discloses that an
emergency alert trigger instructing the first radio unit 104 (i.e., first recording
device) to record can be initiated by a law enforcement officer via the officer's
intentional acts, such as a voice command or a gun being drawn from a holster.
(Ex.1010, 2:62-67). According to Vasavada, these alert triggers "enable[]
automatic video recording by the radio unit" of "incident events 222 occurring at
- 57 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
the scene." (Ex.1010, 3:9-15, 3:59-61; Fig.2). Once recorded, "(t)he recorded video
is transmitted to the central control station at 418." (Ex.1010, 5:39-41).
Further set forth above in Section VIII(A)(2)(d), the central control station
(i.e., the recording device manager) receives the recorded video and embedded
information with "signal 202" from the first radio unit. (Ex.1010, 5:46-50).
or code on the computer readable medium, receives the first communication signal,
such as signal 202, from a first recording device. (Ex.1003, 185, 310). The first
communication signal, such as signal 202, indicates that the first recording device
has received an instruction initiated by a first law enforcement officer to record a
first set of record data related to an event. (Ex.1003, 185, 310).
c.
Limitation 48[C] wherein said triggering event.
Limitation 48[C] is identical to Limitation 36[E] of Claim 36. (Ex.1001,

Claim 48; Ex.1003, 96). See analysis of claim limitation 36[E].
d.
Limitation 48[D] wherein the first recording device.
Limitation 48[D] is identical to Limitation 1[E] of Claim 1. (Ex.1001, Claim

- 58 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
e.
Limitation 48[E] transmit, by the recording device

manager.
Limitation 48[E] is identical to Limitation 18[D] of Claim 18. (Ex.1001,

Claim 48; Ex.1003, 96). See analysis of claim limitation 18[D].
f.
Limitation 48[F] wherein the second recording

device.
Limitation 48[F] is identical to Limitation 1[H] of Claim 1. (Ex.1001, Claim

g.
Limitation 48[G] wherein the first recording device

is different.
Limitation 48[G] is identical to Limitation 1[I] of Claim 1. (Ex.1001, Claim

h.
Limitation
48[H]
wherein
the
second
Limitation 48[H] is nearly identical to Limitation 36[K] of Claim 36, except

that Limitation 48[H] does not recite "the at least one receiver." (Ex.1001, Claim
i.
Limitation 48[I] wherein one of the first recording

device.
Limitation 48[I] is identical to Limitation 1[K] of Claim 1. (Ex.1001, Claim

- 59 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
6.
Dependent Claims 8, 20, 42, and 54 Are Obvious in View of

Vasavada.
Vasavada also renders obvious Claims 8, 20, 42, and 54, which add to
Claims 1, 18, 36, and 48, respectively, a requirement that "wherein one of the first
set of record data and the second set of record data is selected from the group
consisting of video images, audio recordings, and metadata." (Ex.1001, Claims 8,
20, 42, 54; Ex.1003, 81, 84, 93, 99). Vasavada discloses the additional
limitations set forth in Claims 8, 20, 42, and 54.
Specifically, Vasavada discloses that the first radio unit uses a camera to
record video. (Ex.1010, 2:40-42). As such, the first set of record data is video
images recorded by the first radio unit's camera.
7.
Dependent Claims 21, 39, and 51 Are Obvious in View of

Vasavada.
Vasavada also renders obvious Claims 21, 39, and 51, which add to Claims
18, 36, and 48, respectively, a requirement that "wherein one of said first set of
record data and said second set of record data is metadata associated with the
event." (Ex.1001, Claims 21, 39, 51; Ex.1003, 85, 92, 98). Vasavada discloses
the additional limitations set forth in Claims 21, 39, and 51.
As set forth above in Section VII(F), the term "metadata" means "data
describing data, including but not limited to location data recorded, serial number
of recording device, user of recording device, time of recording, trigger prompting
- 60 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
recording of data, and number of recording devices triggered to record." Vasavada
discloses that "(p)rior to transmitting the video stream, the unique emergency ID,
radio ID, location data and time stamp are preferably embedded in the stream. This
embedded information can facilitate usage of the information at a later date for
evidentiary purposes." (Ex.1010, 5:41-45, Fig.4, block 416).
8.
Dependent Claims 28, 32, and 47 Are Obvious in View of

Vasavada.
Vasavada also renders obvious Claims 28, 32, and 47, which add to Claims
18, 1, and 36, respectively, a requirement that the first and second recording
devices are configured to be mounted on or carried by a law enforcement officer.
(Ex.1001, Claim 28, 32, 47; Ex.1003, 87, 89, 95). Vasavada discloses the
additional limitations set forth in Claims 28, 32, and 47.
As set forth in Section VIII(A)(2)(k) above, Vasavada discloses that each
radio unit can be "handheld" or a "video capable wearable device." (Ex.1003,
237-238). Indeed, Vasavada explains that "(w)hile FIGS. 1, 2, and 3 have shown
vehicular radio units, the embodiments of the invention apply to video capable
wearable devices" and "(i)n Fig.1, the radio units are represented as vehicular radio
units, however handheld radio units having visual recording capabilities may also
be utilized." (Ex.1010, 4:57-60, 2:54-56).
- 61 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Thus, both the first radio unit and the second radio unit are configured to be
mounted to or carried by a law enforcement officer.
9.
Dependent Claims 38 and 50 Are Obvious in View of

Vasavada.
Vasavada also renders obvious Claims 38 and 50, which add to Claims 36
and 48, respectively, a first requirement that "wherein said triggering event is said
activation, by the first law enforcement officer, of said data recording device
communicatively coupled with the recording device manager" and a second
requirement that "wherein data recorded by said data recording device is metadata
associated with the event." (Ex.1001, Claims 38, 50; Ex.1003, 91, 97). Vasavada
discloses the additional limitations set forth in Claims 38 and 50.
Regarding the first requirement, Vasavada discloses that the emergency alert
trigger can be a voice command, as set forth above in Section VIII(A)(2)(d). (See
also, Ex.1003, 179-180). Voice commands are a trigger by the law enforcement
officer that activates the first reporting device 102 (i.e., first recording device) to
record. (Ex.1003, 179-180).
Regarding the second requirement, Vasavada discloses that location data,
radio ID data, and time stamp data, can be embedded with the video stream, as set
forth above in Section VIII(A)(7) regarding Claims 21, 39, and 51.
- 62 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
10.
Dependent Claims 26, 30, 45 and 57 are Obvious in View of

Vasavada.
Vasavada also renders obvious Claims 26, 30, 45 and 57, which add to
Claims 18, 1, 36, and 48, respectively, a requirement that one of the first or second
recording device is "configured to be worn on a shirt of the one of the first law
enforcement officer and the second law enforcement officer." (Ex.1001, Claims 26,
30, 45, 57; Ex.1003, 86, 88, 94, 100). Vasavada discloses the additional
limitations set forth in Claims 26, 30, 45 and 57.
As described above in Section VIII(A)(2)(k) in relation to limitation 1[K],
Vasavada discloses that each radio unit may comprise a remote speaker
microphone with a camera, which is "typically worn at the users lapel/shoulder"
(Ex.1010, 6:42-46, Fig.5). When worn on the lapel/shoulder, the camera of each
radio unit is "worn on a shirt of the one of the first law enforcement officer and the
second law enforcement officer."
11.
Dependent Claim 59 Is Obvious in View of Vasavada.
Vasavada also renders obvious Claim 59, which adds to Claim 57 a

requirement that both first and second recording devices are configured to be
mounted on or carried by law enforcement officers. (Ex.1001, Claim 59; Ex.1003,
101). Vasavada discloses the additional limitation set forth in Claim 59.
- 63 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Vasavada discloses that each radio unit (i.e., first and second recording
devices) is configured to be mounted on or carried by the law enforcement officers,
as set forth above in Section VIII(A)(8) regarding Claim 28.
B.
Ground 2: Claim 12 is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. 103 as

Being Obvious Over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0274705 to
Kashiwa (Ex.1009).
Kashiwa qualifies as prior art under 102(a)(1) because it is a U.S. patent

application that published on November 29, 2007, more than one year before the
earliest effective filing date of the 292 Patent. Kashiwa was not cited during
prosecution of the '292 Patent or its reexamination proceeding.
Kashiwa is generally directed to a system for capturing an image of a subject
using a first image capturing device, and transmitting a trigger signal to another
image capturing device, which also captures an image in accordance with the
trigger signal (Ex.1009, Abstract). Kashiwa discloses many embodiments of this
system. Fig.11 (a "fourth embodiment") is reproduced below for convenience, but
the disclosure of Kashiwa incorporates many other embodiments and also suggests
many modifications of these embodiments and the interchangeability of features
between embodiments. (Ex.1009, Fig.2, 5, 8, 11, 14 and 347, 375, 390, 408, 422,
431-441, 567, 595, 618, 632, 646, 657, 675-677, 679). For example, Fig.11 depicts
still cameras, but the fourth embodiment is also described as being combinable
- 64 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
with or modifiable in view of embodiments that use video cameras. (Ex.1009,
Fig.14, 17 and 347, 375). Combining such embodiments found in a single prior
art reference does not require a leap of inventiveness. See Boston Scientific
Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
To the extent that Kashiwa's disclosed embodiments may be combined or

modified in view of one another to arrive at the claimed arrangement, such
combinations or modifications would have been obvious to a POSITA and would
yield predictable results. Such combinations or modifications would be nothing
- 65 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results and/or the [u]se of known technique[s] to improve similar
devices (methods, or products) in the same way. (KSR 550 U.S. at 417-22; MPEP
2143(A,C); See also Ex.1003, 337).
1.
Distinction from Concurrent IPR Petition.
With reference to the concurrently-filed petition for inter partes review,

Claim 12 is not addressed in the concurrent petition, nor is Kashiwa cited as a
reference.
2.
Independent Claim 12 Is Obvious in View of Kashiwa.

a.
Limitation 12[A] - "a recording device manager for

use in a multiple recording device management
system, the recording device manager comprising:"
(Ex.1001, Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82).
The system of Kashiwa includes one or more local cameras 1 and one or
more common cameras 2, which can each include a control unit and transmission
unit (Ex.1009, Fig.8, 11, 14). In operation, the local camera 1 acts as a recording
device with components related to recording (Ex.1009, Fig.8, 11, 14; Ex.1003,
345). Local camera 1 also manages data collection by other devices with its
ability to transmit the trigger signal to the common camera(s) and cause them to
record (Ex.1003, 346). For example, the local camera 1 transmits a trigger signal
- 66 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
TG to the common camera 2, causing the common camera 2 to record data
(Ex.1009, 0242-0243, 0250, 0255, 0289, 0292, 0295, 0337).
b.
Limitation 12[B] - "a controller including at least one

receiver and at least one transmitter" (Ex.1001,
Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82).
Kashiwa discloses that local camera 1 includes a local control unit 10. As
shown in Fig.11 (above), the local control unit 10 receives inputs (e.g., a signal
from shutter switch 18, metadata MTDL from metadata generating unit 21) and
transmits outputs (e.g., trigger TG and metadata MTDL to transmission unit 11,
and signals to other components of local camera 1). (Ex.1009, 0150, Fig.8, 11, 14;
Ex.1003, 349-351). Thus, the local control unit 10 is a controller that includes a
receiver and a transmitter.
c.
Limitation 12[C] "an internal clock" (Ex.1001,

Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82).
Kashiwa discloses that local camera 1 includes a metadata generating

unit 21. (Ex.1009, Fig.8, 11). Kashiwa explicitly states, "In the event that the meta
data (MTDL) includes point-in time information, it is only necessary to provide a
date and time circuit in the meta data generating unit 21." (Ex.1009, 0263;
Ex.1003, 353). The data and time circuit function as an internal clock. (Ex.1003,
352).
- 67 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
d.
Limitation 12[D] "wherein said at least one receiver

is configured to receive a first communication signal
from a first recording device indicating the first
recording device has begun recording, in response to
a triggering event, a first set of record data related to
an event" (Ex.1001, Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82).
As explained above, Kashiwa discloses that the local control unit 10 receives
inputs (e.g., a signal from shutter switch 18). (Ex.1009, Fig.8, 11, 14; Ex.1003,
349-351). Shutter switch 18 is part of a recording device that includes image
capturing unit 13, signal processing unit 14, and recording playback unit 15 with
recording media 19. (Ex.1009, Fig.8, 11, 14; Ex.1003, 357-358). To the extent
that the "first recording device" is interpreted as a means-plus-function claim
element, the aforementioned components of Kashiwa provide the corresponding
structure, or its equivalent, that performs the claimed function of "recording"
image data. (Ex.1009, 0159; Ex.1003, 355-362). If the "first recording device"
is not interpreted as a mean-plus-function claim element, the claimed recording
device is nevertheless disclosed. (Ex.1003, 363).
Local control unit 10 causes recording of image data by image capturing
unit 13, image-capturing signal processing unit 14, and recording media 19 based
on the received signal from the shutter switch 18. (Ex.1009, 0159). Thus, local
control unit 10 receives a signal from the shutter switch 18 indicating that
recording has begun. (Ex.1003, 358). The image data that is recorded is a first set
- 68 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
of record data of an event. (Ex.1009, Fig.9 (step F123), 12 (step F133)). The
shutter switch 18 that generates the shutter signal is activated by a user, and can be
considered a triggering event. (The description of Fig.14-15 also indicates that
video switch 22 can be activated by a user to start recording video in local camera
1, and that shutter switch 18 can be activated after local camera 1 has begun
recording.) (Ex.1009, 0325-0326, 0334-0335; Ex.1003, 359).
e.
Limitation 12[E] "wherein said at least one

communication signal to a second recording device
event" (Ex.1001, Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82).
As explained above, Kashiwa discloses a local control unit 10 that transmits

output signals (e.g., trigger TG, ID, and metadata MTDL to transmission unit 11).
Kashiwa also discloses a second recording device in the form of common
camera 2. (Ex.1009, Fig.8, 11, 14; Ex.1003, 369). The common camera 2
functions to record image data using image capturing unit 31, an image-capturing
signal processing unit 32, and a recording playback unit 33 with recording media
36. (Ex.1009, Fig.8, 11, 14). Thus, Kashiwa discloses the corresponding structure
of a second "recording device," or its equivalent, that performs the claimed
function of "recording" image data. (Ex.1009, Fig.8, 11, 14; Ex.1003, 367-373).
- 69 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Otherwise, the claimed recording device is disclosed by common camera 2.
(Ex.1003, 374).
The local control unit 10 transmits a trigger signal TG to the common
camera 2, causing the common camera 2 to record image data, which is a second
set of record data of an event. (Ex.1009, 0242-0243, 0250, 0255, 0289, 0292,
0295, 0337).
f.
Limitation
12[F]
"wherein
the
second
receiver receiving the first communication signal
recording device has begun recording in response to
said triggering event, such that the recording device
manager insures the first and second recording
devices both record the event" (Ex.1001, Claim 12;
Ex.1003, 82).
Kashiwa discloses in Fig.8, 9, 11, and 12 that the local control unit 10, in
response to receiving the first recording device's shutter signal, also outputs (F122,
F132) trigger signal TG with an ID and metadata MTDL for transmission to the
common camera 2. The signal TG causes the common camera 2 to record image
data with the ID data and metadata. (Ex.1009, Fig.9 (F221-F224), 12 (F231F234)). In this way, applying the Patent Owners interpretation that one need only
transmit a second communication signal to the second recording device instructing
the second recording device to record to make certain or sure, as described in
- 70 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Section VIII(E), the local control unit 10 ensures that common camera 2 also
records the event, along with the first recording device in local camera 1. (The
recording of the first recording device in local camera 1 is described above with
reference to limitation 12[D]; the recording of common camera 2 is described
above with reference to limitation 12[E]) (Ex.1003, 376).
g.
Limitation 12[G] "wherein said controller is

configured to obtain a time reading from the internal
clock and create a time stamp corresponding to the
time reading" (Ex.1001, Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82).
Kashiwa discloses an internal clock in metadata generating unit 21. Indeed,

Kashiwa explicitly states, "[i]n the event that the meta data (MTDL) includes
point-in time information, it is only necessary to provide a date and time circuit in
the meta data generating unit 21." (Ex.1009, 0263). Kashiwa discloses (e.g., in
Fig.11 above) that local control unit 10 obtains metadata MTDL (which, as
explained above, may include time information) from the metadata generating unit
21. (Ex.1009, Fig.8, 11). This time information is a time stamp. (Ex.1003, 378).
h.
Limitation 12[H] "wherein said at least one

transmitter is configured to transmit a first time
stamp to the first recording device corresponding to a
specific time reading for a first item of recorded data"
(Ex.1001, Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82).
It is unclear whether "a first item of recorded data" is related to the "first set
of recorded data" in limitation 12[D] above. Regardless of how "a first item of
- 71 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
recorded data" is construed, Kashiwa discloses that local control unit 10 transmits
output signals, including signals to control operation of other components of local
camera 1 related to recording. (Ex.1009, 0150-0151, 0159; Ex.1003, 350).
Kashiwa also discloses (e.g., in Fig.11 above) that the local control unit 10 may
transmit metadata MTDL (e.g., a time stamp) to the recording playback unit 15 and
recording media 19 of the first recording device, where it is associated with local
image VL and recorded. (Ex.1009, 0284, 0296, and Fig.11-12 (F133); Ex.1003,
378).
i.
Limitation 12[I] "wherein said at least one

transmitter is configured to transmit a second time
stamp to the second recording device corresponding
to said specific time reading for a second item of
recorded data" (Ex.1001, Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82).
It is unclear whether "a second item of recorded data" is related to the

"second set of recorded data" in limitation 12[E] above. Regardless of how "a first
item of recorded data" is construed, Kashiwa discloses that local control unit 10
may transmit the same metadata MTDL (e.g., the same time stamp) to common
camera 2. (Ex.1009, Fig.8, 9 (F122, F221-F222), 11, 12 (F132, F231-F232)). The
metadata MTDL transmitted to common camera 2 may be associated with common
image VC and recorded. (Ex.1009, 0282, 0305, 0313, and Fig.8, 10-11, 13;
Ex.1003, 381).
- 72 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
j.
Limitation 12[J] "wherein said first and second

items of recorded data occurred at the same time"
(Ex.1001, Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82).
It is unclear what it means for "said first and second items of recorded data"
to have "occurred at the same time." Nevertheless, however the term "occurred at
the same time" is construed, Kashiwa discloses transmitting a trigger signal for
instructing recording by a second device "at the same timing" or within the same
time frame or "time zone" as a first device, and that the recorded data (e.g., image
or video) records the same event (e.g., at different angles simultaneously).
(Ex.1009, 0013, 0044-46, 0192, 0195). Further, Kashiwa discloses storing
matching time stamps on a common image VC and local image VL so that they
can be correlated. (Ex.1003, 382-383). In sum, Kashiwa discloses first and
second items of recorded data that occurred at the same time.
k.
Limitation 12[K] "wherein as a result of the first

and second time stamps each identifying said specific
time reading, said first item of recorded data
recorded by the first recording device has the same
time stamp as said second item of recorded data
recorded by the second recording device to correlate
the respective particular items of recorded data
between the first and second recording devices."
(Ex.1001, Claim 12; Ex.1003, 82).
Kashiwa discloses (e.g., in Fig.11, above) that local control unit 10 may
transmit metadata MTDL (e.g., a time stamp) to recording playback unit 15 with
recording media 19, where it is associated with local image VL and recorded.
- 73 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
(Ex.1009, 0284, 0296, Fig.11-12 (F133)). Kashiwa also discloses that the
metadata MTDL transmitted to common camera 2 may be associated with common
image VC and recorded. (Ex.1009, 0282, 0305, 0313, Fig.8, 10, 11, 13). Since
the time stamps MTDL match, the first and second items of recorded data can be
correlated. (Ex.1009, 0305; Ex.1003, 385).
IX.
CONCLUSION.
In light of the showing provided in this Petition, Petitioner requests inter
partes review of the 292 Patent be instituted on Claims 1, 8, 12, 18, 20-21, 26, 28,
30, 32, 36, 38-39, 42, 45, 47-48, 50-51, 54, 57, and 59.
Dated this 1st day of December, 2016.
CHRISTENSEN O'CONNOR
JOHNSON KINDNESS PLLC
/Brandon C. Stallman/
Brandon C. Stallman, Reg. No. 46,468
L. Rhys Lawson, Reg. No. 57,869
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98101-2347
Telephone: 206.682.8100
Fax: 206.224.0779
E-mail: brandon.stallman@cojk.com,
litdoc@cojk.com
Attorneys for Petitioner TASER International,
Inc.
- 74 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
X.
APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS.
Ex.1001
U.S. Patent No. 8,781,292, with Reexamination Certificate

("'292 Patent")
Ex.1002
U.S. Patent No. 9,253,452 ("'452 Patent")
Ex.1003
Declaration of Dr. Henry Houh
Ex.1004
Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Henry Houh
Ex.1005
Original File History of the '292 Patent
Ex.1006
Reexamination File History of the '292 Patent
Ex.1007
Patent Owner's Complaint in Digital Ally, Inc. v. TASER

International, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02032-CM-JPO ("Kansas
Litigation")
Ex.1008
Patent Owner's Complaint in Digital Ally, Inc. v. Enforcement

Video, LLC d/b/a/ Watchguard Video, Case No. 2:16-cv-02349JTM-JPO ("Watchguard Litigation")
Ex.1009
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0274705 (Kashiwa)
Ex.1010
U.S. Patent No. 8,805,431 ("Vasavada")
Ex.1011
Plaintiff's Opening Brief in Support of Claim Construction
Ex.1012
Defendant's Opening Brief in Support of Claim Construction
Ex.1013
Plaintiff's Reply Brief in Support of Claim Construction
Ex.1014
City of Pomona Request for Proposal (RFP) for Mobile

Video Recording System for Police Vehicles
Ex.1015
U.S. Patent No. 8,446,469 ("Blanco")
- 75 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
Ex.1016
Korean Patent Publication 1050897 ("Park"), with Certified

Translation
Ex.1017
International Association of Chiefs of Police Digital Video

System Minimum Specifications 11/21/2008
Ex.1018
US Patent Publication 2005/0101334 ("Brown")
Ex.1019
US Patent No. 6,950,122 ("Mirabile")
Ex.1020
PCT Publication WO 2004/036926 ("Pearlson")
Ex.1021
US Patent Publication 2006/0274166 ("Lee")
- 76 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
XI.
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT.

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.24, the undersigned attorney for the Petitioner,
TASER International, Inc. (TASER), declares that Sections I-III and IV(E)-IX of
this Petition, exclusive of Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. 42.8, Table of
Contents, Certificate of Service, Certificate of Word Count, and Appendix of
Exhibits has a total of 13,548 words, according to the word count tool in Microsoft
Word.
By: /Brandon C. Stallman/

Brandon C. Stallman, Reg. No. 46,468
Lead Counsel for Petitioner
- 77 -
Case IPR__________
U.S. Patent 8,781,292 C1
XII. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.6(e) and 42.105(b), the undersigned hereby
certifies that on December 1, 2016, a complete and entire copy of this Petition for
Inter Partes Review has been served via U.S. Priority Mail Express upon the
following Patent Owner of record by serving the correspondence address of record
as follows:
Erise IP, P.A.
6201 College Boulevard
Suite 300
Overland Park, KS 66211
By: /Brandon C. Stallman/

Brandon C. Stallman, Reg. No.: 46,468
Lead Counsel for Petitioner
- 78 -

Taser Vs Digital Ally IPR Challenge To '292 Patent #2

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Taser Vs Digital Ally IPR Challenge To '292 Patent #2

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R 42.8(b)). ...........................................2

Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R 42.8(b)(1)). ......................................2

Related Proceedings (37 C.F.R 42.8(b)(2)). .......................................2

Concurrent IPR Petition. .............................................................3

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

Service Information (37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(4)). .....................................3

Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. 42.10(b)). ............................................4

STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED. ...................................................4

Identification of Prior Art and Challenged Claims. ..............................4

Supporting Evidence Relied Upon For the Challenged Claims............4

Summary of Unpatentability. ................................................................5

OVERVIEW OF THE '292 PATENT. ............................................................6

Effective Filing Date of the '292 Patent. ...............................................6

State of the Art as of the '292 Priority Date. .........................................6

Summary of the '292 Patent. .................................................................9

Technical Overview of the '292 Patent. ......................................9

Claims of the '292 Patent. .........................................................11

Summary of Prosecution History. .......................................................12

Summary of Ex Parte Reexam. ...........................................................13

Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA). ...............................13

VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION. .........................................................................14

"communicatively coupled" (All Challenged Claims Except

"recording device" (All Claims). .........................................................16

input (All Claims). ...........................................................................17

"recording device manager" (Claims 1 and 36). .................................18

"insures" (All Claims). ........................................................................19

"metadata" (Claim 21, 38-39, 42, 51, 54). ..........................................20

VIII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY. .........21

Distinction from Concurrent IPR Petition. ...............................22

Independent Claim 1 is Obvious in View of Vasavada. ...........23

Limitation 1[A] "A multiple recording device

Limitation 1[B] - "a recording device manager

Limitation 1[C] - "a first recording device

Limitation 1[D] "wherein said at least one

Limitation 1[E] "wherein the first recording

Limitation 1[F] "a second recording device

Limitation 1[G] "wherein said at least one

Limitation 1[H] "wherein the second recording

Limitation 1[I] "wherein the first recording

Limitation 1[J] "wherein the second

Limitation 1[K] "wherein one of the first

Independent Claim 18 Is Obvious in View of Vasavada..........49

Limitation 18[A] Preamble..........................................49

Limitation 18[B] receive, by the recording

Limitation 18[C] wherein the first recording

Limitation 18[D] transmit, by the recording

Limitation 18[E] wherein the second recording

Limitation 18[F] first recording device is

Limitation 18[G] wherein the second

Limitation 18[H] wherein one of the first

Independent Claim 36 Is Obvious in View of Vasavada..........53

Limitation 36[A] Preamble..........................................53

Limitation 36[B] a recording device manager. ...........53

Limitation 36[C] a first recording device. ...................54

Limitation 36[D] wherein said at least one

Limitation 36[E] wherein said triggering event. .........54

Limitation 36[F] wherein the first recording

Limitation 36[G] a second recording device. ..............55

Limitation 36[H] wherein said at least one

Limitation 36[I] wherein the second recording

Limitation 36[J] wherein the first recording