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.
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2017-_____
`U.S. Patent No. 7,382,334
`__________________
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`CLAIMS 22, 32 AND 33 OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,382,334
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`BARCO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`T-REX PROPERTY AB
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2017-_____
`U.S. Patent No. 7,382,334
`__________________
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`CLAIMS 22, 32 AND 33 OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,382,334
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`OVERVIEW OF PETITION ........................................................................... 1
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ...................................... 9
`
`A. Grounds for Standing - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ...................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ...................................... 9
`
`
`
` Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ..........................................10 1.
`
`
`
` Statutory Grounds of Challenge – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ..............10 2.
`
`III. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’334 Patent ...................................................................................10
`
`Prior Art ...............................................................................................18
`
`
`
` Nakamura ............................................................................................18 1.
`
`
`
` Cho ......................................................................................................26 2.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................... 27
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“Mediators” (Independent Claims 22 and 32) ....................................28
`
`“Dynamic Booking” (Independent Claims 22 and 32) .......................29
`
`“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) .......................................................................31
`
`D.
`
`“Computerized Control Center Means” and “Exposure
`Handler Means” (Independent Claim 32) ...........................................35
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`
`E.
`
`“Computerized Means for Coordinating and Controlling
`Electronic Displays” (Independent Claims 32) ...................................40
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 41
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`ARE UNPATENTABLE - 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(1), (2), (4),
`AND (5) ......................................................................................................... 42
`
`A.
`
`Claims 22, 32 and 33 of the ’334 patent are obvious over
`Nakamura and Cho pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). ..........................42
`
`
`
` Claim 22. .............................................................................................42 1.
`
`
`
` Claim 32. .............................................................................................55 2.
`
`
`
` Claim 33. .............................................................................................61 3.
`
`VII. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`42.8(A)(1) ...................................................................................................... 63
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ...................................63
`
`Related Matters - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................63
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ...........................69
`
`Service Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .....................................69
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`
`EXHBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`Description of the Exhibit
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent Number 7,382,334 to Hylin et al. (“the ’334 patent”)
`1002 Declaration by Travis N. Blalock, Ph.D.
`Japanese Patent Application Heisei 07-168544 (“Nakamura”),
`1003
`Certified English Translation, and Affidavit
`1004 U.S. Patent Number 5,566,353 to Cho et al. (“Cho”)
`1005 Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary Fourth Edition (1999)
`1006 CV of T. Blalock
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`I.
`
`OVERVIEW OF PETITION
`
`Barco, Inc. and Barco, N.V. (collectively, “Barco” or “Petitioners”) request
`
`inter partes review of claims 22, 32, and 33 of U.S. Patent No. 7,382,334 (“the
`
`’334 patent,” Ex. 1001) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`The instant Petition demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioners would prevail with respect to the challenged claims should the Board
`
`institute inter partes review.
`
`The ’334 patent discloses a digital information system that includes a control
`
`center and a plurality of display devices. Ex. 1001, 5:59-63. The digital
`
`information system permits any authorized company or person to send control
`
`instructions for the display devices to the control center by email. Ex. 1001, 6:35-
`
`41, 6:46-51, 9:29-33, 10:8-9. The ‘334 patent refers to these external, authorized
`
`companies or persons as “information mediators” or “external information
`
`mediators.” See Ex.1001, 6:35–36, 6:46. The control center uses the control
`
`instructions to create an exposure list. Ex. 1001, 8:40-51. The exposure list
`
`includes a series of instructions as to what shall be shown, where it shall be shown,
`
`when it shall be shown, and for how long. Ex. 1001, 10:61-63. The exposure list
`
`is then sent from the control center to station computers that control the display
`
`devices according to the exposure list. Ex. 1001, 10:57-11:2.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`
`The ’334 patent explains that there are two different types of information
`
`mediators: (i) those that are capable of creating and delivering finished picture
`
`sequences/films that do not require additional processing via work stations in the
`
`control center before their associated control instructions are introduced into the
`
`exposure list, and (ii) those that need to have their picture material or exposure
`
`material processed by personnel at work stations at the control center before the
`
`associated control instructions are can be inserted into the exposure list. Ex. 1001,
`
`9:39-10:2, 12:12-22. The ’334 patent explains that the first group of external
`
`information mediators have access to their own versions of the software that the
`
`control center uses to create exposure lists. Ex. 1001, 9:39-44, 9:62-65, 12:16-22.
`
`The ’334 patent refers to this technique as “dynamic updating of the exposure list.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:39-44.
`
`Importantly, the distinction the ’334 patent makes between whether an
`
`information mediator is capable of “dynamic updating of the exposure list” or not
`
`relates to whether that information mediator is capable of delivering content that
`
`does not need additional processing before being introduced in an exposure list, but
`
`does not relate to whether or not that content is actually incorporated into the
`
`exposure list – that determination is dependent on whether there is space available
`
`in the exposure list. Ex. 1001, 8:59-9:3, 9:39-10:2, 12:12-22. Specifically,
`
`although the ’334 patent states “an external information mediator 24 is able to put
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`through information to the system 12 twenty-four hours a day, whereupon the
`
`information can be included instantaneously in an exposure list, as illustrated in
`
`more detail below,” the “more detail below” includes the caveat to information
`
`being “included instantaneously” that “[i]f 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, 6:59-63, 8:66-9:3. At best,
`
`such “dynamic updating” entails the possibility of automatically updating an
`
`exposure list, but only if that exposure list has space available. Ex. 1002, ¶ 31.
`
`Claim 22 of the ’334 patent recites a method of coordinating and controlling
`
`electronic displays in a digital information system for exposing information on at
`
`least one display device through the medium of at least one electronic display. Ex.
`
`1001, 18:5-9. The method of claim 22 includes “using a control center for
`
`coordinating and controlling electronic displays, wherein the control center is able
`
`to create and update said exposure list in real time with control instruction fields
`
`via dynamic booking of information in time for exposure from mediators.” Ex.
`
`1001, 18:15-19 (emphasis added). Claim 32 of the ’334 patent recites an
`
`arrangement for coordinating and controlling electronic displays in a digital
`
`information system for displaying information on at least one display device
`
`through the medium of at least one electronic display, the information being
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`supplied by mediators of information, for exposure or display. Ex. 1001, 18:62-67.
`
`The arrangement of claim 32 includes “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.” Ex. 1001, 19: 5-9
`
`(emphasis added). Claim 33 depends from claim 32, and simply adds detail
`
`regarding a communication connection. Thus, claims 22 and 32-33 of the ’334
`
`patent are respectively directed to a method and arrangement in which the
`
`information mediators are capable of creating and delivering finished picture
`
`sequences/films that do not require additional processing via work stations in the
`
`control center before their associated control instructions are introduced into the
`
`exposure list (if there is available space in the exposure list).
`
`A petition for inter partes review of claims 1-42 of the ’334 patent was
`
`previously filed in IPR2017-00006 (“the First IPR”) by Broadsign International,
`
`LLC (“Broadsign”), a party other than Petitioners who was also sued by the Patent
`
`Owner. In the First IPR, Broadsign argued that claims 22 and 32 of the ’334 patent
`
`are unpatentable as anticipated by Japanese Patent Application Heisei 07-168544
`
`(“Nakamura,” Ex. 1003) under 35 U.S.C. §102(a). IPR2017-00006, Pet. 42-46.
`
`Nakamura discloses an advertising display control system that is strikingly
`
`similar to the digital information system disclosed in the ’334 patent. Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`62. Like the ’334 patent, Nakamura discloses a control center (a master station)
`
`and display devices that are located at a plurality of locations. Ex. 1003, Figs.
`
`1(A)-1(D), ¶¶ [0009], [0012]. Like the ’334 patent, Nakamura discloses that any
`
`authorized company or person can send control instructions for the display devices
`
`to the control center. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ [0015], [0016], and [0018]. With respect to the
`
`“dynamic updating” aspect of the ’334 patent, Nakamura discloses providing these
`
`external persons or companies with access to two pieces of advertising support
`
`software that allow the external persons or companies to remotely create and
`
`schedule the display of content without requiring any additional processing via
`
`work stations in a control center (the master station). Ex. 1003, ¶¶ [0012], [0015],
`
`[0016], and [0018].
`
`However, Broadsign’s petition for inter partes review was found to be
`
`deficient in several respects, and the Board declined to institute inter partes review
`
`of any claim of the ’334 patent. See generally, IPR2017-00006, (PTAB April 13,
`
`2017) (Paper 7). There are three deficiencies in Broadsign’s petition for inter
`
`partes review that are most relevant to the instant Petition: (i) Broadsign did not
`
`include a claim construction that in any meaningful way addressed the term
`
`“dynamic booking” as it appears in Claims 22 and 32, (ii) Broadsign did not
`
`include any mention of how the ’334 patent defines “dynamic booking” as a
`
`particular technique in which information mediators are capable of creating and
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`delivering finished picture sequences/films to the computerized control center
`
`which can be processed automatically and inserted into the exposure list without
`
`additional processing via work stations in the control center, and (iii) Broadsign
`
`did not point out with specificity or provide adequate reasoning for how Nakamura
`
`discloses “dynamic booking” in the same way as recited in claims 22 and 32 of the
`
`’334 patent.
`
`The Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response in the First IPR that
`
`provided claim constructions for the term “dynamically updating.” See generally
`
`IPR2017-00006, Prelim. Resp. 3-6 (claim construction section). Based on two
`
`technical dictionary definitions and the disclosure of the written description of the
`
`challenged patent, the Patent Owner argued that “update said exposure list in real
`
`time with control instruction fields via dynamic booking of information in time for
`
`exposure from mediators” (recited in independent claim 22) should 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.”
`
`Id. Similarly, the Patent Owner argued “update an exposure list having control
`
`instruction fields, via dynamic booking of display information from mediators”
`
`(recited in independent claim 32) should 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.” Id. The Patent Owner argued that
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`Nakamura fails to disclose this feature. See generally IPR2016-01869, Prelim.
`
`Resp. 6-12.
`
`Notably, the Patent Owner failed to point out that the distinction the ’334
`
`patent makes between whether an information mediator is capable of “dynamic
`
`booking” or not relates to whether that information mediator is capable of
`
`delivering content that does not need additional processing before the associated
`
`control instructions are introduced in an exposure list, but does not relate to
`
`whether or not that the control instructions are actually incorporated into the
`
`exposure list – that determination is dependent on whether there is space available
`
`in the exposure list. Ex. 1001, 8:59-9:3, 9:39-10:2, 12:12-22; Ex. 1002, ¶ 31.
`
`The Board agreed with the Patent Owner’s proposed claim constructions, in
`
`part. The Board construed the term “updating an exposure list via dynamic
`
`booking” to mean “updating an exposure list when and as needed.” IPR2017-
`
`00006, slip op. at 16 (PTAB April 13, 2017) (Paper 7). The Board then noted that
`
`both Broadsign failed to point out with specificity and provide adequate reasoning
`
`for how Nakamura discloses “dynamic booking” in the same way as recited in
`
`claims 22 and 32 of the ’334 patent:
`
`Petitioner does not adequately explain how Nakamura’s disclosure of
`updating reservation display information, including successively
`registering the display reservation status with the master station,
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`
`discloses (explicitly or inherently) doing so “in real time” or “when
`and as needed,” as required by claim 1. Petitioner’s assertions
`regarding Nakamura’s purported disclosure are not sufficiently
`tethered to the language of claim 1 that requires “in real time” and
`“via dynamic booking of information from mediators.” Petitioner’s
`conclusory assertions are insufficient to support an unpatentability
`challenge.
`
`IPR2017-0006, slip op. at 24 (PTAB April 4, 2017) (Paper 9), See also Id at
`
`26 and 27.
`
`The instant Petition cures the deficiencies in the First IPR. To the extent that
`
`Nakamura does not disclose the feature of updating an exposure list via dynamic
`
`booking – updating the exposure list when and as needed, it would have been
`
`obvious to modify the advertising display control system of Nakamura to include
`
`this feature in view of prior art that is cited for the first time in the instant Petition.
`
`U.S. Patent Number 5,566,353 to Cho et al. (“Cho,” Ex. 1004) discloses a point of
`
`purchase video distribution system that explicitly allows users to make quick
`
`modifications to playlists, including “last minute” modifications, when and as
`
`needed. Ex. 1004, 9:67-10:9. It would have been obvious to modify the
`
`advertising display control system of Nakamura to include this feature to further
`
`increase flexibility for users, a goal that is explicitly stated in both Nakamura and
`
`Cho. See 1003, ¶ [0024] and Ex. 1004, 10:56-58; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 93-94.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`Accordingly, Section VI of the instant petition provides a detailed explanation of
`
`how claims 22, 32 and 33 of the ’334 patent are obvious over Nakamura and Cho
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`The instant Petition presents new grounds of unpatentability, based on new
`
`combinations of prior art, that are not redundant of any grounds presented in
`
`IPR2017-00006 and that demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioners would prevail with respect to claims 22, 32 and 33 of the ’334 patent.
`
`Therefore, inter partes review of claims 22, 32 and 33 of the ’334 patent should be
`
`instituted.
`
`II.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`A. Grounds for Standing - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioners certify that the patent for which review is sought is available for
`
`inter partes review and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting
`
`inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this
`
`Petition. Specifically, this Petition is submitted within one year of service
`
`(8/04/2016) of a complaint against Petitioners.
`
`B. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested
`
`Petitioners request inter partes review of claims 22, 32 and 33 of the ’334
`
`patent, and the cancellation of these claims as unpatentable, as set forth below in
`
`Section VI.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`
` Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications 1.
`
`The earliest claim of priority listed on the face of the ’334 Patent is April 26,
`
`1996 to Swedish application No. 9601603-5. Petitioners rely upon the following
`
`patents and printed publications as prior art:
`
`Exhibit 1003 –
`
`Japanese Patent Application Heisei 07-168544
`
`(“Nakamura”), filed on December 13, 1993 and published on July 4, 1995.
`
`Nakamura is available as prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (a) and 103(a).
`
`Exhibit 1004 – U.S. Patent Number 5,566,353 to Cho et al. (“Cho”) filed on
`
`September 6, 1994 and issued on October 15, 1996. Cho is available as prior art at
`
`least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(a).
`
` Statutory Grounds of Challenge – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) 2.
`
`Petitioners request cancellation of the challenged claims under the following
`
`statutory ground:
`
`Ground 1 – Claims 22, 32 and 33 of the ’334 patent are obvious over the
`
`combination of Nakamura (Ex. 1003) and Cho (Ex. 1004) under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a).
`
`III.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’334 Patent
`
`The ’334 patent is titled “Digital Information System” and describes ways to
`
`control and coordinate television sets and cameras for displaying information. Ex.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`1001, 1:13–24.
`
`The ‘334 patent identifies several problems with conventional forms of
`
`distributed advertising, noting that “[s] that are 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., is 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.
`
`With respect to conventional 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.
`
`The ’334 patent identifies a need to allow for updates to occur
`
`“dynamically” and to grant external persons the ability to update information for
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`display in a central control system without additional assistance:
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`
`The sole figure of the ’334 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`and updating functions in the central computer. Ex. 1001, 6:20-26. In 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.
`
`The ’334 patent explains that “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. 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.
`
`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 external
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`If an information mediator has their 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; Ex. 1002, ¶ 31. The ’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
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`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; Ex. 1002, ¶ 31.
`
`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. Ex. 1002, ¶ 32.
`
`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; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶ 33), (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; Ex. 1002, ¶ 33), (iii)
`
`“a queue, or line, is created from the information material received by the server 1,
`
`in accordance with some known 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; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 33) (iv), “[t]he exposure handler 3 collects and processes, i.e. allocates,
`
`information relating to television set or camera control instructions, wherein
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`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 (emphasis added); Ex. 1002, ¶ 33).
`
`As is clear from the above step (iv), 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. Ex. 1002, ¶ 34. 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. Ex. 1002, ¶ 34. 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 exposure list, but the ’334 patent
`
`does not disclose that information mediators have remote access to the most
`
`current versions of exposure lists. Ex. 1002, ¶ 34. As such, any conflicts in
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`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. Ex. 1002, ¶ 34.
`
`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; Ex. 1002, ¶ 36.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art
`
` Nakamura 1.
`
`The stated object of Nakamura is strikingly similar to that of the ’334 patent:
`
`“[c]reate a control system allowing a registered user to input information at any
`
`location without technical constraints to display advertisements and information on
`
`the preregistered display devices selected.” Ex. 1003, Abstract.
`
`Nakamura discloses a system that includes a master station, a plurality of
`
`slave stations, a plurality of display devices, and a plurality of terminal devices.
`
`Ex. 1003, Abstract. Much like the ’334 patent, Nakamura discloses putting control
`
`of content creation and scheduling in the hands of remote parties by providing
`
`access to system software. Ex. 1003, Abstract. However, unlike the ’334 patent,
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-_____
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,382,334
`
`in which an information mediator has their own version of the software used by the
`
`exposure handler to create an exposure list, Nakamura discloses providing direct
`
`access to the system via remote terminal devices, stating that: “[d]isplay contents
`
`are prepared using display content preparation support software operated within
`
`the system, and display conditions, such as location and time, are set using posting
`
`support software operated within the system.” Ex. 1003, Abstract.
`
`The scheduling disclosed in Nakamura is more flexible and “dynamic” than
`
`the scheduling disclosed in the ’334 patent, as end users using the software
`
`operating on the system
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
