Opinion ID: 210204
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sensormatic Systems Using RS-422 Protocol

Text: Certain Sensormatic CCTV systems employ an RS-422 protocol for communicating between the controller and the cameras. Elbex contends that when the systems using the RS-422 protocol are powered up, the cameras transmit an unsolicited message (i.e., a Dome Power-Up message) to the controller including the camera's address. According to Elbex, this message corresponds to the first code signal limitation of claim 1. Elbex further contends that when this unsolicited message is received by the controller, the controller sends a request-for-status command back to the camera based on the address provided with the Dome Power-Up message. This addressing, according to Elbex, meets the second code signal limitation of the claim. Sensormatic argues that its systems employing the RS-422 protocol do not infringe claim 1 because claim 1 requires operating said television camera in accordance with said control signals when said 2nd code signals coincide with a code allotted to said television cameras, '085 patent, col.8 ll.11-14, and Sensormatic's RS-422 systems do not have that functionality. According to Sensormatic, after the camera is powered on, the acknowledgement response sent from the controller to the camera does not cause any changes in the operation of the camera. We agree with Sensormatic that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that its CCTV systems employing the RS-422 protocols do not infringe as a matter of law. To the extent that the Sensormatic systems using the RS-422 protocol receive a power-on message from the cameras and acknowledge receipt of that message, the camera's command circuit does not perform the operating function required by claim 1 based on the acknowledgement of the Dome Power-Up message. Therefore, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment with respect to the Sensormatic systems using the RS-422 protocols.