Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`
`
`
`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. RE39,470
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. 2016-01869
`
`
`
`T-REX PROPERTY AB’S PATENT OWNER
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 CFR §42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ................................................................. 1 
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 3 
`
`A. 
`
`“dynamically updating” (claim 1, 13) / “permitting said exposure
`list to be dynamically updated” (claim 25) / “means for . . .
`dynamically updating an exposure list” (claim 26) ................................. 3 
`
`IV. THERE IS NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PETITIONERS
`PREVAILING AS TO A CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’470
`PATENT. ......................................................................................................... 6 
`
`A.  Ground 1: Petitioners Failed To Demonstrate That Nakamura In
`View Of Loban Renders Obvious Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, 17-21, or
`24. ............................................................................................................ 6 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Petitioners fail to demonstrate that the Nakamura-Loban
`combination renders obvious the limitation “dynamically
`updating an exposure list” (claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, 17-21, and
`24). ................................................................................................... 6 
`
`Petitioners fail to demonstrate that the Nakamura-Loban
`combination renders obvious the limitation “interrupting said
`display of material by said select projectors when said display
`is hidden, obstructed, or otherwise visibly unavailable in said
`public place” (claim 3). ................................................................. 13 
`
`B.  Ground 2: Petitioners Failed to Demonstrate That Nakamura In
`View Of Loban and Further In View Of Reilly Renders Obvious
`Claims 7, 9, 19, or 21. ........................................................................... 14 
`
`1.  Reilly does not cure the deficiencies in Nakamura-Loban. .......... 14 
`
`C.  Ground 3: Petitions Failed to Demonstrate That Nakamura
`Anticipates Claims 25 or 26. ................................................................. 15 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`Petitioners fail to demonstrate that Nakamura discloses the
`limitation “permitting said exposure list to be dynamically
`updated” (claim 25). ...................................................................... 15 
`
`Petitioners fail to demonstrate that Nakamura discloses the
`limitation ““means for . . . dynamically updating an exposure
`list” (claim 26). .............................................................................. 16 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`V. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 17 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`Declaration of Zaydoon Jawadi
`Curriculum Vitae of Zaydoon Jawadi
`Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary Fourth
`Edition (1999)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2001
`2002
`2003
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc.,
`508 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 5
`
`Other Authorities
`
`32 C.F.R. §42.107(a) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary ............................................................................. 3, 4
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`The Board should deny the request for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`RE39,470 because the Petition is based on obviousness grounds that are
`
`incomplete and prior art that fails to disclose each claim element, alone or in
`
`combination.
`
`For these reasons, as expressed more fully below, the Petitioners have failed
`
`to demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at
`
`least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, the Board should deny the
`
`Petition.
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`At the time of the invention, there were significant problems with digital
`
`control systems for digital signage. A primary concern of the 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 2:40-45. 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
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`technology, the available display time will nevertheless contain ‘dead time,’
`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`among other thigs 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
`
`information available, but it is the administrator who determines when, where and
`
`how the information shall be displayed.” Ex. 1001 at 54-57.
`
`Another primary concern of the ’470 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 2:49-53.
`
`The patent also explains that “it should be possible to update and change the
`
`information quickly.” Ex. 1001 at 2:26-27. 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 9:23-25. 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 9:25-28.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Because this preliminary response “is limited to setting forth the reasons
`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`why no inter partes review should be instituted,” 32 C.F.R. §42.107(a), T-Rex
`
`does not at this time propose a construction for each term. T-Rex reserves the right
`
`to assert any construction of any term in any subsequent filing.
`
`A.
`
`“dynamically updating” (claim 1, 13) / “permitting said exposure list to
`be dynamically updated” (claim 25) / “means for . . . dynamically
`updating an exposure list” (claim 26)
`
`The term “dynamically updating” should be construed as “updating the
`
`exposure list in response to user actions when and as needed.” Similarly, the
`
`phrase “permitting said exposure list to be dynamically updated” should be
`
`construed as “allowing the exposure list to be updated in response to user actions
`
`when and as needed.” Likewise, the phrase “means for . . . dynamically updating
`
`an exposure list” should be construed as “an exposure handler allowing the
`
`exposure list to be updated in response to user actions when and as needed.”
`
`The evidence makes clear that the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“dynamically updating” is “updating in response to user actions when and as
`
`needed.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 21-28. For example, the fourth edition of the Microsoft
`
`Computer Dictionary defines “dynamic” as “describ[ing] some action or event
`
`that occurs when and as needed.” Ex. 2003 at 158 (emphasis added); Ex. 2001 ¶
`
`24. The fourth edition of the Microsoft Computer Dictionary also defines
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`“dynamic HTML” as “A technology designed to add richness, interactivity, and
`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`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-
`
`59 (emphasis added); Ex. 2001 ¶ 23.
`
`The specification provides further support for this construction in its
`
`description of the prior art and the goals of the invention. In describing the
`
`problems of the prior art, the ’470 Patent teaches that “it should be possible to
`
`update and change the information quickly.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 25; Ex. 1001 at 2:26-
`
`27 (emphasis added). The specification describes the ramifications of not dynamic
`
`updating, 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.g. [sic] dead time. This becomes nerve-wracking to travellers [sic], who
`
`often wait for long periods in waiting halls or stand on platforms. Ex. 2001 ¶ 25;
`
`Ex. 1001 at 2:29-33. The ’470 Patent also 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. 2001 ¶ 25; Ex. 1001 at 2:49-53. The ’470 Patent elaborates
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`instantaneously in the exposure list.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 25; Ex. 1001 at 5:30-35. The
`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`’470 Patent also explains that “the digital information system is able to insert a
`
`change at short notice or to operate a completely new 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. 2001
`
`¶ 25; Ex. 1001 at 9:23-28 (emphasis added). 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,” as opposed to updating the exposure list in response to
`
`user actions. Ex. 2001 ¶ 26; Ex. 1001 at 8:10-34. Based on these teachings, a
`
`person of skill in the art at the time of the invention would understand that
`
`“dynamically updating” means to update the exposure list when and as needed
`
`based on input from the user (i.e. external information mediator). Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 25-
`
`26.
`
`Additionally, the language of claim 1 explicitly distinguishes “dynamically
`
`updating an exposure list” from generating or organizing an exposure list. Ex.
`
`2001 ¶ 27; Ex. 1001 at cl. 1. Claim 1 of the ’470 Patent explicitly requires
`
`“generating, organizing, and dynamically updating an exposure list.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶
`
`27-28; Ex. 1001 at cl. 1 (emphasis added); see also Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (preferring a construction of a term that
`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`would not render other limitations superfluous).
`
`IV. THERE IS NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PETITIONERS
`PREVAILING AS TO A CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’470 PATENT.
`A. Ground 1: Petitioners Failed To Demonstrate That Nakamura In View
`Of Loban Renders Obvious Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, 17-21, or 24.
`1.
`
`Petitioners fail to demonstrate that the Nakamura-Loban
`combination renders obvious the limitation “dynamically
`updating an exposure list” (claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, 17-21, and 24).
`
`Petitioners note that Nakamura discloses “generating, organizing, and
`
`dynamically updating an exposure list (e.g. time frame/information, reservation
`
`information) in real time, by an exposure handler included in the control center
`
`(e.g. system via master station and software), in accordance with the display
`
`information, the exposure list also containing projector control instructions based
`
`on the booking information (e.g. reservation data/information).” Pet. 31-32.
`
`Petitioners point to paragraphs 10, 17, 18, and 25 of Nakamura to meet this
`
`limitation. Pet. at 31-33, 59-60. In particular, petitioners argue that the Nakamura
`
`system “dynamically updates the reservations by successively registering
`
`reservation information and updating the applicable items Ex. 1007 at 0018, 0025.”
`
`Pet. at 32. Petitioners also argue that “[t]he system, via the master station, updates
`
`the time information also by distributing reservations and idle time, editing
`
`reservations, setting durations, adding idle times to the display runtime, and
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`successively registering reservation status with the master station. Ex. 1007 at
`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`0010, 0017.” Pet. at 33. However, these disclosures from Nakamura fail to satisfy
`
`the “dynamically updating” limitation for two reasons: (1) Nakamura does not
`
`teach means for updating reservation information stored by the master station when
`
`and as needed, and (2) Nakamura does not teach means for updating reservation
`
`information previously stored by the master station based on user action.
`
`a.
`
`Nakamura does not teach means for updating reservation
`information stored by the master station when and as
`needed.
`
`As to the first reason, the plain and ordinary meaning of “dynamically
`
`updating” is “updating the exposure list in response to user actions when and as
`
`needed.” However, there is no evidence that Nakamura permits updating
`
`reservation information stored in the master station when and as needed. To the
`
`contrary, Nakamura discloses a system that receives, organizes, and stores
`
`reservations, but does not teach dynamically updating said stored reservations. Ex.
`
`2001 ¶¶ 31-37. Rather, the sections petitioners rely upon to explain how the
`
`system of Nakamura accepts and processes reservations according to system
`
`constraints, and only teach editing reservations as the master system organizes and
`
`registers the reservation information successively (i.e., when the master system
`
`generates the alleged exposure list). Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 31-37; Ex. 1007 at 10, 17, 18,
`
`and 25.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`For instance, Petitioners appear to rely erroneously on paragraph 0017 of
`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`Nakamura for the disclosure of “dynamically updating.” See Pet. at 32-33.
`
`Nakamura explains that “[when 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
`
`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, i.e., the
`
`Nth order cut-off time, without excess or deficiency. . . . The specific reservation
`
`information described above is successively registered with the master station 2
`
`and the applicable items updated so as not to allow any double booking to occur.”
`
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 32; Ex. 1007 at 0017 (emphasis added). According to this disclosure, if
`
`the system of Nakamura receives enough reservations to fill the posting time, it
`
`cuts off further reservations. Ex. 2001 ¶ 32; Ex. 1007 at 0017. Whether or not it
`
`receives enough reservations to fill the posting time, the system arranges the
`
`reservation times, editing them if needed to avoid double booking. Ex. 2001 ¶ 32;
`
`Ex. 1007 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. 2001 ¶ 32; Ex. 107, Abstract. Nakamura also describes “dividing the
`
`display reservation cut off period for the selected specific slave stations into
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`several periods, sequentially distributing and editing the display reservations to be
`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`displayed in the same posting reservation time frame received during each of the
`
`1st to Nth reservation periods[.]” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32; Ex. 1007 at 0009. The
`
`reservation information is accordingly edited as it is registered with the master
`
`server. Ex. 2001 ¶ 32; Ex. 1007 at 17. Nowhere in this process does Nakamura
`
`teach how to update the previously stored information when and as needed. Ex.
`
`2001 ¶¶ 31-37.
`
`Petitioners also appear to rely wrongly on paragraph 18 of Nakamura to
`
`satisfy the disclosure of the “dynamically updating” limitations. See Pet. at 32-33.
`
`In this paragraph, Nakamura explains that “[t]he reserved display contents are
`
`stored by the system 10, including the master station 2, and the system 10 executes
`
`the display after allocating the posting time and performing a prescribed editing
`
`so as not to compromise public order and standards of decency.” Ex. 1007 at 0018
`
`(emphasis added); Ex. 2001 at ¶ 34. A person of skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention would understand this disclosure to describe the capability of the system
`
`to allow an administrator to predefine certain edits, rather than updating when and
`
`as needed, and that such edits are not the result of user action. Ex. 2001 at ¶ 34;
`
`see also Ex. 1007 at 0018. Therefore, this disclosure from Nakamura does not
`
`teach “dynamically updating” as claimed by the ’470 Patent.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`Petitioners further appear to erroneously reply on paragraph 25 of Nakamura
`
`to satisfy the disclosure of the “dynamically updating” limitations. See Pet. at 32-
`
`33. This paragraph of Nakamura explains that “the decision would be made to edit
`
`the reservations a to d to rearrange the firm reservation order as shown at the
`
`bottom of the figure, and the display order executed.” Ex. 1007 at 0025 (emphasis
`
`added). A person of skill in the art at the time of the invention would understand
`
`this disclosure to teach that the system can be set up to rearrange the display order,
`
`which is organizing, not “dynamically updating.” Ex. 2001 at ¶ 35; see also Ex.
`
`1001 at cl. 1 (claiming “generating, organizing, and dynamically updating the
`
`exposure list”). The disclosure of paragraph 25 of Nakamura continues: “At this
`
`point, the display runtime t is set by distributing the idle time t2 remaining in the
`
`posting reservation frame T so that it is most beneficial for the order of the
`
`reservations, for example in the order of a, b, and c, which were committed in the
`
`earlier reservation periods.” Ex. 1007 at 0025. A person of skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention would understand this disclosure to explain that the system
`
`can be set up to add idle time evenly across reservations when allocating the
`
`posting time, rather than updating when and as needed, and that such edits are not
`
`the result of user action. Ex. 2001 at ¶ 35; see also Ex. 1007 at 0025. Therefore,
`
`this disclosure from Nakamura does not teach “dynamically updating” as claimed
`
`by the ’470 Patent.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Accordingly, Nakamura does not teach “dynamically updating an exposure
`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`list,” as required by independent claims 1 and 13, and claims 2-3, 5-9, 12, 14, 17-
`
`21, and 24, which depend therefrom.
`
`b.
`
`Nakamura does not teach means for updating reservation
`information previously stored by the master station based
`on user action.
`
`As to the second reason, even if the Board concludes that Nakamura
`
`discloses updating the exposure list, the disclosures petitioners rely on from
`
`Nakamura only teach modifying the received reservations based on the system’s
`
`own pre-configured internal requirements rather than based on user actions. Ex.
`
`2001 ¶¶ 31-37; Ex. 1007 at 10, 17, 18, and 25. For instance, Nakamura 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 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
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`registering the display reservation status with the master station. Ex. 2001 ¶
`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`33; Ex. 1007 at 0010 (emphasis added). In other words, 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. Ex. 2001 ¶ 33; Ex. 1007 at 0010. This disclosure
`
`does not teach updating the exposure list in response to user actions. And, as
`
`discussed above in section IV.A.1.a, petitioners fail to identify any other disclosure
`
`within Nakamura of editing reservations stored by the master server. Ex. 2001 ¶¶
`
`31-37. Accordingly, petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Nakamura teaches
`
`“dynamically updating an exposure list,” as required by independent claims 1 and
`
`13, and claims 2-3, 5-9, 12, 14, 17-21, and 24, which depend therefrom.
`
`c.
`
`Petitioners fail to explain how the addition of Loban
`renders obvious “dynamic updating an exposure list.”
`
`Additionally, Petitioners fail to explain how the addition of Loban cures the
`
`lack of disclosure of “dynamically updating an exposure list” in Nakamura.
`
`Moreover, Loban, which teaches a video billboard for outdoor use comprising one
`
`or more projectors, teaches neither the use of an exposure list, nor dynamically
`
`updating said exposure list. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 38-40. Accordingly, as petitioners fail to
`
`demonstrate how either Nakamura or Loban discloses “dynamically updating an
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`exposure list,” petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Nakamura in view of
`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`Loban renders obvious claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, 17-21, or 24.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioners fail to demonstrate that the Nakamura-Loban
`combination renders obvious the limitation “interrupting said
`display of material by said select projectors when said display is
`hidden, obstructed, or otherwise visibly unavailable in said public
`place” (claim 3).
`
`Petitioners allege that Nakamura discloses in paragraph 0018, “discontinuing
`
`the display of a certain amount of content (e.g. high quality) when a vehicle is in
`
`transit,” and that such disclosure meets the limitation “interrupting said display of
`
`material by said select projectors when said display is hidden, obstructed, or
`
`otherwise visibly unavailable in said public place.” Pet. at 38. However,
`
`Petitioners’ reliance on paragraph 0018 of Nakamura cannot withstand scrutiny.
`
`The relevant portion of paragraph 0018 of Nakamura states: “With respect to
`
`transmission of display data to specified slave stations installed in transportation
`
`equipment, such as airplanes and busses, the quality of information can be higher if
`
`received when the transportation equipment are parked at terminals rather than in
`
`transit.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 41-43; Ex. 1007 at 0018 (emphasis added). Rather than
`
`teaching the interrupting of display material by select projectors when the display
`
`is visibly unavailable, Nakamura teaches interrupting the transmission of data to
`
`the projectors, not interrupting display by the projectors, as required by claim 3.
`
`Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 41-44; Ex. 1007 at 0018; Ex. 1001 at cl. 3.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Additionally, Petitioners fail to explain how the addition of Loban cures the
`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`lack of disclosure of this limitation. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 43-44; Pet. at 38. Accordingly,
`
`petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the Nakamura-Loban combination
`
`renders obvious claim 3.
`
`B. Ground 2: Petitioners Failed to Demonstrate That Nakamura In View
`Of Loban and Further In View Of Reilly Renders Obvious Claims 7, 9,
`19, or 21.
`1.
`Claims 7 and 9 depend from claim 1 and claims 19 and 21 depend from
`
`Reilly does not cure the deficiencies in Nakamura-Loban.
`
`claim 13, and thus require “dynamically updating an exposure list.” The addition
`
`of Reilly does not cure the foregoing deficiencies in Nakamura or Loban. See
`
`section IV.A supra. Petitioners rely on Reilly for the disclosure of a database for
`
`storage, organization, and retrieval of display information and the disclosure that
`
`advertisements and display scripts may be placed into queues after being organized
`
`into categories. Pet. at 49-52. However, Petitioners fail to demonstrate how Reilly
`
`discloses “dynamically updating an exposure list.” See id. Moreover, rather than
`
`using an exposure list, Reilly uses display scripts that control the information and
`
`advertisements displayed. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 46-47; Ex. 1010 at 5:24-28. Consequently,
`
`petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Nakamura in view of Loban and in
`
`further view of Reilly renders obvious claims 1 or 13, from which claims 7, 9, 19,
`
`and 21 depend. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 45-48. Accordingly, petitioners have also failed to
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`demonstrate that Nakamura in view of Loban and in further view of Reilly renders
`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`obvious claims 7, 9, 19, or 21.
`
`C. Ground 3: Petitions Failed to Demonstrate That Nakamura Anticipates
`Claim 25 or 26.
`1.
`
`Petitioners fail to demonstrate that Nakamura discloses the
`limitation “permitting said exposure list to be dynamically
`updated” (claim 25).
`
`With respect to the limitation “permitting said exposure list to be
`
`dynamically updated,” petitioners rely on the same disclosure relied on for
`
`“dynamically updating the exposure list” discussed in section IV.A.1 above. Pet.
`
`at 53, 59-60. The plain meaning of the phrase “permitting said exposure list to be
`
`dynamically updated” is “allowing the exposure list to be updated in response to
`
`user actions when and as needed.” As discussed in section IV.A.1 above, the
`
`disclosures relied upon by petitioners to meet this limitation fail to satisfy the
`
`“permitting said exposure list to be dynamically updated” limitation for two
`
`reasons: (1) Nakamura does not teach means for updating reservation information
`
`stored by the master station when and as needed, and (2) Nakamura’s system does
`
`not teach means for updating reservation information previously stored by the
`
`master station based on user action. See section IV.A.1 supra; see also Ex. 2001 ¶
`
`49. Accordingly, petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Nakamura anticipates
`
`claim 25.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`Petitioners fail to demonstrate that Nakamura discloses the
`limitation ““means for . . . dynamically updating an exposure list”
`(claim 26).
`
`2.
`
`With respect to the limitation “means for . . . dynamically updating an
`
`exposure list,” petitioners rely on the same disclosure relied on for “dynamically
`
`updating the exposure list” discussed in section IV.A.1 above. Pet. at 54, 61-62.
`
`The plain meaning of the phrase “means for . . . dynamically updating an exposure
`
`list” is “an exposure handler allowing the exposure list to be updated in response to
`
`user actions when and as needed.” As discussed in section IV.A.1 above, the
`
`disclosures relied upon by petitioners to meet this limitation fail to satisfy the
`
`“means for . . . dynamically updating an exposure list” limitation for two reasons:
`
`(1) Nakamura does not teach means for updating reservation information stored by
`
`the master station when and as needed, and (2) Nakamura’s system does not teach
`
`means for updating reservation information previously stored by the master station
`
`based on user action. See section IV.A.1 supra; see also Ex. 2001 ¶ 50.
`
`Accordingly, petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Nakamura anticipates
`
`16
`
`claim 26.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`deny institution of the Petition in its entirety.
`
`Date: January 6, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/ Steven R. Daniels/
`Steven R. Daniels, Reg. No. 45,345
`FARNEY DANIELS PC
`800 S. Austin Avenue, Suite 200
`Georgetown, Texas 78626
`Phone: 512-582-2828
`E-mail: sdaniels@farneydaniels.com
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.24, the undersigned certifies that the foregoing
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response contains 3768 words excluding a table of
`
`contents, a table of authorities, mandatory notices under § 42.8, a certificate of
`
`service or word count, or appendix of exhibits or claim listing. Patent Owner has
`
`relied on the word count feature of the word processing system used to create this
`
`paper in making this certification.
`
`Dated: January 6, 2017
`
`/ Steven R. Daniels/
`Steven R. Daniels, Reg. No. 45,345
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. §§42.6(e), this is to certify that I served a copy of the
`
`foregoing T-REX PROPERTY AB’S PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`
`RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.107(A) along with the accompanying
`
`exhibits via email on January 6, 2017 to Petitioners’ counsel of record at the
`
`following email addresses:
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III, Reg. No. 68,504
`Alfred R. Fabricant, Reg. No.
`Peter Lambrianakos, Reg. No. 58,279
`Enrique W. Iturralde, Reg. No. 72,883
`Brown Rudnick, LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Phone: 212-209-4800
`Fax: 212-209-4801
`E-mail: vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`plambrianakoes@brownrudnick.com
`eiturralde@brownrudnick.com
`
`Dated: January 6, 2017
`
`/ Steven R. Daniels/
`Steven R. Daniels, Reg. No. 45,345
`
`
`
`
`
`19