PTAB

IPR2017-01911

Barco Inc v. T Rex Property Ab

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Digital Information System
  • Brief Description: The ’334 patent discloses a digital information system for coordinating and controlling electronic displays. The system includes a central control center that receives control instructions from external "information mediators," uses these instructions to create and update an "exposure list," and sends the list to station computers that control what content is shown on various display devices.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Nakamura and Cho - Claims 22, 32, and 33 are obvious over Nakamura in view of Cho.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nakamura (Japanese Patent Application Heisei 07-168544) and Cho (Patent 5,566,353).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Nakamura disclosed the core elements of the challenged claims, including a digital display system with a control center (“master station”) and remote users who can schedule content on various display devices by creating what amounts to an exposure list (a “reservation record”). Nakamura’s system allows remote users to access the master station and make reservations without additional processing. To the extent Nakamura did not explicitly teach updating the exposure list “in real time” via “dynamic booking,” Petitioner contended that Cho supplied this teaching. Cho disclosed a similar point-of-purchase video distribution system where playlists (equivalent to exposure lists) could be updated “when and as needed,” including making “last minute modifications” via a modem connection. Petitioner argued that combining Cho’s dynamic updating capability with Nakamura’s foundational system rendered the challenged claims obvious. Claim 33, which adds a communication connection for mediators, was argued to be taught by Nakamura's disclosure of modems and telephone lines for connecting users to the master station.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Nakamura and Cho to achieve greater flexibility and control for end users, a goal explicitly shared by both references. Petitioner asserted that Cho’s teaching of “massive flexibility” through last-minute updates, along with the resulting savings in transmission costs, time, and memory, provided a strong motivation to incorporate its dynamic playlist modification features into Nakamura's advertising display system.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued the modification would be trivial and met with a high expectation of success. Nakamura’s system already included the necessary hardware components, such as computers and modems at its “slave stations,” which are analogous to the local PC systems in Cho. Therefore, implementing Cho’s functionality for receiving schedule updates “when and as needed” would require no significant hardware modifications to Nakamura’s existing architecture.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Dynamic Booking" (Claims 22, 32): Petitioner proposed this term should be construed as "booking when and as needed." Critically, Petitioner argued this construction did not encompass guaranteed automatic or instantaneous updating of the exposure list. The update's inclusion was contingent on whether space was available in the list, meaning a fully booked list would result in the update being queued rather than immediately applied. This interpretation was central to mapping the prior art, which allowed for flexible but not necessarily instantaneous updates.
  • "Update Said Exposure List in Real Time" (Claim 22): Petitioner argued this phrase should be interpreted to mean the control center can update the exposure list at the time a mediator sends information, but with the possibility of delays. Based on the specification, Petitioner contended that "real time" included the possibility of short delays from processing or, significantly, the update not occurring at all if the exposure list was fully booked.
  • "Mediators" (Claims 22, 32): Consistent with the specification, Petitioner interpreted "mediators" as "any companies or private persons who are external to the control center." This distinction was used to map the external users in both Nakamura and Cho to the claimed "mediators."