Sample Charting Analysis for Unified Patents PATROLL

□ Patent 1 (Target): US8836784B2 (2010)

□ Patent 2 (Prior Art): US20100194884A1 (2010)

There are several overlapping features which may render Patent 2 as an anticipating prior art of Patent 1. Both patents involve systems designed for monitoring motor vehicles using image capture devices, such as digital cameras, and sensors for detecting exception events or unauthorized entry. Additionally, both patents describe the transmission of captured images or video to remote locations, implying a similar functionality. Patent 2 teaches a driver observation and security system that incorporates at least one sensor and interior camera module to provide real-time images of a vehicle's interior when unauthorized entry is detected. This feature is analogous to the exception event detection mechanism and image capture device outlined in Patent 1. Furthermore, Patent 2 describes a control mechanism, recording device, and transmitter for managing the camera module, storing real-time video images, and transmitting these images to a remote location, which parallels the processing system and image memory system in Patent 1. Moreover, Patent 2's location unit, which sends a signal indicating the vehicle's location upon unauthorized entry, is reminiscent of Patent 1's response to exception events, which may involve transmission of live video images or captured digital images to a central reporting service or a second device. The similarities between these two patents suggest that Patent 2's disclosure of a driver observation and security system could potentially anticipate the invention claimed in Patent 1, thereby potentially rendering Patent 1 unpatentable due to a lack of novelty.

References
1. Apex Standards Website
2. Apex Standards Pseudo Claim Charting
3. Apex Standards Pseudo Claim Construction
4. Apex Standards Domain-specific GPT, sample prompts and results
5. Apex Standards Case Study: Two Failed IPR Challenges: Samsung v Ericsson; Apple v Ericsson
6. Apex Standards Case Study: EP3167669B1 - Oppo v Nokia: Standard Documents as Prior Art & Implications for Inventive Step Assessment