UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________________
`
`
`
`Broadsign International, LLC,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`T-Rex Property AB,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________________
`
`U.S. Patent Number RE39,470
`Issue Date: January 16, 2007
`Title: DIGITAL INFORMATION SYSTEM
`
`
`
`Case Number: IPR2016-01869
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)............................. 1
`A. Real Party-in-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................................ 1
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................. 1
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .............................. 7
`D. Service Information .......................................................................................... 8
`E. Power of Attorney under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ................................................ 8
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 AND § 42.15(A) ........... 8
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ..................................... 8
`A. Grounds for Standing under 7 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ........................................... 8
`B. Patents and Printed Publications Relied On as Prior Art ................................. 9
`C. Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Statement of
`Precise Relief Requested ........................................................................................ 9
`D. Requirements for Inter Partes Review under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) .............10
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ......................10
`A. “communications drive routine means” .........................................................12
`B. “means for generating and dynamically updating an exposure list” ..............13
`C. “means for displaying images” .......................................................................14
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ..........................14
`A. Brief Summary of the Challenged Patent .......................................................15
`1. Background of the ’470 Patent. ...................................................................15
`2. Prosecution History of the ’470 Patent .......................................................16
`B. Brief Summary of the Prior Art ......................................................................17
`1. Brief Overview of Nakamura ......................................................................17
`2. Brief Overview of Loban ............................................................................18
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01869
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,740
`
`
`
`3. Brief Overview of Reilly .............................................................................19
`C. Ground 1: Claims 1–3, 5–9, 12–14, 17–21, and 24 are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Nakamura in view of Loban. .....................20
`1. Claim 1 ........................................................................................................20
`2. Claim 2 ........................................................................................................37
`3. Claim 3 ........................................................................................................38
`4. Claim 5 ........................................................................................................39
`5. Claim 6 ........................................................................................................41
`6. Claim 7 ........................................................................................................42
`7. Claim 8 ........................................................................................................45
`8. Claim 9 ........................................................................................................46
`9. Claim 12 ......................................................................................................47
`10.
`Independent Claim 13 ..............................................................................48
`11. Dependent Claims 14, 17–21, and 24 ......................................................48
`D. Ground 2: Claims 7, 9, 19, and 21 Are Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) as Obvious Based on Nakamura in View of Loban and Further in View
`of Reilly. ...............................................................................................................49
`1. Claims 19 and 21 .........................................................................................52
`E. Ground 3: Claims 25 and 26 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based
`on Nakamura. ........................................................................................................52
`1. Claim 25 ......................................................................................................52
`2. Claim 26 ......................................................................................................54
`3. Claims 25 and 26 Are Anticipated by Nakamura .......................................55
`VII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................64
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`Exhibit Number
`
`Description of the Exhibit
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`U.S. Patent Number RE39,470
`
`Complaint, Broadsign v. T-Rex Civil Action No. 1:16-
`cv-04586-LTS, Document 1
`
`U.S. Patent Number 6,005,534
`
`File History, U.S. Pat. App. 08/676,517
`
`File History, U.S. Pat. App. 09/821,969
`
`Declaration by Jaime Carbonell, Ph.D.
`
`Japanese Patent Application Heisei 07-168544
`(“Nakamura”) , Certified English Translation, and
`Affidavit
`
`U.S. Patent Number 5,612,741 to Loban
`
`U.S. Patent Number 5,005,010 to Misaki
`
`U.S. Patent Number 5,740,549 to Reilly
`
`T-Rex Property AB v. Admirable, LLC, Complaint
`
`T-Rex Property AB v. CBS Corporation, Complaint
`
`T-Rex Property AB v. Prismview, LLC, Complaint
`
`T-Rex Property AB v. Barco, Inc., Complaint
`
`Excerpts from Macmillan Encyclopedia of Computers
`(Gary G. Bitter ed., Macmillan Publ. Co. 1992)
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Broadsign International, LLC v. T-Rex Property AB,
`Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-04586-LTS (S.D.N.Y.) .............................. 1, 12, 23, 24
`
`In re Donaldson Co.,
`16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) ............................................................ 11
`
`O.I. Corp. v. Tekman,
`114 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 12
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 10
`
`TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`514 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 11
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 ................................................................................................ 1
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (a) and 103(a) ................................................................................ 9
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (e) and 103(a) ................................................................................ 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ....................................................................................... 10, 15, 52
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 112(6) ................................................................................................. 11
`
`35 U.S.C. 112 ........................................................................................................... 12
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ............................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .............................................................................................. ..1
`
`IPR2016-01869
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,740
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,74O
`
`IPR2016-01869
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .............................................................................................. ..7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ................................................................................................ ..8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 AND § 42.15(A) ............................................................................ 8
`37 C.F.R. §42.1o3 AND § 42.15(A) .......................................................................... ..s
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................................. 8, 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................... ..8, 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ............................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ............................................................................................. ..1o
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) .................................................................................... 10, 11
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(B)(3) .................................................................................. ..1o, 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ....................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ..................................................................................................... ..1
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01869
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,740
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, Broadsign
`
`
`I.
`
`
`International, LLC (“Broadsign” or “Petitioner”) seeks inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`of claims 1–3, 5–9, 12–14, 17–21, and 24– 26 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. RE39,470 (“the ’470 Patent”), assigned to T-Rex Property AB.(“T-
`
`Rex” or “Patent Owner”). This Petition demonstrates that the Challenged Claims
`
`should not have issued in view of prior art not previously or fully considered by the
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`A. Real Party-in-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Petitioner is the real party-in-interest.
`
`
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`The ’470 patent is the subject of one related matter between the same
`
`
`
`parties: Broadsign International, LLC v. T-Rex Property AB, Civil Action No.
`
`1:16-cv-04586-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), an action for declaratory judgment of non-
`
`infringement and for intervening rights with respect to the ’470 patent.
`
`
`
`Petitioner is the first to petition for IPR of the ’470 patent. T-Rex has filed at
`
`least 43 patent-infringement suits concerning the same patent or technology against
`
`65 or more defendants in 17 judicial districts throughout the U.S. Ex. 1002 at 2.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner has knowledge of the following T-Rex-initiated patent-infringement
`
`IPR2016-01869
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,740
`
`cases involving the ’470 patent or related patents in the chart below.1
`
`T-Rex’s Electronic Display Litigation Campaign
`
`Case name
`
`Case no.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Captivate, LLC
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`CBS Corporation
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Admirable, LLC
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Cardinal Health, Inc.
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Prismview, LLC
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Barco, Inc.
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Zipcast, LLC
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`GPS Industries, LLC
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Durden Outdoor
`Displays, Inc.
`
`1:15-cv-04188
`
`Southern District of New
`York
`
`2:12-cv-00346
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`1:16-cv-06915 Northern District of Illinois
`
`1:16-cv-05484 Northern District of Illinois
`
`4:16-cv-00404
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`1:16-cv-06938 Northern District of Illinois
`
`4:15-cv-03170
`
`Southern District of Texas
`
`4:16-cv-00458
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`1:15-cv-00257 Middle District of Alabama
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`
`1 T-Rex’s display control litigation campaign spans the following asserted patents:
`
`U.S. Pat. Nos. RE39,470; 7,382,334; and 6,430,603.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01869
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,740
`
`10 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Time-O-Matic, LLC
`
`11
`
`12
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`RMG Networks Holding
`Corporation
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Adams Outdoor
`Advertising, Inc.
`
`1:14-cv-01488
`
`Central District of Illinois
`
`3:15-cv-00738
`
`Northern District of Texas
`
`1:14-cv-01487
`
`Central District of Illinois
`
`13
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Lamar Advertising
`Company
`14 T-Rex Property AB v.
`AdSpace Networks, Inc.
`15 T-Rex Property AB v.
`LAND DISPLAYS, INC. 5:15-cv-02152
`16 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Destination Media, Inc.
`
`2:12-cv-00348
`
`1:15-cv-09073
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`Southern District of New
`York
`
`Eastern District of
`Pennsylvania
`
`1:16-cv-01587 Northern District of Illinois
`
`17
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Six Flags Entertainment
`Corporation
`18 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Cedar Fair, L.P.
`19 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Cinemark USA, Inc
`
`20
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Clear Channel Outdoor
`Holdings, Inc.
`21 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Contextmedia Inc. et al
`
`1:16-cv-00565 Western District of Texas
`
`0:16-cv-02018
`
`District of Minnesota
`
`4:16-cv-00393
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`2:12-cv-00347
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`1:16-cv-04826 Northern District of Illinois
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`29
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`The Wellness Network,
`LLC
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`AMC Entertainment
`Holdings, Inc.
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Regal Entertainment
`Group
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Quality Systems
`Technology, Inc.
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Barnes Advertising
`Corporation
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Fairway Outdoor
`Advertising, LLC
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`iPort Media Networks,
`LLC
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Four Winds Interactive,
`LLC
`
`30
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Clear Channel Outdoor
`Holdings, Inc.
`31 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Renfroe Media, LLC
`32 T-Rex Property AB v.
`AutoNetTV Media, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01869
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,740
`
`1:15-cv-07847
`
`Southern District of New
`York
`
`6:16-cv-01029
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`6:16-cv-00927
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`1:16-cv-06942 Northern District of Illinois
`
`2:15-cv-02402
`
`Southern District of Ohio
`
`4:15-cv-00073
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`1:16-cv-01583 Northern District of Illinois
`
`1:16-cv-06934 Northern District of Illinois
`
`5:12-cv-01162 Western District of Texas
`
`1:15-cv-00635 Northern District of Georgia
`
`1:16-cv-06649 Northern District of Illinois
`
`4
`
`

`
`33
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Adaptive Micro Systems,
`LLC
`34 T-Rex Property AB v.
`ECM Media, LLC
`35 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Total Outdoor Corp.
`
`36
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Health Media Network,
`LLC
`37 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Eye Corp (USA) Inc.
`
`38
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`National CineMedia,
`LLC
`39 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Table Top Media, LLC
`
`40
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Stokely Outdoor
`Advertising, Inc.
`41 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Zoom Media Corp.
`
`42
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Las Vegas Billboards,
`LLC
`
`43
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Reach Sports Marketing
`Group, Inc.
`44 T-Rex Property AB v.
`JCDecaux North
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01869
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,740
`
`1:16-cv-05667 Northern District of Illinois
`
`1:16-cv-05222 Northern District of Illinois
`
`1:15-cv-08197 Northern District of Illinois
`
`1:16-cv-05673 Northern District of Illinois
`
`1:16-cv-00406 Western District of Texas
`
`2:16-cv-00681
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`1:16-cv-06932 Northern District of Illinois
`
`4:15-cv-00356
`
`Northern District of
`Oklahoma
`
`1:16-cv-03475 Northern District of Illinois
`
`2:15-cv-01285
`
`District of Nevada
`
`0:16-cv-00070
`
`District of Minnesota
`
`4:16-cv-00303
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`5
`
`

`
`America, Inc. et al
`
`45
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Maxmedia Outdoor
`Advertising LLC
`46 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Carmike Cinemas, Inc.
`
`47
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Turner Broadcasting
`System Inc et al
`48 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Screenvision, LLC et al
`
`49
`
`50
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`ANC Sports Enterprises,
`L.L.C.
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Interactivation Health
`Networks, LLC
`
`51
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Intersection Media
`Holdings, Inc. et al
`52 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Outfront Media, Inc. et al
`
`53
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Disselkoen Properties,
`Inc. et al
`
`54
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Clear Channel Outdoor
`Holdings, Inc. et al
`55 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Branded Cities Network
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01869
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,740
`
`6:15-cv-01575 Middle District of Florida
`
`4:16-cv-00344
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`3:16-cv-00980
`
`Northern District of Texas
`
`4:16-cv-00465
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`0:16-cv-00581
`
`District of Minnesota
`
`1:15-cv-08259
`
`Southern District of New
`York
`
`3:16-cv-01005
`
`Northern District of Texas
`
`0:15-cv-01572
`
`District of Minnesota
`
`1:15-cv-00562
`
`Western District of
`Michigan
`
`6:16-cv-00974
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`2:16-cv-00033
`
`District of Arizona
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01869
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,740
`
`LLC et al
`
`56
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Disselkoen Properties,
`Inc. et al
`57 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Blue Outdoor, LLC et al
`58 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Muzak, LLC et al
`
`1:15-cv-00328
`
`Western District of
`Michigan
`
`1:16-cv-00733
`
`Southern District of New
`York
`
`1:15-cv-00980 Western District of Texas
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner designates counsel as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Reg. No. 68,504
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`Email: vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`Pro hac vice to be requested upon grant of
`authorization
`Backup Counsel for Petitioner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`Email: afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Reg. No. 58,279
`Backup Counsel for Petitioner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212-209-4800
`Fax: 212-209-4801
`Email:plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`Enrique W. Iturralde
`Reg. No. 72,883
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01869
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,740
`
`Backup Counsel for Petitioner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`Email: eiturralde@brownrudnick.com
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`Petitioner consents to electronic service. Petitioner may be served at the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`addresses provided above for counsel.
`
`Power of Attorney under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b)
`
`E.
`A Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 AND § 42.15(A)
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of 19 claims of the ’470 patent. Accordingly, a
`
`payment of $24,600 accompanies this Petition. The payment is calculated based on
`
`a $9,000 request fee (for up to 20 claims), a post-institution fee of $14,000 (for up
`
`to 15 claims) and $1600 excess claims fee.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Grounds for Standing under 7 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’470 patent is available for IPR and that
`
`
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the ’470 patent with
`
`respect to any of the patent claims.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01869
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,740
`
`Patents and Printed Publications Relied On as Prior Art
`
`B.
`The earliest claim of priority listed on the face of the ’470 Patent is April 26,
`
`
`
`
`
`1996 to Swedish application No. 9601603-5.
`
`
`
`(1) Japanese Patent Application Heisei 07-168544 (“Nakamura”) (Ex. 1007),
`
`filed on December 13, 1993 and published on July 4, 1995, qualifies as prior art at
`
`least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (a) and 103(a).
`
`
`
`(2) U.S. Patent Number 5,612,741 (“Loban”) (Ex. 1008), filed on November
`
`5, 1993 and published on March 18, 1997, qualifies as prior art at least under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102 (e) and 103(a).
`
`
`
`(3) U.S. Patent Number 5,740,549 (“Reilly”) (Ex. 1010), filed on June 12,
`
`1995 and published on April 14, 1998, qualifies as prior art at least under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102 (e) and 103(a).
`
`C.
`
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`
`
`
`Petitioner requests that the Board initiate IPR of claims 1–3, 5–9, 12–14, 17–
`
`21, 24– 26 of the ’470 patent. The specific statutory grounds for challenging the
`
`claims are below:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis for challenge
`
`1
`
`1–3, 5–9,
`12–14,
`17–21,
`and 24
`
`Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`based on Nakamura in view of Loban.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01869
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,740
`
`2
`
`3
`
`7, 9, 19,
`21
`
`Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`based on Nakamura in view of Loban and further in
`view of Reilly.
`
`25–26 Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on
`Nakamura.
`
`D. Requirements for Inter Partes Review under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.108(c)
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests institution of IPR of claims 1–3, 5–9, 12–14,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17–21, and 24– 26 because this Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing. Each limitation of the challenged claims is disclosed and/or suggested
`
`by the prior art, as explained in detail below.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)
`
`The ’470 Patent expired at least as of May 14, 2016, and is therefore not
`
`subject to amendment. For purposes of this Petition, the claims of the ’470 Patent
`
`are construed pursuant to Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc). (holding that claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history of record). See Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, CBM2015-00005, Paper No. 10, at 4 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Mar. 27, 2015) (“For claims of an expired patent, the Board’s claim interpretation
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`is similar to that of a district court.”) (citing In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46
`
`IPR2016-01869
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,740
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012) (“While claims are generally given their broadest possible scope
`
`during prosecution, the Board’s review of the claims of an expired patent is similar
`
`to that of a district court’s review.”)).2
`
`
`
`A claim limitation is presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(6) or 112(f)
`
`when it explicitly uses the term “means” or “step” and includes functional
`
`language. That presumption is overcome when the limitation further includes the
`
`structure necessary to perform the recited function. TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`
`514 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Means-plus-function limitations "shall
`
`be construed to cover the corresponding structure . . . described in the specification
`
`and equivalents thereof." In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994) (en banc). Below, Petitioner explains whether certain claim limitations
`
`invoke § 112(6), and where applicable, Petitioner identifies the specific portions of
`
`the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each
`
`claimed function in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3).
`
`
`2 In view of the limited scope of inter partes review, the proposed claim
`
`constructions are intended solely for the purposes of this IPR. Petitioner reserves
`
`the right to propose alternative claim constructions in other proceedings.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01869
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,740
`
`A.
`
`“communications drive routine means”
`
`The term “communications drive routine means” appears in method claim 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`When a method claim lacks “step for” language, the method claim does not invoke
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. O.I. Corp. v. Tekman Co., Inc., 115 F.3d 1576,
`
`1583-1594 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the term “communications drive routine
`
`means” in Claim 1 does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The
`
`specification sets forth the meaning of “drive routine means” as “interface.”
`
`Similarly, the term “communications drive routine means” in Claim 1 should also
`
`be construed as “communications interface.”
`
`Those external information mediators which connect to the control
`centre 12 via modems are, in one embodiment of the invention,
`connected to the control centre via specially designed interfaces (drive
`routine means) for data and telecommunication.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 5:36-40. The specification further states that the control centre 12 has
`
`“a communication interface 14 [against] with the computerized devices 16, 18, 20
`
`situated on shifting positions or places for projector coordination and control.” Id.
`
`at 56-58. The specification gives an example of the interface as “a radio link
`
`which forms an interface between the control centre 12 and the computerized
`
`devices 16, 18, 20, this interface being a preferred interface, although not
`
`necessarily the sole possible interface.” Id. at 5:59-63. The specification describes
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`“other interfaces” as “a cable-carried ISDN solution (Integrated Services Digital
`
`IPR2016-01869
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,740
`
`Network) or other fixed lines that have the same capacity.” Id. at 5:63-67.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, “communications drive routine means” should be construed as
`
`“communications interface.”
`
`
`
`Claim 13 similarly recites a “communications drive routine means to
`
`transmit said display information to said control center at any time.” Although this
`
`limitation uses the word “means,” the specification sets forth the meaning of “drive
`
`routine means” as an “interface.” Accordingly, the term “communications drive
`
`routine means” should be construed consistently as “communications interface.”
`
`
`
`B.
`
`“means for generating and dynamically updating an exposure
`list”
`
`
`
`Claim 26 recites a “means for generating and dynamically updating an
`
`exposure list from said control instructions.” Because this limitation recites “means
`
`for” with an associated function it is presumed to invoke § 112 sixth paragraph.
`
`The limitation is not modified by any structure, material or acts for achieving the
`
`associated function. Accordingly, § 112 sixth paragraph applies and the limitation
`
`shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the
`
`specification. The specification describes an “exposure handler” as performing the
`
`function. Ex. 1001 at 11:18–29; Claim 1, Claim 13; Ex. 1006 at ¶ 29
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01869
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,740
`
`C.
`
`“means for displaying images”
`
`Claim 26 recites a “means for displaying images in accordance with said
`
`
`
`
`
`exposure list associated with each one of said computerized devices.” Because this
`
`limitation recites “means for” with an associated function it is presumed to invoke
`
`§ 112 sixth paragraph. The limitation is not modified by structure, material or acts
`
`for achieving the associated function. Accordingly, § 112 sixth paragraph applies
`
`and the limitation shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described
`
`in the specification and equivalents thereof. The structure identified in the
`
`specification as performing the function is a “display device”. Ex. 1001 at 2:57–
`
`63; 4:32–42.
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`This Petition identifies the following 4 grounds on which IPR should be
`
`instituted for the Challenged Claims:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis for challenge
`
`1–3, 5–9,
`12–14,
`17–21,
`and 24
`
`7, 9, 19,
`21
`
`Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`based on Nakamura in view of Loban.
`
`Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`based on Nakamura in view of Loban and further in
`view of Reilly.
`
`25–26 Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on
`Nakamura.
`
`14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01869
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,740
`
`A. Brief Summary of the Challenged Patent
`1.
`Background of the ’470 Patent.
`The ’470 patent was filed as reissue application number 09/821,969 (“the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`969 application”) on March 30, 2001. Ex. 1001 at 1. The ’470 patent is a reissue of
`
`U.S. Patent Number 6,005,534 (“the ’534 patent”) from application number
`
`08/676,517 (the ’517 application), which was filed on July 2, 1996, issued on
`
`December 21, 1999 and purported to claim the benefit of U.S. Provisional
`
`Application Number 60/017,403 (filed May 14, 1996) and Swedish application
`
`number 9601603-5 (filed April 26, 1996).
`
`
`
`The ’470 patent relates to the abstract concept of displaying information ,
`
`e.g. advertisements, on display devices in public places. Ex. 1001, 1:15–21. The
`
`’470 patent alleges to overcome the disadvantages of prior art systems by speeding
`
`up human-performed tasks via the use of conventional computers. For example,
`
`the prior art is replete with systems where administrators update display
`
`information and determine when, where, and how information is displayed. Id.,
`
`1:55–60.
`
`
`
`To address alleged problems in the art, the ’470 patent seeks to provide
`
`“external information mediators” with capabilities to coordinate and control,
`
`dynamically and in real time, the display of information by allowing the mediators
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`(e.g. advertisers) to transmit control instructions to the system. Id., 2:39–45. The
`
`IPR2016-01869
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,740
`
`arrangement claimed by the ’470 Patent includes a “control centre,” which receives
`
`instructions from a mediator via a modem, and which communicates these
`
`instructions to devices controlling projectors thus displaying the information. Id.,
`
`4:43–51.
`
`
`
`However, as described below, the prior art teaches or discloses this exact
`
`“control centre” configuration and the Challenged Claims must fall.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’470 Patent
`
`2.
`The ’517 application received a single non-final rejection, rejecting all
`
`
`
`claims as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Numbers 5,642,484 and 5,448,263
`
`(respectively, “Harrison” and “Martin”), neither of which are asserted in this
`
`Petition. .Ex. 1004 at 31.
`
`
`
`On March 30, 2001, after the patent had issued, applicants filed a reissue
`
`application, citing unnecessarily restrictive claims and a defective specification.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 409. After amending the specification and claims during reissue
`
`prosecution, the claims were ultimately allowed based on the following reason
`
`recited in the notice of allowance: “the features of claims 1 and 13 directed
`
`towards allowable subject matter are the receiving of control instructions from an
`
`external mediator in combination with dynamically updating said specific exposure
`
`list and providing a display by projector means” and “the feature of claims 25 and
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`26 directed towards allowable subject matter are the receiving of control
`
`IPR2016-01869
`U.S. Pat. No. RE39,740
`
`instructions from an external mediator in combination with dynamically updating
`
`said specific exposure list having a specific content.” Ex. 1005 at 259. However,
`
`both of these sets of features were known in the prior art, and the combinations
`
`recited below teach or disclose each of the limitations of the challenged claims.
`
`Accordingly, the Challenged Claims must be canceled.
`
`B.
`
`Brief Summary of the Prior Art
`1.
`Nakamura discloses a display control system that allows registered users
`
`Brief Overview of Nakamura
`
`
`
`(e.g. advertisers) to access a centralized computer to input information from remote
`
`locations and to display t