`
`
`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
`___________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ZAYDOON JAWADI
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ................................................................ 1
`
`III. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 1
`
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED ........................................................................... 4
`
`V.
`
`FIELD OF THE INVENTION ....................................................................... 4
`
`A. Digital Signage ...................................................................................... 4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Person of Skill in the Art at the Time of the Invention ......................... 6
`
`Background of the Technology ............................................................. 7
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`“dynamically updating,” “permitting said exposure list to be
`dynamically updated,” and “means for . . . dynamically updating
`an exposure list” .................................................................................... 8
`
`VII. GROUND 1 – ALLEGED OBVIOUS OVER NAKAMURA AND
`LOBAN ......................................................................................................... 13
`
`A. Nakamura and Loban do not disclose “dynamically updating an
`exposure list,” “permitting said exposure list to be dynamically
`updated,” or “means for . . . dynamically updating an exposure
`list.” .....................................................................................................13
`
`B.
`
`Nakamura and Loban do not disclose “interrupting said display of
`material by said select projectors when said display is hidden,
`obstructed, or otherwise visibly unavailable in said public place.” ....19
`
`VIII. GROUND 2 - ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OVER NAKAMURA,
`LOBAN, AND REILLY ............................................................................... 20
`
`A.
`
`The Nakamura-Loban-Reilly combination in Petitioners’ theory
`for claims 7, 9, 19, and 21 does not practice “dynamically
`updating an exposure list” ...................................................................20
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`IX. GROUND 3 - ALLEGED ANTICIPATION OF NAKAMURA ................ 21
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 22
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Zaydoon Jawadi, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by T-Rex Property AB, in this action. My
`
`credentials are described in my CV, which is Exhibit 2002. I offer this report on
`
`the technology at issue in U.S. Patent No. RE39,470 in response to the Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review, Case No. 2016-01869, filed by Petitioner BroadSign
`
`International, LLC.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked by T-Rex’s counsel to offer technical opinions
`
`relating to U.S. Patent No. RE39,470 and the alleged prior art and arguments
`
`presented by the Petitioners and their expert. I am being compensated for my work.
`
`My compensation is not related to the outcome of this case.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
`
`3.
`
`As a result of performing the analysis described herein, and applying
`
`the standards outlined below in Section IV, I have determined that, in my opinion,
`
`none of Petitioners’ proposed Grounds 1-3 provide a basis for concluding that any
`
`of the claims of the ’470 Patent should be found invalid. My opinion is supported
`
`by the evidence in the patent specification, figures and claims, as well as the
`
`disclosures of the alleged prior art and the other documents cited below.
`
`III. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`As shown in my CV (Exhibit 2002), I have a Bachelor of Science in
`
`Electrical Engineering from Mosul University, a Master of Science in Computer
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`Science from Columbia University, and over 35 years of experience in software
`
`development, engineering, consulting, and management in the fields of computing
`
`systems, Internet, web technologies, data storage, data networking, software
`
`applications, telephony, and telecommunication.
`
`5.
`
`In 2010, I cofounded and am the President of Rate Speeches, Inc., an
`
`Internet company providing online communication rating and evaluation services.
`
`6.
`
`From 2001 to 2006, I was President and cofounder of CoAssure, Inc.,
`
`a provider of automated web-based telecommunication test services.
`
`7.
`
`From 1999 to 2001, I was CEO, Chairman, and founder of Can Do,
`
`Inc. an Internet eCommerce and community company.
`
`8.
`
`From 1992 to 1996, I was President and founder of Zadian
`
`Technologies, Inc., a supplier of data storage test systems, with over 50,000 units
`
`installed worldwide.
`
`9.
`
`In 1996, Zadian Technologies was acquired by Xyratex International
`
`LTD (NASDAQ: XRTX, which was acquired by Seagate, NASDAQ: STX, in
`
`2014). Following Zadian's acquisition by Xyratex, I became a general manager at
`
`Xyratex until 1998. At Xyratex, I was responsible for a data networking analysis
`
`tools business unit, which designed and built Gigabit Ethernet network protocol
`
`analysis and monitoring products, which were sold, under OEM agreement, by the
`
`largest network protocol analysis and monitoring products supplier.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`10. Prior to 1992, I worked as a software consultant, a software engineer,
`
`and an electrical engineer.
`
`11. My experience specifically relevant to the digital signage includes
`
`being general manager of a data networking analysis tools business unit at Xyratex,
`
`1997-1998, being general manager of a manufacturing test systems division at
`
`Xyratex, 1996-1996, and being president of a manufacturing test systems supplier,
`
`Zadian Technologies, 1992-1996. The Xyratex and Zadian manufacturing test
`
`systems comprised multiple individual test units (each with an independent LCD
`
`display operated by an embedded system) connected through a network to a central
`
`control system; the central control system has the ability to control the displays of
`
`the individual test units. My experience (1984-1992) also includes designing and
`
`implementing networked individual devices (each with an independent display
`
`operated by embedded system or PC) connected through a network to central
`
`control systems that control the display of the individual devices, and includes
`
`designing and implementing database, applications, and system software as well as
`
`drivers and other software for controlling graphics and monitor displays. In
`
`addition to my technical work, my background includes being involved with direct
`
`marketing and advertising at Zadian Technologies (1992-1996), at Xyratex (1996-
`
`1998), at Can Do (1999-2001), at CoAssure (2001-2006), and at Rate Speeches
`
`(2010-present).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`12.
`
`In performing my analysis, I have reviewed, among other things, the
`
`T-Rex Patent and T-Rex’s Preliminary Response in these proceedings. I have also
`
`reviewed the Petition and the declaration of Dr. Jaime G. Carbonell in support of
`
`the Petition. Additionally, I have reviewed all of the prior art cited by Petitioners
`
`in their Petition. I have reviewed the portions of the prosecution history and
`
`reexamination history of the ’470 Patent cited by Petitioners and their expert. I
`
`have also reviewed various other documents which are discussed later herein.
`
`13. For the purposes of this declaration, I have assumed the correctness of
`
`the legal standards applied by Dr. Carbonell in paragraphs 13 to 22 of his report,
`
`and for the purposes of this declaration, have applied the same legal standards. I
`
`reserve the right to describe and rely on other legal standards in connection with
`
`any future declaration I submit in this or any other proceeding.
`
`14. For consistency and ease of review, all of my column and line
`
`citations to the patent specification are in “(column:line)” format.
`
`V.
`
`FIELD OF THE INVENTION
`
`A. Digital Signage
`
`15. Traditional out-of-home advertising (AKA outdoor advertising), such
`
`as billboards, bulletins, notice boards, posters, banners, and brochures, is being
`
`replaced with electronic signage, and, more recently, digital signage. Digital
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`signage utilizes various digital display technologies, such as LCD, LED, computer
`
`monitors, flat screen monitors, projectors, digital television sets, overhead screens,
`
`wall-mounted screens, and other display devices. Digital signage may be used to
`
`display images, video, text, and other content to convey information, such as
`
`transportation schedules and timetables, passenger information, updates, news,
`
`weather, traffic, corporate and informational messages, warnings, etc. or for
`
`advertising. Digital signage may be deployed in airports, train stations, railway
`
`station platforms, subway stations, subway platforms, ship harbors, bus stations,
`
`hospitals, sports arenas, theaters, movie theaters, concert halls, hotels, stadiums,
`
`museums, conferences, exhibitions, assembly halls, lecture halls, conference rooms,
`
`shopping malls, retail stores, restaurants, corporate buildings, etc. Digital signage
`
`allows both digital information and digital advertising to be displayed in public
`
`infrastructures and places that are accessible to and frequented by a general public.
`
`Digital signage technology involves digital display devices, possibly with local
`
`computers or processing devices, connected through communications medium,
`
`such as dedicated cables, local area network (LAN), wide area network (WAN), or
`
`wireless. The devices may be managed remotely. Digital signage technology
`
`involves hardware and software.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`B.
`
`16.
`
`Person of Skill in the Art at the Time of the Invention
`
`In paragraph 11 of the Carbonell Declaration, Dr. Carbonell opines
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’470 Patent at the time of
`
`its invention (a “POSITA”) “would possess at least a bachelor of science degree in
`
`electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent degree or experience)
`
`with practical experience or coursework in the design or development of systems
`
`for display control in a networked environment.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 11.
`
`17. For the purposes of this declaration, I have assumed the correctness of
`
`the scope of a POSITA in the field of the ’470 Patent at the time of its invention
`
`applied by Dr. Carbonell in paragraph 11 of his report. I reserve the right to
`
`describe and rely on a different scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`field of the ’470 Patent at the time of its invention in connection with any future
`
`declaration I submit in this or any other proceeding.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that my qualifications and experience exceed those of a
`
`POSITA as defined by Dr. Carbonell in paragraph 11 of his report. Nevertheless,
`
`my analysis and opinions in this declaration about the ’470 Patent are based on the
`
`perspectives of a POSITA as of April 1996 as defined by Dr. Carbonell in
`
`paragraph 11 of his report.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`C. Background of the Technology
`
`19. The specification of the ’470 Patent describes a number of related but
`
`distinct technologies; however, the ’470 Patent is primarily directed to a digital
`
`information system that dynamically controls and coordinates remote digital
`
`signage displays using information provided by external information mediators.
`
`Ex. 1001 cls. 1-26. In particular, a primary concern of the ’470 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
`
`technology, the available display time will nevertheless contain “dead time”,
`
`among other things due to back-logging caused by the manual infeed process.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:48-53. The patent further explains that “present-day systems do not
`
`enable information to be updated dynamically for display in real time. Neither do
`
`present-day systems enable external mediators to update information for display in
`
`a central control system, nor yet the administrator who makes the display of
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`information available, but it is the administrator who determines when, where and
`
`how the information shall be displayed.” Ex. 1001 at 54-57.
`
`20. 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.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`“dynamically updating,” “permitting said exposure list to be
`dynamically updated,” and “means for . . . dynamically updating
`an exposure list”
`
`21. The terms “dynamically updating,” “permitting said exposure list to
`
`be dynamically updated,” and “means for . . . dynamically updating an exposure
`
`list” are recited in claims 1, 13, 25, and 26 of the ’470 Patent, and is thus a
`
`limitation directly or through dependency of all of the claims at issue in this
`
`proceeding. I understand that Petitioners and their expert have not taken a position
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`regarding the construction of “dynamically updating” or “permitting said exposure
`
`list to be dynamically updated.” I further understand that Petitioners and their
`
`expert have taken the position that “means for generating and dynamically
`
`updating an exposure list” should be construed as an “exposure handler.”
`
`22.
`
`I understand that T-Rex has proposed that the term “dynamically
`
`updating” be construed as “updating the exposure list in response to user actions
`
`when and as needed,” the phrase “permitting said exposure list to be dynamically
`
`updating” be construed as “allowing the exposure list to be updated in response to
`
`user actions when and as needed,” and the phrase “means for . . . dynamically
`
`updating an exposure list” be construed as “an exposure handler allowing the
`
`exposure list to be updated in response to user actions when and as needed.” It is
`
`my opinion that T-Rex’s construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`these terms from the claims of the ’470 Patent, from the perspective of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art informed by the specification. In particular, the evidence
`
`establishes that T-Rex’s construction is the ordinary meaning of the term at the
`
`time of the invention.
`
`23.
`
`In the fields of engineering and computer science, the concept of
`
`dynamically updating is well-known. An example of dynamically updating is
`
`described in the fourth edition of the Microsoft Computer Dictionary in the
`
`definition of “dynamic HTML.” In particular, the fourth edition of the Microsoft
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`Computer Dictionary defines “dynamic HTML” as “A technology designed to add
`
`richness, interactivity, and graphical interest to Web pages by providing those
`
`pages with the ability to change and update themselves dynamically, that is, in
`
`response to user actions, without the need for repeated downloads from a server.”
`
`Ex. 2003 at 158 (emphasis added). Dynamic HTML is a well-known umbrella
`
`term for a collection of technologies that use scripting languages to change
`
`variables used in a web page to affect the look and function of an HTML page
`
`while a user views the page.
`
`24. Further support is found in the fourth edition of the Microsoft
`
`Computer Dictionary’s definition of “dynamic”: “describ[ing] some action or
`
`event that occurs when and as needed.” Ex. 2003 at 158 (emphasis added).
`
`25.
`
`In my opinion, T-Rex’s construction is also consistent with the plain
`
`and ordinary meaning of the term as a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention would understand it after reviewing the specification. In particular,
`
`the specification teaches that “it should be possible to update and change the
`
`information quickly.” Ex. 1001 at 2:26-27. 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
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`stand on platforms.” Ex. 1001 at 2:29-33. The specification further explains that
`
`one object of the invention is “to enable a picture, image or other information to be
`
`changed in practice as often as is desired, in real time, therewith providing direct
`
`and immediate communication.” Ex. 1001 at 2:49-53. The specification further
`
`explains that “an external information mediator 24 is able to put through
`
`information to the system 12 twenty-four hours a day, whereupon the information
`
`can be included instantaneously in the exposure list.” Ex. 1001 at 5:30-35. The
`
`specification also explains that “the digital information system is able to insert a
`
`change at short notice or to operate a completely different spot. The system is thus
`
`highly flexible and enables quick changes to be made with regard to what shall be
`
`exposed on the exposure means, where it shall be exposed and when.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`9:23-28. It is my opinion that a POSITA at the time of the invention would
`
`understand these disclosures to mean that the invention includes the ability to
`
`update the list of exposures as needed based on input from the user or external
`
`information mediator.
`
`26. The specification also provides an alternative to the dynamic updating
`
`of the exposure list where “[p]ersonnel at the working stations 32 are thus able to
`
`interrupt any queue lists in the server 1 to update the exposure list,” in contrast to
`
`updating the exposure list in response to user actions. Ex. 1001 at 8:10-34.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`27. The specification also distinguishes “updating” from “generating” and
`
`“organizing.” For example, claim 1 recites “generating, organizing, and
`
`dynamically updating an exposure list.” Ex. 1001 cl. 1. It is my opinion that a
`
`person of skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood claim 1
`
`to recite “generating,” “organizing,” and “dynamically updating” as distinct, but
`
`related, concepts.
`
`28. To the extent Petitioners’ proposed construction for “means for
`
`generating and dynamically updating an exposure list” is inconsistent with T-Rex’s
`
`construction for “means for . . . dynamically updating an exposure list,” I disagree
`
`with the construction proposed by Petitioners. It is my opinion that such a
`
`construction is inconsistent with the broadest reasonable construction of the
`
`“dynamically updating” terms in the claims of the ’470 Patent from the perspective
`
`of one of ordinary skill in the art, informed by the specifications and teachings of
`
`the patent. In particular, such a construction ignores the separate use of the terms
`
`“generating,” “organizing,” and “dynamically updating” in claim 1. Ex. 1001 cl. 1;
`
`see also ¶ 27 supra. Additionally, such a construction ignores the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of “dynamically updating,” as I discuss above in paragraphs 21
`
`through 26. See ¶¶ 21-26 supra; see also Ex. 2003 at 158-59 (MS Dictionary
`
`cites); see also Ex. 1001 at 2:26-27, 49-53, 5:30-35, 8:10-34, 9:23-29.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`VII. GROUND 1 – ALLEGED OBVIOUS OVER NAKAMURA AND
`LOBAN
`
`A. Nakamura and Loban do not disclose “dynamically updating an
`exposure list,” “permitting said exposure list to be dynamically
`updated,” or “means for . . . dynamically updating an exposure
`list.”
`
`29.
`
`In regards to proposed Ground 1, Petitioners’ theory for claims 1-3, 5-
`
`9, 12-14, 17-21, and 25 includes the supposition that the combination of Nakamura
`
`and Loban would practice the limitations “dynamically updating an exposure list,”
`
`“permitting said exposure list to by dynamically updated” and “means for . . .
`
`dynamically updating an exposure list.”1 I disagree with Petitioners’ theory for
`
`proposed Ground 1 for the following reasons.
`
`30. As described above, it is my opinion that the appropriate construction
`
`of the term “dynamically updating” is “updating the exposure list in response to
`
`user actions when and as needed,” the appropriate construction of the phrase
`
`“permitting said exposure list to be dynamically updating” is “allowing the
`
`exposure list to be updated in response to user actions when and as needed,” and
`
`the appropriate construction 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.”
`
`
`1 For clarity, I will hereinafter refer to these three limitations collectively as “the
`dynamically updating limitations.”
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`31.
`
`It is my opinion that Nakamura does not disclose “dynamically
`
`updating an exposure list,” “permitting said exposure list to be dynamically
`
`updated,” or “means for . . . dynamically updating an exposure list.” To the
`
`contrary, Nakamura does not teach updating the reservation information stored in
`
`the master station when and as needed, nor does Nakamura teach updating
`
`reservation information stored in the master station based on user action.
`
`32. From my review, the Nakamura patent application does not teach
`
`updating stored reservations; instead, the Nakamura patent application teaches only
`
`receiving and storing new reservations. For instance, Nakamura explains that
`
`“[w]hen the display reservations are received from an operator, the reservation
`
`periods created from the first to several orders are sequentially filled, and
`
`reservations are cut off when posting time is no longer available. If any time were
`
`to remain available, the display time 6 for individual reservations are arranged so
`
`that the posting reservation time frame T is filled with all the reservations that
`
`came in before the final reservation cut-off time. . . .” Ex. 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. 1007,
`
`Abstract. Nakamura also describes “dividing the display reservation cut off period
`
`for the selected specific slave stations into several periods, sequentially distributing
`
`and editing the display reservations to be displayed in the same posting reservation
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`time frame received during each of the 1st to the Nth reservation periods[.]” Ex.
`
`1007 at 0009. In my opinion, a person of skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would understand this disclosure to mean that the system of Nakamura accepts
`
`reservations on a first-come, first-serve basis, cutting off additional reservations
`
`once the posting time is no longer available. It is further my opinion that a person
`
`of skill in the art at the time of the invention would not understand this disclosure
`
`to include “dynamically updating.”
`
`33. Another disclosure of Nakamura relied upon by Petitioners to satisfy
`
`the disclosure of the “dynamically updating” limitations 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 registering
`
`the display reservation status with the master station.” Ex. 1007 at 0010 (emphasis
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`added). It is my opinion that a person of skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would understand this disclosure to explain that the system of Nakamura modifies
`
`the reservation information supplied at the terminal devices to adjust for
`
`overlapping reservations and idle time before registering the display reservation
`
`status with the master station, and not based on user action. See Ex. 1007 at 0010.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of skill in the art at the time of the invention would
`
`not understand this disclosure to meet the “dynamically updating” limitations.
`
`34. Another disclosure of Nakamura relied upon by Petitioners to satisfy
`
`the disclosure of the “dynamically updating” limitations 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). It is my opinion that a
`
`person of skill in the art at the time of the invention would understand this
`
`disclosure to explain that the system can be set up by the administrator to perform
`
`certain edits, such as conforming to decency standards, when allocating the posting
`
`time, and that such edits are not the result of user action. See Ex. 1007 at 0018. It
`
`is my opinion that a person of skill in the art at the time of the invention would not
`
`understand this disclosure to meet the “dynamically updating” limitations.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`35. Another disclosure of Nakamura relied upon by Petitioners to satisfy
`
`the disclosure of the “dynamically updating” limitations 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). It is my opinion that a person of skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention would understand this disclosure to explain that the
`
`system can be set up to rearrange the display order. See Ex. 1007 at 0025. It is my
`
`opinion that a person of skill in the art at the time of the invention would not
`
`understand this disclosure to meet the “dynamically updating” limitations,
`
`especially because the patent distinguishes between “organizing” and “dynamically
`
`updating” the exposure list. See 1001 at cl. 1 (claiming “generating, organizing,
`
`and dynamically updating the exposure list”). The disclosure 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. It is my opinion that a person of
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention would understand this disclosure to
`
`explain that the system can be set up to add idle time evenly across reservations
`
`when allocating the posting time, and that such edits are not the result of user
`
`action. See Ex. 1007 at 0025. It is my opinion that a person of skill in the art at
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`the time of the invention would not understand this disclosure to meet the
`
`“dynamically updating” limitations.
`
`36.
`
`It is my opinion that Nakamura does not disclose dynamically
`
`updating an exposure list. Even if the Board concludes that Nakamura discloses
`
`updating an exposure list, the disclosures that Petitioners rely on from Nakamura at
`
`best only teach modifying the received reservations based on the system’s own
`
`pre-configured internal requirements rather than based on user actions.
`
`37. Accordingly, it is my opinion that none of the disclosures of
`
`Nakamura relied upon by Petitioners for the “dynamically updating” limitations
`
`would be understood by a person of skill in the art at the time of the invention as
`
`disclosing the “dynamically updating” limitations.
`
`38. From my review of the petition and the Carbonell declaration,
`
`Petitioners do not identify any disclosure of Loban as teaching the “dynamically
`
`updating” limitations.
`
`39.
`
`It is my opinion that 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 an exposure list.
`
`40. Accordingly, it is my opinion that, because neither Nakamura nor
`
`Loban teach the limitations “dynamically updating an exposure list,” “permitting
`
`said exposure list to be dynamically updated,” or “means for . . . dynamically
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE39,470
`IPR2016-01869
`
`
`updating an exposure list,” the combination of Nakamura in view of Loban would
`
`not render obvious claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, 17-21, or 24-26.
`
`B. Nakamura and Loban do not disclose “interrupting said display
`of material by said select projectors when said display is hidden,
`obstructed, or otherwise visibly unavailable in said public place.”
`
`41.
`
`In regards to proposed Ground 1, Petitioners’ theory for claim 3
`
`includes the supposition that the combination of Nakamura and Loban would
`
`practice the limitation “wherein said coordinating and controlling includes
`
`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. I disagree with Petitioners’ theory for claim 3.
`
`42.
`
`In particular, Petitioners rely on the disclosure in paragraph 0018 of
`
`Nakamura for the disclosure of “discontinuing the display of a certain amount of
`
`content (e.g. high quality) when a vehicle is in transit.” Pet. at 38; Ex. 1006 ¶81. I
`
`disagree with Petitioners and Petitioners’ expert. 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. 1007
`
`at 0018 (emphasis added). It is my opinion that a pers