`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`BARCO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`T-REX PROPERTY AB
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,382,334
`__________________
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TRAVIS N. BLALOCK, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 1 of 53
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TRAVIS N. BLALOCK, PH.D.
`REGARDING VALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,382,334
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction and Summary of Opinions
`
`1.
`
`I, Travis N. Blalock, have been retained as a technical expert by
`
`Barco, Inc. (“Barco”) to provide my opinions and analysis in the above-captioned
`
`Inter Partes review.
`
`2.
`
`This report sets forth my opinions regarding the validity of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,382,334 titled “Digital Information System” (“the '334 patent”). If
`
`asked to do so, I anticipate testifying at a hearing based on the opinions expressed
`
`in this report.
`
`3.
`
`As explained more fully below, it is my opinion that claims 22, 32
`
`and 33 of the ‘334 patent are invalid over prior art, specifically Japanese Patent
`
`Application Heisei 07-168544 (“Nakamura”), and U.S. Patent No. 5,566,353 to
`
`Cho et al. (“Cho”).
`
`4.
`
`The information and opinions in this report are based on materials I
`
`have been provided by Barco’s counsel, including claim construction materials, the
`
`prosecution file histories, the patents and other references cited in the file history
`
`and in this filing, and various additional patents, articles, texts, and other
`
`documentation that pre-date the filing of the patent, as well as my personal
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 2 of 53
`
`
`
`knowledge and experience. Where appropriate, I have included citations that are
`
`illustrative of the points expressed, which may also be supported by numerous
`
`other references.
`
`II. Legal Understanding
` My opinions are informed by my understanding of the relevant law.
`5.
`
`I understand that the patentability analysis is conducted on a claim-by-claim basis.
`
`I also understand that a patent subject to inter partes review is not presumed to be
`
`valid.
`
`A. Claim Construction.
`
`6.
`
`I understand that in proceedings before the USPTO, the claims of an
`
`unexpired patent are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of
`
`the patent’s specification from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. I
`
`also understand that expired patents are to be construed under the Phillips standard,
`
`as used in district courts, with which I am familiar. I believe that the claim
`
`constructions applied in this declaration are correct under either standard.
`
`B. Anticipation.
`
`7.
`
`First, I understand that a single piece of prior art “anticipates” a claim
`
`if each and every element of the claim is disclosed in that prior art. I further
`
`understand that, where a claim element is not explicitly disclosed in a prior art
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 3 of 53
`
`
`
`reference, the reference may nonetheless anticipate a claim if the missing claim
`
`element is necessarily present in the apparatus or a natural result of the method
`
`disclosed—i.e., the missing element is “inherent.”
`
`C. Obviousness.
`
`8.
`
`I understand that the prior art may render a patent claim “obvious.” I
`
`understand that two or more pieces of prior art that each disclose fewer than all
`
`elements of a patent claim may nevertheless be combined to render a patent claim
`
`obvious if the combination of the prior art collectively discloses all elements of the
`
`claim and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have been motivated to
`
`combine the prior art. I understand that this motivation to combine need not be
`
`explicit in any of the prior art, but may be inferred from the knowledge of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent was filed. I also understand that one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton, but is a person having ordinary
`
`creativity. I further understand that one or more pieces of prior art that disclose
`
`fewer than all of the elements of a patent claim may render a patent claim obvious
`
`if including the missing element would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (e.g., the missing element represents only an insubstantial difference over
`
`the prior art or a reconfiguration of a known system).
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 4 of 53
`
`
`
`9.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is obvious if the differences between
`
`the subject matter claimed and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
`
`whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention. I understand that the
`
`obviousness analysis must focus on the knowledge available to one of skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention in order to avoid impermissible hindsight. I further
`
`understand that the obviousness inquiry assumes that the person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have knowledge of all relevant references available at the
`
`time of the invention.
`
`10.
`
`I also understand that the USPTO has identified exemplary rationales
`
`that may support a conclusion of obviousness, and I have considered those
`
`rationales in my analysis. The rationales include:
`
`(a) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`(b)
`
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`(c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`(d) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 5 of 53
`
`
`
`(e)
`
`“Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`(f) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`
`incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`(g)
`
`Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention;
`
`(h)
`
`Intangible realities such as common sense and ordinary ingenuity.
`
`III. Summary of My Background
`I am currently an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering in the
`11.
`
`School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at the University of Virginia and have
`
`been since 1998. I earned my Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in
`
`Electrical Engineering from the University of Tennessee in 1985 and 1988,
`
`respectively. I earned my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Auburn University
`
`in 1991, and the primary emphasis of my doctoral research was CMOS analog and
`
`digital integrated circuit design. I was full-time at the University from 1998 till
`
`2013 when I reduced my time at the University to start an entrepreneurial
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 6 of 53
`
`
`
`enterprise. I still teach and work with students at the University. A copy of my
`
`CV is also attached as Ex. 1006.
`
`12.
`
`I cofounded and built a medical device company that was acquired by
`
`Analogic, Inc. in 2013. The company was created to develop and market a
`
`handheld ultrasound imaging device. Key technical contributions included fully
`
`custom mixed-signal
`
`front-end
`
`acquisition
`
`circuits, high
`
`speed data
`
`communications, image processing, and custom image display algorithms. I have
`
`been leading the handheld R&D group for Analogic since acquisition.
`
`13.
`
`In the early 1980’s I worked as a young engineer at Technology for
`
`Energy Corp. on a nuclear data acquisition and display system. The system had an
`
`overall basic architecture similar to that presented in the ‘470, ‘334, and ‘603
`
`patents. The central control processor acquired image data from sub-systems all
`
`over the reactor, assembled and linked the data with additional graphics, and then
`
`sent the various images over communication networks for presentation at remote
`
`displays scattered all over the reactor and offsite. Users at each display site could
`
`dynamically choose and/or modify the display schedules as needed.
`
`14.
`
`From 1991 through August 1998, I worked at Hewlett Packard
`
`Laboratories, first as a Member of the Technical Staff, and then as a Principal
`
`Scientist. My work at Hewlett Packard Laboratories primarily involved design and
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 7 of 53
`
`
`
`implementation of digital and analog integrated circuits. I was the principal
`
`architect and designer of integrated circuits having a diverse range of applications,
`
`including CMOS analog signal processing integrated circuits for mass storage
`
`devices and optoelectronic image acquisition and processing integrated circuits. I
`
`also developed several custom design and high speed network management
`
`software tools.
`
`15.
`
`I have written widely in the field of electrical engineering, including
`
`several editions of a book that is used to teach principles of microelectronic circuit
`
`design to undergraduates. I have written over 43 papers, 10 of which have
`
`appeared in refereed journals.
`
`16.
`
`I have contributed to or consulted on the design, fabrication, and/or
`
`operation of integrated circuits, including microelectronic integrated circuits, for
`
`organizations such as Hewlett-Packard, NASA Langley Research Center, Agilent
`
`Technologies and Displaytech.
`
`17.
`
`I am a named inventor on at least sixteen U.S. patents and several
`
`pending patent applications. Several of these patent and patent applications relate
`
`to analog circuitry or semiconductor design.
`
`18.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness or technical consultant for
`
`the following companies: Micron Technology, Inc., Samsung, Inc., Agere, Inc.,
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 8 of 53
`
`
`
`Agilent Technologies, Inc., Intel Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Sigmatel, Inc., Sound
`
`Design Technologies, Displaytech, Inc., AMI Semiconductor, ON Semiconductor,
`
`Apple, Inc., and Analog Devices, Inc.
`
`19. My compensation for this matter is at a rate of $325 per hour with
`
`reimbursement for actual expenses. My compensation in this matter is not affected
`
`by the conclusions I reach in conducting my analysis. No part of my compensation
`
`depends upon the outcome of this matter.
`
`IV. Background and Field of the Patent
`A.
`The ‘334 Patent Overview
`20. U.S. Pat. No. 7,382,334 titled “Digital Information System” was filed
`
`on Jul. 18, 1998 and issued Jun. 3, 1998. Priority is claimed to Swedish patent
`
`application no. 9601603-5 dated Apr. 26, 1996 and U.S. application No.
`
`60/017,403, filed on May 14, 1996.
`
`Summary and Background of ‘334 Patent
`
`21. The ’334 patent is titled “Digital Information System” and describes
`
`ways to control and coordinate television sets and cameras for displaying
`
`information. Ex. 1001, 1:13–24.
`
`22.
`
`The ‘334 patent identifies several problems with conventional forms
`
`of distributed advertising at the time of the patent, noting that “[s]ystems that are
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 9 of 53
`
`
`
`
`
`used to show information in the form of advertisements, timetable messages or
`
`arrival and departure times in present-day public service infrastructures with regard
`
`to buses, trains, subway traffic, etc., are of a static nature. Such information is
`
`given on notice boards, posters, charts, tables, verbally through loudspeakers, and
`
`on digital displays, etc. A characteristic feature of such information media is that
`
`the information media is not coordinated, but is in the form of individual items
`
`which are controlled and updated separately, often manually.” Ex. 1001, 1:28-37.
`
`23. With respect to conventional display systems that utilize television
`
`set or cameras to display pictures, images, and sound, the ’334 patent notes that
`
`“[t]he display must be planned carefully beforehand, this planning often being
`
`carried out by experts within the technical field in question, so as to obtain a
`
`finished display product. For instance, when a company wishes to change its
`
`display and introduce a new picture series combined with sound, the process again
`
`becomes static by virtue of the need to employ experts to program and arrange the
`
`new display.” Ex. 1001, 2:7-14.
`
`24.
`
`The ’334 patent identifies a need to allow for updates to occur
`
`“dynamically” and to grant external persons the ability to update information for
`
`display in a central control system without additional assistance:
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 10 of 53
`
`
`
`Thus, 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 information
`available, but that it is the administrator who determines
`when, where and how the information shall be displayed.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:53-59.
`
`25. The ’334 patent identifies that one object of the invention is to
`
`“provide a flexible system in which external information mediators are able to
`
`dynamically control in real time the transmission of display instructions to a
`
`larger public in different places situated at any chosen distance apart through
`
`television sets or cameras which project information onto displays intended
`
`herefor.” Ex. 1001, 1:56-61.
`
`26. The sole figure of the ’334 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 11 of 53
`
`
`
`
`
`27. A system 10 includes a control center 12 having a communication
`
`interface 14 which connects computerized devices 16, 18, 20 which are placed at
`
`desired distances from one another for the control of television sets 40 or cameras
`
`22. Ex. 1001, 5:59-63. The control center includes working stations 32 that are
`
`used by the personnel serving the control center 12, in monitoring, checking,
`
`maintaining and updating functions in the central computer. Ex. 1001, 6:20-26. In
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 12 of 53
`
`
`
`addition, “external information mediators 24 are able to give control instructions to
`
`the television sets or cameras 22 with regard to the information that the external
`
`mediators 24 desire the system 10 to display via the television set or cameras 22,
`
`each on its own initiative and communication-wise transparent via modems 26.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:36-41.
`
`28.
`
`The ’334 patent explains that the “term information mediator 24 used
`
`in the following shall be interpreted in its widest meaning, i.e. as not only referring
`
`to advertising agencies but to all companies and private persons who wish to utilize
`
`the system 10 for commercial reasons or for the display of information that
`
`concerns a general public.” Ex. 1001, 6:46-51. The ’334 patent further discloses
`
`that the external information mediators connect with the control center 12 using
`
`specially designed interfaces for data and telecommunication, which may include
`
`code keys or other codes sent between the control center 12 and the computer 24 of
`
`the external mediator, to avoid “unauthorized access to the display of such
`
`information and misuse of the system.” Ex. 1001, 6:64-7:16, 9:33-38. The
`
`external information mediators send information material to the control center 12
`
`by email. Ex. 1001, 9:29-33, 10:8-9.
`
`29. The control center 12 includes a central computer 28 that is divided
`
`into three servers 1, 2, 3. Ex. 1001, 8:30-31. Server 1 receives material from
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 13 of 53
`
`
`
`external information mediators 24 via modems 26, server 2 sends information
`
`material to the cinema computers 34, and the server 3 processes information and
`
`control instructions received from the information mediator 24. Ex. 1001, 8:31-42,
`
`11:43-59.
`
`30.
`
`In particular, “[t]he exposure material or picture material (and other
`
`information), the exposure list, etc., are prepared in the exposure handler which is
`
`included in the server 3...” Ex. 1001, 11:56-59. The exposure handler 3 “carries
`
`out the important object of the invention with regard to the possibility of an
`
`external mediator 24 to organize the information delivered to the cinema 16, 18, 20
`
`via an exposure list, this organizing of information being effected in real time via
`
`the modem 26 and the server 1 that receives television set or camera control
`
`information from the external mediator.” Ex. 1001, 8:46-51.
`
`31.
`
`If an information mediator has its own version of the software used by
`
`the exposure handler 3, they can prepare finished picture sequences/films to be
`
`introduced transparently into the exposure list without additional processing via the
`
`working stations 32 in the control center 12, if there is space available on the
`
`exposure list. Ex. 1001, 9:39-44, 9:62-10:2, 12:16-22. One of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would take this to indicate that “its own version” means that the software is
`
`functionally equivalent to the central computer exposure handler software. The
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 14 of 53
`
`
`
`’334 patent defines this as “dynamic updating of the exposure list.” Ex. 1001,
`
`9:39-47. In the alternative, information mediators 24 which do not have access to
`
`software in the exposure handler can have their picture material or exposure
`
`material processed and added to an exposure list by personnel serving the working
`
`stations 32. Ex. 1001, 9:45-61, 10:3-8, 12:12-16.
`
`32. The disclosure of “dynamic updating” in the ’334 patent is limited to
`
`the ability for information mediators to create content remotely that will not
`
`require additional processing on a workstation 32 in the control center 28 before
`
`the associated control instructions are ready to be inserted into an exposure list, but
`
`it does not encompass whether the control instructions will actually be
`
`incorporated into the exposure list – that determination depends on whether there is
`
`space available on the exposure list.
`
`33. Specifically, “dynamic updating of the exposure list” as disclosed in
`
`the ’334 patent would entail the following steps: (i) an information mediator uses
`
`their “own versions of the software that the exposure handler 3 uses” to create
`
`complete/finished picture sequences/films (Ex. 1001, 9:39-44, 12:16-22; ), (ii) this
`
`finished/completed content is sent to the server 1 in the central computer 28 by e-
`
`mail (Ex. 1001, 8:31-33, 9:29-33; 10:8-9; ), (iii) “a queue, or line, is created from
`
`the information material received by the server 1, in accordance with some known
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 15 of 53
`
`
`
`line or queuing method, such as FIFO (First In First Out), LIFO (Last In First Out)
`
`or Round Robin, etc.,” (Ex. 1001, 8:52-56; ) (iv), “[t]he exposure handler 3 collects
`
`and processes, i.e. allocates, information relating to television set or camera control
`
`instructions, wherein mediator information is sorted into the exposure list in
`
`accordance with the wishes of the mediator 24 or its instructions, when available
`
`space is found in the exposure list or in alternative places in the exposure list given
`
`by the mediator. If the exposure list is completely filled with instructions, the
`
`mediator instructions to the control center remain in the queue list in the server 1 in
`
`readiness for later inclusion in the exposure list, in accordance with a preferred
`
`embodiment.” (Ex. 1001, 8:59-9:3).
`
`34. From step (iv) above, regardless of whether an information mediator
`
`engages in “dynamic updating” by creating content with their “own versions of the
`
`software that the exposure handler 3 uses,” the inclusion of the associated control
`
`instructions into the exposure list depends on whether or not the exposure list is
`
`already full. Thus, “dynamic updating” in the context of the ’334 patent does not
`
`necessarily result in automatic and immediate inclusion in the exposure list – only
`
`the possibility of automatic inclusion if there happens to be space available. This
`
`result is the logical outcome of the system disclosed by the ’334 patent –
`
`information mediators are given an increased capability to create and deliver
`
`content and associated control instructions that are readily incorporated into an
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 16 of 53
`
`
`
`exposure list, but the ’334 patent does not disclose that information mediators have
`
`remote access to the most current versions of exposure lists. As such, any
`
`conflicts in scheduling that result from content received from multiple, different
`
`external information mediators would need to be addressed by the exposure
`
`handler software or an administrator in the control center 28.
`
`35. Since the mediator version of the exposure handler software is
`
`equivalent to its counterpart in the control center, it is also bound by constraints
`
`such as “space available” limitations to directly making changes to the exposure
`
`list.
`
`36.
`
` The ’334 patent further discloses that control routines are used to
`
`screen content provided by eternal information mediators: “The control center 12 is
`
`also able to refrain from displaying information which conflicts with ‘good order’
`
`or accepted morale and of a disturbing nature to the large majority of the public,
`
`possibly through the medium of working stations 32 and via control routines.” Ex.
`
`1001, 10:36-40;
`
`Claim Constructions
`
`B.
`“dynamic booking”
`37. The ’334 patent explicitly refers to “dynamic updating of the exposure
`
`list” as occurring when an information mediator has “its own versions of the
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 17 of 53
`
`
`
`software that the exposure handler 3 uses for enabling pictures/films to be
`
`introduced transparently into the exposure list without processing via the working
`
`stations 32 in the control center 12.” Ex. 1001, 9:39-47, 9:62-10:2, 12:16-22. The
`
`’334 patent contrasts this type of updating with updating in which external
`
`information mediators 24 do not have access to software used in the exposure
`
`handler, and therefore need their picture material or exposure material processed
`
`before the associated control instructions can be added to an exposure list by
`
`personnel serving the working stations 32. Ex. 1001, 9:45-61, 10:3-8, 12:12-16.
`
`38. With respect to the “dynamic updating of the exposure list,” the ’334
`
`patent further states 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 an exposure list,” “the digital
`
`information system is able to insert a change at short notice,” and that the system is
`
`“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,
`
`6:59–63, 10:22-28.
`
`39. Despite the previous quotes, the ’334 patent does not disclose that
`
`updates to the exposure list requested by an information mediator are guaranteed to
`
`occur “instantaneously” or “automatically” in all cases. Regardless of whether an
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 18 of 53
`
`
`
`information mediator engages in “dynamic updating” by creating content with their
`
`“own versions of the software that the exposure handler 3 uses,” whether new or
`
`revised control instructions are included in the exposure list depends on whether or
`
`not the exposure list is already full. Ex. 1001, 8:66-9:33; Thus, “dynamic
`
`updating” in the context of the ’334 patent does not necessarily result in automatic
`
`or instantaneous inclusion in the exposure list – only the possibility of automatic
`
`inclusion if there happens to be space available. Likewise, “dynamic booking” as
`
`used in the ’334 patent relates to how a mediator creates the content and associated
`
`control instructions, and the resulting possibility of inclusion of the control
`
`instructions in an exposure list without further processing, but does not encompass
`
`automatically updating the exposure list with the control instructions in all cases.
`
`40. The “dynamic” booking disclosed in the ’334 patent permits delivery
`
`of updates to the exposure list from external information mediators to occur “when
`
`and as needed.” The updating is constrained by limitations discussed earlier, space
`
`availability in the exposure list, (Ex. 1001, 8:59-9:3), and public appropriateness of
`
`the content. Ex. 1001, 9:36-40. Ex. 1001, 10:36-40. This is consistent with the
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary definition of “dynamic” as “…some action or
`
`event that occurs when and as needed.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary Fourth
`
`Edition, 158, (1999). Ex. 1005.
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 19 of 53
`
`
`
`41. Given the constraints discussed in the ‘334 patent, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand “dynamic booking” to mean “booking
`
`when and as needed,” but not to encompass automatically updating the exposure
`
`list with the associated control instructions received from an information mediator
`
`in all cases. This is consistent with most practical systems that are described by
`
`typical responses, but are still limited or modified by particular in certain situations
`
`appropriate to the system.
`
`“The Control Center is Able to Create and Update Said Exposure List
`in Real Time” (Independent Claims 22) and “The Control Center
`Functions, in Real Time and Through the Medium of Said Exposure
`Handler, to Create and Update an Exposure List in Real Time”
`(Independent Claim 32)
`
`42. The ’334 patent equates displaying information “in real time” as
`
`displaying information “at the time of the order,” with possible short delays due to
`
`processing, stating that “[w]ith the inventive digital information system 10, the
`
`information can be displayed principally in real time, i.e. at the time of making the
`
`order, possibly with a short delay due to processing, fully-booked exposure lists
`
`and other quickly passing causes.” Ex. 1001, 6:56-59
`
`43. The usage of the term “in real time” in the ’334 patent is consistent
`
`with the definition of “real-time” in the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, which
`
`states that “[r]eal-time operations are those in which the machine’s activities match
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 20 of 53
`
`
`
`the human perception of time or those in which computer operations proceed at the
`
`same rate as a physical or external process.” Ex. 1005, 375. Thus, one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood that when the ’334 patent states an operation
`
`occurs “in real time,” the operation occurs on a time scale that matches the human
`
`perception of time, possibly with short delays due to processing, fully-booked
`
`exposure lists, and other quickly passing causes. Again, even though the system
`
`behavior is described as real-time, it is understood in the art that even a real-time
`
`system can have exceptions which cause additional delays in specified situations
`
`such as exposure availability or the screening of disturbing material.
`
`44. Claims 22 recites that “the control center is able to create and update
`
`said exposure list in real time” and claim 32 “the control center functions, in real
`
`time and through the medium of said exposure handler, to create and update an
`
`exposure list.” As such, claims 22 and 32 relate to the operation of the control
`
`center “in real time.” In this context, the ’334 patent states:
`
`The server 3 of the central computer 28 functions partly as an
`exposure handler. The exposure handler 3 carries out the
`important object of the invention with regard to the possibility of
`an external mediator 24 to organize the information delivered to
`the cinema 16, 18, 20 via an exposure list, this organizing of
`information being effected in real time via the modem 26 and the
`server 1 that receives television set or camera control information
`from the external mediator.
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 21 of 53
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:43-51.
`
`45. Consistent with the foregoing, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood organizing information in an exposure list “being effected in real
`
`time via the modem 26 and the server 1 that receives television set or camera
`
`control information from the external mediator” to mean that the information
`
`would be organized in the exposure list at the time the mediator sends the
`
`information to server 1 via a modem, with the possibility of short delay due to
`
`processing, fully-booked exposure lists and other quickly passing causes.
`
`46. As to a “short delay due to processing, fully-booked exposure lists and
`
`other quickly passing causes,” the ’334 patent explicitly states that a “fully-booked
`
`exposure list” would not result in the control information being included in the
`
`exposure list:
`
`If the exposure list is completely filled with instructions, the
`mediator instructions to the control center remain in the queue
`list in the server 1 in readiness for later inclusion in the
`exposure list, in accordance with a preferred embodiment.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:67-9:3.
`
`47. This is a significant “short delay.” This is a key limitation of the
`
`system of the ’334 patent: although information mediators are given an increased
`
`capability to create and deliver content and associated control instructions that are
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 22 of 53
`
`
`
`ready for incorporation into an exposure list, the ’334 patent does not disclose that
`
`information mediators have remote access to the most current versions of exposure
`
`lists.
`
`48. Thus, any conflicts in scheduling that result from content received
`
`from multiple, different external information mediators would need to be addressed
`
`by an administrator in the control center 28. Accordingly, upon review of the ’334
`
`patent, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that updating an
`
`exposure list by the control center “in real time” would include the possibility that
`
`the exposure list is not updated at all if the exposure list is fully booked.
`
`49.
`
`In my opinion, for the reasons I have discussed above, the phrase in
`
`claim 22 “the control center is able to create and update said exposure list in real
`
`time” means the control center is able to create and update the exposure list at the
`
`time the mediator sends the information to the control center, with the possibility
`
`of delays due to processing, fully-booked exposure lists and other quickly passing
`
`causes – including the possibility that the exposure list is not updated at all if the
`
`exposure list is fully booked.
`
`50. Also, the phrase in claim 32 “the control center functions, in real time
`
`and through the medium of said exposure handler, to create and update an
`
`exposure list” is interpreted to mean the control center functions, through the
`
`
`
`Petitioner Barco’s Exhibit 1002
`Page 23 of 53
`
`
`
`exposure handler, to create and update the exposure list at the time the mediator
`
`sends the information to the control center, with the possibility of delays due to
`
`processing, fully-booked exposure lists and other quickly passing causes –
`
`including the possibility that the exposure list is not updated at all if the exposure
`
`list is fully booked.
`
`“Computerized Control Center Means” and “Exposure Handler
`Means” (Independent Claim 32)
`
`51. Claim 32 recites a “computerized control center means.” I am
`
`informed by counsel that this is a means-plus-function limitation. With respect to
`
`the function of the computerized control center means, claim 32 recites “exposure
`
`handler means whereby the control center functions, in real time and through the
`
`medium of said exposure handler, to create and update an exposure list having
`
`control instruction fields, via dynamic booking of display information from
`
`mediators.” This indicates the function of the “computerized control center
`
`means” is to create and update an exposure list having control instruction fields,
`
`via dynamic booking of display information from mediators. This function is
`
`performed through the “exposure handler means,” which is also a means plus
`
`function limitation.
`
`52. The ’334 patent also teache
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
