UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`BROADSIGN INTERNATIONAL, LLC
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`T-REX PROPERTY AB,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,382,334
`
`___________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. 2017-00006
`___________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ZAYDOON JAWADI
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,382,334
`IPR2017-00006
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ................................................................ 1
`
`III. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 1
`
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED ........................................................................... 4
`
`V.
`
`FIELD OF THE INVENTION ....................................................................... 4
`
`A. Digital Signage ...................................................................................... 4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Person of Skill in the Art at the Time of the Invention ......................... 6
`
`Background of the Technology ............................................................. 7
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`“update said exposure list in real time with control instruction
`fields via dynamic booking of information in time for exposure
`from mediators” and “update an exposure list having control
`instruction fields, via dynamic booking of display information
`from mediators” ..................................................................................... 8
`
`VII. GROUND 1 – ALLEGED ANTICIPATION BY NAKAMURA ............... 13
`
`A. Nakamura does not disclose “update said exposure list in real time
`with control instruction fields via dynamic booking of information
`in time for exposure from mediators” or “update an exposure list
`having control instruction fields, via dynamic booking of display
`information from mediators.” ..............................................................13
`
`VIII. GROUND 2 – ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OVER NAKAMURA IN
`VIEW OF REILLY....................................................................................... 23
`
`A.
`
`The Nakamura-Reilly combination in Petitioners’ theory for
`claims 4-6, 15-17, 25-27, and 36-38 does not practice “update said
`exposure list in real time with control instruction fields via
`dynamic booking of information in time for exposure from
`mediators” or “update an exposure list having control instruction
`
`ii
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,382,334
`IPR2017-00006
`
`
`fields, via dynamic booking of display information from
`mediators.” ..........................................................................................23
`
`IX. GROUND 3 – ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OVER NAKAMURA AND
`REILLY IN FURTHER VIEW OF OHRAN ............................................... 24
`
`A.
`
`The Nakamura-Reilly-Ohran combination in Petitioners’ theory
`for claims 7, 8, 28, and 39 does not practice “update said exposure
`list in real time with control instruction fields via dynamic
`booking of information in time for exposure from mediators” or
`“update an exposure list having control instruction fields, via
`dynamic booking of display information from mediators.” ................24
`
`X. GROUND 4 – ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OVER NAKAMURA IN
`VIEW OF RAVAKY .................................................................................... 25
`
`A.
`
`The Nakamura-Ravaky combination in Petitioners’ theory for
`claims 9, 20, 30, and 41 does not practice “update said exposure
`list in real time with control instruction fields via dynamic
`booking of information in time for exposure from mediators” or
`“update an exposure list having control instruction fields, via
`dynamic booking of display information from mediators.” ................25
`
`XI. GROUND 5 – ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OVER NAKAMURA IN
`VIEW OF HOLTEY ..................................................................................... 27
`
`A.
`
`The Nakamura-Holtey combination in Petitioners’ theory for
`claims 10, 21, 31, and 42 does not practice “update said exposure
`list in real time with control instruction fields via dynamic
`booking of information in time for exposure from mediators” or
`“update an exposure list having control instruction fields, via
`dynamic booking of display information from mediators.” ................27
`
`XII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 28
`
`iii
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`I, Zaydoon Jawadi, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by T-Rex Property AB, in this action. My
`
`credentials are described in my CV, which is Exhibit 2002. I offer this report on
`
`the technology at issue in U.S. Patent No. 7,382,334 in response to the Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review, Case No. 2017-00006, filed by Petitioner BroadSign
`
`International, LLC.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked by T-Rex’s counsel to offer technical opinions
`
`relating to U.S. Patent No. 7,382,334 and the alleged prior art and arguments
`
`presented by the Petitioners and their expert. I am being compensated for my work.
`
`My compensation is not related to the outcome of this case.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
`
`3.
`
`As a result of performing the analysis described herein, and applying
`
`the standards outlined below in Section IV, I have determined that, in my opinion,
`
`none of Petitioners’ proposed Grounds 1-3 provide a basis for concluding that any
`
`of the claims of the ’334 Patent should be found invalid. My opinion is supported
`
`by the evidence in the patent specification, figures and claims, as well as the
`
`disclosures of the alleged prior art and the other documents cited below.
`
`III. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`As shown in my CV (Exhibit 2002), I have a Bachelor of Science in
`
`Electrical Engineering from Mosul University, a Master of Science in Computer
`
`
`
`1
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,382,334
`IPR2017-00006
`
`
`Science from Columbia University, and over 35 years of experience in software
`
`development, engineering, consulting, and management in the fields of computing
`
`systems, Internet, web technologies, data storage, data networking, software
`
`applications, telephony, and telecommunication.
`
`5.
`
`In 2010, I cofounded and am the President of Rate Speeches, Inc., an
`
`Internet company providing online communication rating and evaluation services.
`
`6.
`
`From 2001 to 2006, I was President and cofounder of CoAssure, Inc.,
`
`a provider of automated web-based telecommunication test services.
`
`7.
`
`From 1999 to 2001, I was CEO, Chairman, and founder of Can Do,
`
`Inc. an Internet eCommerce and community company.
`
`8.
`
`From 1992 to 1996, I was President and founder of Zadian
`
`Technologies, Inc., a supplier of data storage test systems, with over 50,000 units
`
`installed worldwide.
`
`9.
`
`In 1996, Zadian Technologies was acquired by Xyratex International
`
`LTD (NASDAQ: XRTX, which was acquired by Seagate, NASDAQ: STX, in
`
`2014). Following Zadian's acquisition by Xyratex, I became a general manager at
`
`Xyratex until 1998. At Xyratex, I was responsible for a data networking analysis
`
`tools business unit, which designed and built Gigabit Ethernet network protocol
`
`analysis and monitoring products, which were sold, under OEM agreement, by the
`
`largest network protocol analysis and monitoring products supplier.
`
`
`
`2
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,382,334
`IPR2017-00006
`
`10. Prior to 1992, I worked as a software consultant, a software engineer,
`
`and an electrical engineer.
`
`11. My experience specifically relevant to the digital signage includes
`
`being general manager of a data networking analysis tools business unit at Xyratex,
`
`1997-1998, being general manager of a manufacturing test systems division at
`
`Xyratex, 1996-1996, and being president of a manufacturing test systems supplier,
`
`Zadian Technologies, 1992-1996. The Xyratex and Zadian manufacturing test
`
`systems comprised multiple individual test units (each with an independent LCD
`
`display operated by an embedded system) connected through a network to a central
`
`control system; the central control system has the ability to control the displays of
`
`the individual test units. My experience (1984-1992) also includes designing and
`
`implementing networked individual devices (each with an independent display
`
`operated by embedded system or PC) connected through a network to central
`
`control systems that control the display of the individual devices, and includes
`
`designing and implementing database, applications, and system software as well as
`
`drivers and other software for controlling graphics and monitor displays. In
`
`addition to my technical work, my background includes being involved with direct
`
`marketing and advertising at Zadian Technologies (1992-1996), at Xyratex (1996-
`
`1998), at Can Do (1999-2001), at CoAssure (2001-2006), and at Rate Speeches
`
`(2010-present).
`
`
`
`3
`
`6
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,382,334
`IPR2017-00006
`
`
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`12.
`
`In performing my analysis, I have reviewed, among other things, the
`
`T-Rex Patent and T-Rex’s Preliminary Response in these proceedings. I have also
`
`reviewed the Petition and the declaration of Dr. Jaime G. Carbonell in support of
`
`the Petition. Additionally, I have reviewed all of the prior art cited by Petitioners
`
`in their Petition. I have reviewed the portions of the prosecution history and
`
`reexamination history of the ’334 Patent cited by Petitioners and their expert. I
`
`have also reviewed various other documents which are discussed later herein.
`
`13. For the purposes of this declaration, I have assumed the correctness of
`
`the legal standards applied by Dr. Carbonell in paragraphs 12, 13, 16 to 18, and 21
`
`to 24 of his report, and for the purposes of this declaration, have applied the same
`
`legal standards. I reserve the right to describe and rely on other legal standards in
`
`connection with any future declaration I submit in this or any other proceeding.
`
`14. For consistency and ease of review, all of my column and line
`
`citations to the patent specification are in “(column:line)” format.
`
`V.
`
`FIELD OF THE INVENTION
`
`A. Digital Signage
`
`15. Traditional out-of-home advertising (AKA outdoor advertising), such
`
`as billboards, bulletins, notice boards, posters, banners, and brochures, is being
`
`replaced with electronic signage, and, more recently, digital signage. Digital
`
`
`
`4
`
`7
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,382,334
`IPR2017-00006
`
`
`signage utilizes various digital display technologies, such as LCD, LED, computer
`
`monitors, flat screen monitors, projectors, digital television sets, overhead screens,
`
`wall-mounted screens, and other display devices. Digital signage may be used to
`
`display images, video, text, and other content to convey information, such as
`
`transportation schedules and timetables, passenger information, updates, news,
`
`weather, traffic, corporate and informational messages, warnings, etc. or for
`
`advertising. Digital signage may be deployed in airports, train stations, railway
`
`station platforms, subway stations, subway platforms, ship harbors, bus stations,
`
`hospitals, sports arenas, theaters, movie theaters, concert halls, hotels, stadiums,
`
`museums, conferences, exhibitions, assembly halls, lecture halls, conference rooms,
`
`shopping malls, retail stores, restaurants, corporate buildings, etc. Digital signage
`
`allows both digital information and digital advertising to be displayed in public
`
`infrastructures and places that are accessible to and frequented by a general public.
`
`Digital signage technology involves digital display devices, possibly with local
`
`computers or processing devices, connected through communications medium,
`
`such as dedicated cables, local area network (LAN), wide area network (WAN), or
`
`wireless. The devices may be managed remotely. Digital signage technology
`
`involves hardware and software.
`
`
`
`5
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,382,334
`IPR2017-00006
`
`
`B.
`
`16.
`
`Person of Skill in the Art at the Time of the Invention
`
`In paragraph 13 of the Carbonell Declaration, Dr. Carbonell opines
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’334 Patent at the time of
`
`its invention (a “POSITA”) “would possess at least a bachelor of science degree in
`
`electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent degree or experience)
`
`with practical experience or coursework in the design or development of systems
`
`for display control in a networked environment.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 13.
`
`17. For the purposes of this declaration, I have assumed the correctness of
`
`the scope of a POSITA in the field of the ’334 Patent at the time of its invention
`
`applied by Dr. Carbonell in paragraph 13 of his report. I reserve the right to
`
`describe and rely on a different scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`field of the ’334 Patent at the time of its invention in connection with any future
`
`declaration I submit in this or any other proceeding.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that my qualifications and experience exceed those of a
`
`POSITA as defined by Dr. Carbonell in paragraph 13 of his report. Nevertheless,
`
`my analysis and opinions in this declaration about the ’334 Patent are based on the
`
`perspectives of a POSITA as of April 1996 as defined by Dr. Carbonell in
`
`paragraph 13 of his report.
`
`
`
`6
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,382,334
`IPR2017-00006
`
`
`C. Background of the Technology
`
`19. The specification of the ’334 Patent describes a number of related but
`
`distinct technologies; however, the ’334 Patent is primarily directed to a digital
`
`information system that dynamically controls and coordinates remote digital
`
`signage displays using information provided by external information mediators.
`
`Ex. 1001 cls. 1-42. In particular, a primary concern of the ’334 Patent is the
`
`problem of how to provide a flexible system in which external information
`
`mediators are able to dynamically control the transmission of display instructions
`
`to a larger public in different places situated at any chosen distance apart through
`
`displays. Ex. 1001 at 2:56-61. For instance, the patent describes that, at the time
`
`of the invention, “information media is not coordinated, but is in the form of
`
`individual items which are controlled and updated separately, often manually.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:34-36. The patent further explains that “[a]lthough the administration of
`
`information is often processed manually with the aid of modern computer
`
`technology, the available display time will nevertheless contain “dead time”,
`
`among other things due to back-logging caused by the manual infeed process.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:48-53. The patent further explains that “present-day systems do not
`
`enable information to be updated dynamically for display in real time. Neither do
`
`present-day systems enable external mediators to update information for display in
`
`a central control system, nor yet the administrator who makes the display of
`
`
`
`7
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,382,334
`IPR2017-00006
`
`
`information available, but it is the administrator who determines when, where and
`
`how the information shall be displayed.” Ex. 1001 at 1:55-59.
`
`20. Another primary concern of the ’334 Patent is “to enable a picture,
`
`image or other information to be changed in practice as often as is desired, in real
`
`time, therewith providing direct and immediate communication.” Ex. 1001 at 3:5-
`
`8. The patent also explains that “it should be possible to update and change the
`
`information quickly.” Ex. 1001 at 2:27-28. The patent further explains that “the
`
`digital information system is able to insert a change at short notice or to operate a
`
`completely new spot.” Ex. 1001 at 10:24-25. The patent explains that this means
`
`that “[t]he system is thus highly flexible and enables quick changes to be made
`
`with regard to what shall be exposed on the exposure means, where it shall be
`
`exposed and when.” Ex. 1001 at 10:25-28.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`“update said exposure list in real time with control instruction
`fields via dynamic booking of information in time for exposure
`from mediators” and “update an exposure list having control
`instruction fields, via dynamic booking of display information
`from mediators”
`
`21. The terms “update said exposure list in real time with control
`
`instruction fields via dynamic booking of information in time for exposure from
`
`mediators” and “update an exposure list having control instruction fields, via
`
`dynamic booking of display information from mediators” are recited in claims 1,
`
`
`
`8
`
`11
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,382,334
`IPR2017-00006
`
`
`11, 22, and 32 of the ’334 Patent, and are thus a limitation directly or through
`
`dependency of all of the claims at issue in this proceeding. I understand that
`
`Petitioners and their expert have not taken a position regarding the construction of
`
`these terms. I further understand that Petitioners and their expert have taken the
`
`position that “exposure handler means” should be construed as an “an exposure
`
`handler.”
`
`22.
`
`I understand that T-Rex has proposed that the term “update said
`
`exposure list in real time with control instruction fields via dynamic booking of
`
`information in time for exposure from mediators” be construed as “update
`
`information in the exposure list containing control instruction fields when and as
`
`needed for exposure in response to information submissions from a user,” and the
`
`phrase “update an exposure list having control instruction fields, via dynamic
`
`booking of display information from mediators” be construed as “update
`
`information in an exposure list containing control instruction fields when and as
`
`needed in response to information submissions from a user.” It is my opinion that
`
`T-Rex’s construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation of these terms from
`
`the claims of the ’334 Patent, from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art informed by the specification. In particular, the evidence establishes that T-
`
`Rex’s construction is the ordinary meaning of the term at the time of the invention.
`
`23.
`
`In the fields of engineering and computer science, the concept of
`
`
`
`9
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,382,334
`IPR2017-00006
`
`
`dynamically updating is well-known. An example of dynamically updating is
`
`described in the fourth edition of the Microsoft Computer Dictionary in the
`
`definition of “dynamic HTML.” In particular, the fourth edition of the Microsoft
`
`Computer Dictionary defines “dynamic HTML” as “A technology designed to add
`
`richness, interactivity, and graphical interest to Web pages by providing those
`
`pages with the ability to change and update themselves dynamically, that is, in
`
`response to user actions, without the need for repeated downloads from a server.”
`
`Ex. 2003 at 158 (emphasis added). Dynamic HTML is a well-known umbrella
`
`term for a collection of technologies that use scripting languages to change
`
`variables used in a web page to affect the look and function of an HTML page
`
`while a user views the page. In my opinion, a person of skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention would understand the concept of updating an exposure list via
`
`dynamic booking from mediators to refer to the concept of dynamically updating
`
`an exposure list in response to booking information submitted by the mediators.
`
`24. Further support is found in the fourth edition of the Microsoft
`
`Computer Dictionary’s definition of “dynamic”: “describ[ing] some action or
`
`event that occurs when and as needed.” Ex. 2003 at 158 (emphasis added).
`
`25.
`
`In my opinion, T-Rex’s construction is also consistent with the plain
`
`and ordinary meaning of the term as a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention would understand it after reviewing the specification. In particular,
`
`
`
`10
`
`13
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,382,334
`IPR2017-00006
`
`
`the specification teaches that “it should be possible to update and change the
`
`information quickly.” Ex. 1001 at 2:27-28. The specification describes the
`
`ramifications of not updating via dynamic booking, stating that “the displays on
`
`which information is presented will often become static, for instance show the time
`
`of the next display or show a pause picture, i.e. dead time. This becomes nerve-
`
`wracking to travelers , who often wait for long periods in waiting halls or stand on
`
`platforms.” Ex. 1001 at 2:29-34. The specification further explains that one object
`
`of the invention is “to enable a picture, image or other information to be changed
`
`in practice as often as is desired, in real time, therewith providing direct and
`
`immediate communication.” Ex. 1001 at 3:5-8. The specification further explains
`
`that “an external information mediator 24 is able to put through information to the
`
`system 12 twenty-four hours a day, whereupon the information can be included
`
`instantaneously in the exposure list.” Ex. 1001 at 6:59-62. The specification also
`
`explains that “the digital information system is able to insert a change at short
`
`notice or to operate a completely different spot. The system is thus highly flexible
`
`and enables quick changes to be made with regard to what shall be exposed on the
`
`exposure means, where it shall be exposed and when.” Ex. 1001 at 10:24-28. It is
`
`my opinion that a POSITA at the time of the invention would understand these
`
`disclosures to mean that the invention includes the ability to update the list of
`
`exposures as needed based on input from the user or mediator.
`
`
`
`11
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,382,334
`IPR2017-00006
`
`26. The specification also provides an alternative to the dynamic updating
`
`of the exposure list where “[p]ersonnel at the working stations 32 are thus able to
`
`interrupt any queue lists in the server 1 to update the exposure list,” in contrast to
`
`updating the exposure list in response to user actions. Ex. 1001 at 9:56-58.
`
`27. The specification also distinguishes “updating” from “creating.” For
`
`example, claim 1 recites “wherein the control center is able to create and update
`
`said exposure list.” Ex. 1001 cl. 1. It is my opinion that a person of skill in the art
`
`at the time of the invention would have understood claim 1 to recite “creating” and
`
`“updating” as distinct, but related, concepts.
`
`28. To the extent Petitioners’ proposed construction for “exposure handler
`
`means” is inconsistent with T-Rex’s construction for “update an exposure list
`
`having control instruction fields, via dynamic booking of display information from
`
`mediators,” I disagree with the construction proposed by Petitioners. It is my
`
`opinion that such a construction is inconsistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the “update an exposure list having control instruction fields, via
`
`dynamic booking of display information from mediators” limitation of claims 11
`
`and 32 of the ’334 Patent from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`informed by the specifications and teachings of the patent. In particular, such a
`
`construction ignores the separate use of the terms “creating” and “updating” in
`
`claim 1. Ex. 1001 cl. 1; see also ¶ 27 supra. Additionally, such a construction
`
`
`
`12
`
`15
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,382,334
`IPR2017-00006
`
`
`ignores the plain and ordinary meaning of “update an exposure list having control
`
`instruction fields, via dynamic booking of display information from mediators,” as
`
`I discuss above in paragraphs 21 through 26. See ¶¶ 21-26 supra; see also Ex.
`
`2003 at 158-59 (MS Dictionary cites); see also Ex. 1001 at 2:27-34, 3:5-8, 6:59-62,
`
`10:24-29.
`
`VII. GROUND 1 – ALLEGED ANTICIPATION BY NAKAMURA
`
`A. Nakamura does not disclose “update said exposure list in real
`time with control instruction fields via dynamic booking of
`information in time for exposure from mediators” or “update an
`exposure list having control instruction fields, via dynamic
`booking of display information from mediators.”
`
`29.
`
`In regards to proposed Ground 1, Petitioners’ theory for claims 1-3, 8,
`
`11-14, 19, 22-24, 29, 32-35, and 40 relies on Nakamura’s supposed disclosing of
`
`the limitations “update said exposure list in real time with control instruction fields
`
`via dynamic booking of information in time for exposure from mediators” and
`
`“update an exposure list having control instruction fields, via dynamic booking of
`
`display information from mediators.”1 I disagree with Petitioners’ theory for
`
`proposed Ground 1 for the following reasons.
`
`30. As described above, it is my opinion that the appropriate construction
`
`of the phrase “update said exposure list in real time with control instruction fields
`
`via dynamic booking of information in time for exposure from mediators” is
`
`
`1 For clarity, I will hereinafter refer to these two limitations collectively as “the
`updating via dynamic booking limitations.”
`13
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,382,334
`IPR2017-00006
`
`
`“update information in the exposure list containing control instruction fields when
`
`and as needed for exposure in response to information from a user,” and the
`
`appropriate construction of the phrase “update an exposure list having control
`
`instruction fields, via dynamic booking of display information from mediators” is
`
`“update information in an exposure list containing control instruction fields when
`
`and as needed in response to information from a user.”
`
`31.
`
`It is my opinion that Nakamura does not disclose the limitations
`
`“update said exposure list in real time with control instruction fields via dynamic
`
`booking of information in time for exposure from mediators” or “update an
`
`exposure list having control instruction fields, via dynamic booking of display
`
`information from mediators.” To the contrary, Nakamura does not teach updating
`
`the reservation information stored in the master station when and as needed, nor
`
`does Nakamura teach updating reservation information stored in the master station
`
`based on dynamic booking/user action.
`
`32. From my review, the Nakamura patent application does not teach
`
`updating stored reservations via dynamic booking; instead, the Nakamura patent
`
`application teaches only receiving and storing new reservations. For instance,
`
`Nakamura explains that “[w]hen the display reservations are received from an
`
`operator, the reservation periods created from the first to several orders are
`
`sequentially filled, and reservations are cut off when posting time is no longer
`
`
`
`14
`
`17
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,382,334
`IPR2017-00006
`
`
`available. If any time were to remain available, the display time 6 for individual
`
`reservations are arranged so that the posting reservation time frame T is filled with
`
`all the reservations that came in before the final reservation cut-off time. . . .” Ex.
`
`1003 at 0017. Nakamura further states that “[t]he conditions for the posting
`
`reservations and the costs are decided by sequentially limiting the location and
`
`time.” Ex. 1003, Abstract. Nakamura also describes “dividing the display
`
`reservation cut off period for the selected specific slave stations into several
`
`periods, sequentially distributing and editing the display reservations to be
`
`displayed in the same posting reservation time frame received during each of the
`
`1st to the Nth reservation periods[.]” Ex. 1003 at 0009. In my opinion, a person of
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention would understand this disclosure to mean
`
`that the system of Nakamura accepts reservations on a first-come, first-serve basis,
`
`cutting off additional reservations once the posting time is no longer available. It
`
`is further my opinion that a person of skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would not understand this disclosure to include “update an exposure list . . . via
`
`dynamic booking.”
`
`33. Petitioners allege that Nakamura discloses that external mediators can
`
`create and update exposure lists in real time with control instruction fields via
`
`dynamic booking of information in time for exposure, because Nakamura
`
`purportedly discloses an exposure list by preparing display reservation information
`
`
`
`15
`
`18
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,382,334
`IPR2017-00006
`
`that is prepared by software which assists in the selection of display data, and when
`
`display reservation is prepared for multiple reservations, the system assembles the
`
`display reservations for sequential execution in accordance with the set times. Pet.
`
`at 31. However, Nakamura does not teach or even mention assembling multiple
`
`reservations into an exposure list. Furthermore, any such purported assembling of
`
`display reservations only constitutes the creation of a list (again no list is created
`
`by Nakamura), which is distinct from updating a list. As discussed above, it is my
`
`opinion that Nakamura does not teach updating an exposure list via dynamic
`
`booking. As I explain below, none of the examples that Petitioners rely upon
`
`disclose updating an exposure list based on input from the user.
`
`34. Petitioners allege that Nakamura discloses “‘updat[ing] said exposure
`
`list’ by updating the display time information in the display reservation by
`
`adjusting the period, distributing idle time, and setting the display duration.” Pet.
`
`at 31. Petitioners rely on paragraph 10 for this disclosure, which explains that “the
`
`present invention is characterized by updating the display information of the
`
`display content posting support software by dividing the display reservation cut off
`
`period for the selected specific slave stations into several periods, sequentially
`
`distributing and editing the display reservations to be displayed in the same
`
`posting reservation time frame received during each of the 1st to the Nth
`
`reservation periods, while distributing the idle time remaining in the posting
`
`
`
`16
`
`19
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,382,334
`IPR2017-00006
`
`reservation time frame before and after each of the reserved display runtime during
`
`the reservation period to adjust for overlapping display reservations, setting the
`
`display duration for each of the display reservations by adding the idle time to
`
`the display runtime at the end of the final reservation period, and successively
`
`registering the display reservation status with the master station.” Ex. 1003 at
`
`0010 (emphasis added). It is my opinion that a person of skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention would understand this disclosure to explain that the system of
`
`Nakamura modifies the reservation information supplied at the terminal devices to
`
`adjust for overlapping reservations and idle time before registering the display
`
`reservation status with the master station, without any indication that such
`
`modification takes place in response to user action. See Ex. 1003 at 0010.
`
`Petitioners contend that this process satisfies the “via dynamic booking of
`
`information in time for exposure” limitation, because “the information in
`
`Nakamura is updated and successively registered with the master station and all of
`
`the information is done in preparation for the display reservation.” Pet. at 32.
`
`Petitioners’ explanation, however, fails to show how the editing and adjustments of
`
`the reservation periods to distribute idle time and avoid overlapping reservations is
`
`performed in response to user action. It is my opinion that a person of skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention would understand this disclosure to teach processing
`
`the reservations, or in other words, applying system prescribed house-cleaning
`
`
`
`17
`
`20
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,382,334
`IPR2017-00006
`
`
`rules to arrange the reservations to avoid overlapping reservations and to fill idle
`
`time, and that the application of such prescribed rules does not constitute updating
`
`an exposure list via dynamic booking, since they are not applied when and as
`
`needed in response to user action.
`
`35. Similarly, Petitioners allege that “the display content field itself is
`
`updated by adding display contents separately prepared by the system.” Pet. at 32.
`
`Petitioners rely on paragraph 0017 of Nakamura, which teaches, “[w]hen display
`
`reservations are received from an operator, the reservation periods created from the
`
`first to several orders are sequentially filled, and reservations