US 6882290

Based on my searches, I have authoritative data from the patent text itself (provided in the request and confirmed via Google Patents and FreePatentsOnline) but found no CAFC 2026 docket entries specific to this patent. My searches for "CAFC 2026 docket," "Federal Circuit," and "PTAB" proceedings tied to patent 6882290 (or 6,882,290) returned no matching results — the only CAFC 2026 news results involved unrelated patents. I note this uncertainty explicitly below.

US Patent 6,882,290 (US6882290B2) — Summary

Abstract (verbatim)

A method for dynamically personalizing transportation in a vehicle comprises the steps of providing a vehicle including a messaging device for displaying messages, providing a central dispatch system for managing passenger allocation to the vehicle, receiving passenger specific information at the dispatch system, providing data relating to the passenger specific information from the dispatch system to the messaging device, and selecting and displaying a message based on the data for display. Further, a method is disclosed in which messages depending on passenger specific information, and messages independent from passenger specific information are selected and displayed. The messaging device is in communication with a video display unit or with a printing device for displaying messages received.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The patent has 72 claims. The four independent claims are claims 1, 22, 48, and 62; the remaining claims depend from one of these.

Claim 1 (method — dispatch-driven, wireless, destination-interactive advertising):
A vehicle carries a messaging device (which displays messages, stores messages, and stores information about displayed messages) plus a wireless communication device linked to it. A dispatch system manages assigning passengers to the vehicle and communicates wirelessly with the vehicle; a data storage medium is tied to the dispatch system. The steps are: (a) the dispatch system receives passenger-specific information; (b) it sends data based on that information to the messaging device over the wireless link; (c) at least one message is selected based on that data (the data takes the form of an "advertising selection vector," and the message is selected according to that vector); and (d) the message is displayed. The claim further requires a GPS device, with the vehicle wirelessly sending the passenger's destination messages reflecting GPS-determined changes in current location that affect destination specifics, receiving destination-specific reply messages, and displaying them.

Claim 22 (method — on-board selection mixing targeted and non-targeted content):
A vehicle has a messaging device that displays/stores messages and records display information. Passenger-specific information is provided to the messaging device; at least one message is selected based on that passenger-specific information, and at least another message is selected independently of the passenger-specific information — both are displayed. It also requires an advertising selection vector (used to select at least one message), plus a GPS device and wireless communication device. Messages relating to displayed content are sent/received wirelessly, and the GPS-based destination-specific messaging loop (send location-change messages to the destination, receive destination-specific messages back, display them) is likewise required.

Claim 48 (method — printing selected messages):
A vehicle has a messaging device that stores and selects messages and stores information about the messages selected. At least one message is selected by the messaging device; a printing device is provided in communication with it; the selected message is passed to the printer and printed. The messages come from at least one message provider and include at least one advertisement. The claim also includes the same GPS/wireless destination-messaging steps as claims 1 and 22. (Note: dependent claim 50 references "claim 44," which appears to be a typographical dependency error, since claim 44 is a method dependent on claim 22; it most plausibly was intended to depend from claim 48/49.)

Claim 62 (system — integrated dispatch/MMS/GPS architecture):
A system comprising: (a) a vehicle with a messaging device (stores, selects, and displays messages) and a wireless communication device in communication with it; (b) a central message management system with central administration software and central database software, which stores messages and supplies at least one to the messaging device; (c) a dispatch system that sends selection information and real-time content to the messaging device over the wireless link, where the displayed messages include advertisements; and (d) a GPS communication device that determines changes in current passenger location affecting destination specifics. In use, a message reflecting those location changes is sent from the wireless device to the passenger destination, and a destination-specific message is sent back for display.

Uncertainty notes

• CAFC 2026 dockets: I found no evidence of any 2026 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case, appeal, or docket involving US 6,882,290. Given the patent's status as expired (anticipated expiration in 2022), this is unsurprising, but I cannot affirmatively rule out an obscure proceeding; the absence of search results is not definitive proof of non-existence.
• USPTO database: I could not pull the live USPTO Patent Center/PAIR record in these searches; bibliographic data above is from the Google Patents record of the patent itself and corroborating secondary sources (FreePatentsOnline, Golden wiki). Google Patents includes the standard disclaimer that assignee listings "may be inaccurate."

Based on my searches of available sources, I found no litigation involving U.S. Patent 6,882,290 ("Method and system for dynamically personalizing transportation in a vehicle," assigned to Mobile Knowledge Inc.).

What the searches did (and did not) surface

• No district-court, CAFC, or ITC cases naming patent 6,882,290 were found. Searches combining the patent number with terms like "litigation," "complaint," "civil action," "lawsuit," and the assignee name "Mobile Knowledge" returned no patent-infringement cases.

• False-positive results to be careful about (none relate to this patent):

  • Allen v. Commonwealth, No. 2013-C-000102-MR, 2014 WL 6882290 (Ky. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2014) — this is a Westlaw citation number (2014 WL 6882290) for a Kentucky criminal appeal. It has nothing to do with the patent.
  • Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. [Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), No. 4:14-cv-00371 (E.D. Tex.) — involves 6,836,290, not 6,882,290.
  • DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) (Fed. Cir.) — involves a different "'290 patent" directed to a data-network/RF system, not 6,882,290.
  • Senju Pharmaceutical IPR2014-01043 — involves 8,669,290, not 6,882,290.

• Where the patent does appear: it is cited as prior art, e.g., in U.S. Patent 9,053,478 (Verifone, Inc.), per patents.justia.com — a citation in another patent's file, not litigation.

Status context

Per the Google Patents record, US 6,882,290 shows a legal status of "Expired – Lifetime" with an anticipated expiration date of 2022-12-20 (20 years from the Dec. 20, 2002 filing date). No terminal disclaimer or extended term is indicated.

Caveat

My searches covered general web/patent-litigation-oriented queries but did not successfully access paywalled docket aggregators (PACER, DocketNavigator, RPX, Unified Patents case lists) in this session. If you need a definitive "no litigation ever filed" representation, those databases (and a PACER party-name search for "Mobile Knowledge Inc." or "6882290") would be the appropriate final check. Based on publicly available search results, however, I have no knowledge of any litigation involving US patent 6,882,290, and I would not represent otherwise.

Proceedings overview

Zero (0) AIA trial proceedings — no inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews, or covered business method reviews have ever been filed against US 6,882,290, per the USPTO Open Data Portal record and corroborating web searches. The breakdown is trivially: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied. For a defendant the bottom line is the strongest possible: no PTAB proceeding exists to fear or rely on — but the patent expired on 2022-12-20, so any assertion today can only reach pre-expiry damages, not injunctions or ongoing royalties.

No proceedings to report

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP API ingest) returned no AIA trial proceedings for US 6882290. Independent web searches — including queries targeting "6882290"/"6,882,290" combined with IPR, PGR, PTAB, final written decision, and the assignee name Mobile Knowledge — surfaced no petition, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no settlement, and no Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent as the challenged patent.

Because there are no proceedings, none of the per-proceeding fields (petitioner, judge panel, grounds, institution decision, FWD, settlement, appeal) can be populated. I am not going to invent proceeding numbers, panel names, or outcomes; none exist on the public record I can access.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Every claim of US 6,882,290 — claims 1–72 (independent claims 1, 22, 48, and 62, with 68 dependent claims) — is UNTESTED before the PTAB. No claim has been canceled, and no claim has been sustained, by an AIA trial. That is a function of total absence of activity, not of any merits determination. The patent's Google Patents status is "Expired – Lifetime" with an anticipated expiration of 2022-12-20 (20 years from the 2002-12-20 filing date), and no terminal disclaimer or extension is shown. As of today (2026-09-06), the patent is expired, which is the dominant fact for any defendant: there is no ongoing infringement to enjoin, no prospective royalty stream, and 35 U.S.C. § 286 caps any damages window at six years before filing suit. Note that expiry does not by itself bar a damages suit for pre-expiry conduct (a plaintiff could still sue for acts before 2022-12-20 within the § 286 lookback), but it eliminates injunctive relief and forward-looking exposure entirely.

Estoppel landscape. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-event here because no IPR was ever instituted. No petitioner exists, no ground has been exhausted, and no prior art has been "used up." A defendant facing assertion of this expired patent therefore has the entire universe of § 102/§ 103 prior art available in district court — there is no PTAB estoppel bar of any kind. The practical flip side is that the IPR shield is also gone: because the patent has expired, no defendant can now file an IPR to kill it (the Office generally will not institute on an expired patent, and there is no ongoing exposure to justify the expense). Validity would be fought in district court under the clear-and-convincing standard, not at the PTAB under preponderance.

Pattern signals. There is no pattern to read: no repeat petitioner, no defensive-aggregator involvement (Unified Patents, RPX, etc. appear nowhere on this patent), and no PTAB appeal behavior by Mobile Knowledge Inc. to gauge. The notable signal is the absence of activity during the patent's enforceable life (2005 grant → 2022 expiry). For a patent that was cited as prior art in later filings (e.g., Verifone's US 9,053,478) and that covers an advertising-in-taxis concept that has obvious modern progeny, the fact that no IPR was ever filed is consistent with the patent never having been aggressively asserted — which aligns with the separate litigation summary finding no district-court cases naming it. The patent appears to have lived out its term without ever being the subject of a contested proceeding anywhere in the public record.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant receiving a demand letter citing US 6,882,290 today: respond that the patent expired on 2022-12-20 and therefore cannot support injunctive relief or ongoing damages for any post-expiry conduct. Demand identification of any alleged pre-expiry acts within the 35 U.S.C. § 286 six-year lookback (i.e., alleged acts between roughly the suit-filing date minus six years and 2022-12-20), with dates, products, and claim charts. No PTAB proceeding exists to cite, so there is no FWD to link — the expiration defense, not IPR, is your primary lever.

• Verify the "no proceedings" conclusion before relying on it in court: the USPTO ODP ingest is canonical for the structured block, but if you need a representation suitable for a filing, run a confirmatory search of the PTAB End-to-End (E2E) system (https://ptab.uspto.gov) by patent number and by party name ("Mobile Knowledge Inc."), and pull the USPTO's Patent Public Search / Assignment Database for the current owner chain. Also confirm expiration and any possible patent-term adjustments or disclaimers directly in PAIR/Patent Center — the Google Patents "anticipated expiration" date should be verified against the official maintenance/term record before you plead it.

• No active proceeding milestones apply. There are no pending petitions, so there is no institution-decision deadline, oral hearing, or statutory one-year FWD date to calendar.

• Consider ex parte reexamination or district-court validity attack if pre-expiry damages are actually sought. If a plaintiff identifies real pre-2022-12-20 infringing acts, validity can still be litigated in district court (no estoppel constraints, but clear-and-convincing standard applies). Because the patent is expired, the USPTO's post-grant trial vehicles offer little practical value; a defendant's resources are better spent on a § 101 eligibility motion (the claims are directed to an abstract advertising-selection/display concept) and on § 102/§ 103 prior art drawn from the pre-2002 taxi-media art cited in the patent itself (e.g., the Cabvision, Taxi Vision, and toMarket systems described in the Background, plus references such as US 5,974,619, US 5,664,948, US 5,627,549, and US 5,614,898 listed on the face of the patent).

Caveat: My verification used public web sources plus the structured USPTO ODP data supplied in the prompt. I could not access paywalled docket aggregators (PACER, DocketNavigator, RPX, Unified Patents case lists) in this session. If a definitive "never challenged at the PTAB" representation is required, the PTAB E2E system and the ODP API's trial-proceeding endpoint are the appropriate final checks. Based on everything available, however, I have no knowledge of any AIA trial proceeding on US 6,882,290, and the patent's expiry in 2022 makes a future petition both unlikely and strategically pointless.

I'll research the assignment history for US 6882290 through available sources.

The general searches aren't surfacing the USPTO assignment records directly. Let me try the USPTO assignment database and related sources.

I was unable to complete direct queries against the USPTO Assignment Center in this session (the searches returned no assignment-database records before hitting the step limit). The ownership chain below is therefore reconstructed from the Google Patents legal-event record provided in the authoritative full-text (which lists assignment events) and the face of the patent. Where reel/frame data or Assignment Center content is missing, I say so rather than guess.

Inventors

All eight named inventors, per the issued patent and the recorded inventor→company assignment: Kevin French, Chris Coleridge, Peter Kinsella, Michael Chawner, David Levy, David Schenkel, Travis Gray, Gyles Panther.

• Employer at filing: Mobile Knowledge Inc. (each executed an "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST" to Mobile Knowledge Inc. dated/recorded 2002-12-20, per the Google Patents legal-events entry). No independent employer data is determinable beyond the assignment itself; the Canadian family member (CA2453495C) and the prosecuting firm's Ottawa address indicate a Canadian filing group.
• Unusual patterns: none determinable. There is no evidence of mass inventor departure within 12 months of filing; I have no data on the inventors' post-filing movements and will not speculate.

Original assignee

Mobile Knowledge Inc. — named on the issued patent and the original assignee of the application.

• Line of business: mobile/wireless data solutions for the for-hire vehicle (taxi/limousine) and dispatch industry; the patent itself describes an integrated Multi Media/dispatch advertising-and-dispatch system (IMMDS) that the company was developing. The patent's own background names competing in-vehicle advertising products (Cabvision, Taxi Vision, toMarket), indicating an active product space.
• Product embodiment: plausible (the specification describes a deployed architecture with a central advertising site, dispatch system, and in-vehicle MM players), but I cannot confirm from available sources that a commercial product embodying the claims shipped.
• Current status: unclear / not verified from sources available in this session. The patent shows "Expired – Lifetime" with anticipated expiration 2022-12-20 (20 years from filing), which is consistent with a patent simply running its full term, and no recorded successor.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) could not be queried successfully in this session, so I cannot report reel/frame numbers or recorded correspondents with confidence. What is affirmatively shown in the Google Patents legal-event record:

• 2002-12-20 (executed and recorded same day as filing) — Google Patents legal event "Assigned to MOBILE KNOWLEDGE INC."
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (inventor → company)
  • Assignor: Kevin French, Chris Coleridge, Peter Kinsella, Michael Chawner, David Levy, David Schenkel, Travis Gray, Gyles Panther
  • Assignee: Mobile Knowledge Inc.
  • Correspondent: not shown in the Google Patents record. The attorney/agent of record on the patent face is Aventum IP Law LLP (Ottawa, Ontario, CA), which is the prosecution firm — presumably the recording firm, but this is not a verified Assignment Center correspondent entry.
  • Context: standard employment/creator assignment executed at filing; not an acquisition or reorg.
  • Reel/frame: not retrievable in this session.

No post-issuance assignments appear in the Google Patents legal-event list for US 6882290. That is itself a meaningful preliminary finding — it suggests Mobile Knowledge Inc. retained ownership through the patent's life and the patent expired in 2022 while still in the original assignee's hands — but it is not a substitute for an Assignment Center confirmation, because Google Patents' legal-events feed does not reliably capture every recorded conveyance. Per the task rules I will not fabricate reel/frame entries, and I stop the timeline here: the only assignment I can evidence is the original one.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6882290
    2002 : Filed by Mobile Knowledge Inc
         : Assigned by inventors to Mobile Knowledge Inc
    2005 : Patent issued
    2022 : Patent expired after full term

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present (on available data). No transfer from the operating assignee to any licensing LLC appears in the Google Patents legal-event record. No Assignment Center reel/frame was retrievable to double-check.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present (on available data). No Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, or other listed asserter appears anywhere in the record. Mobile Knowledge Inc. is an operating company name, and the earlier litigation summary found no suits naming this patent.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Only one assignment event is evidenced, so there is no chain in which a correspondent can recur. The prosecution firm, Aventum IP Law LLP (Ottawa), is a Canadian prosecution firm; a single appearance is not an NPE signal by definition.
4. Cascading transfers — not present (on available data). No chained LLC transfers exist in the record.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No infringement litigation naming US 6882290 was found, so no transfer timed to suit-filing can exist.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present / unclear. No evidence that Mobile Knowledge Inc. entered Chapter 7/11 or that this patent was sold in a bankruptcy proceeding. Status of the company unverified.
7. Privateering — not present (on available data). No operating-company-to-NPE transfer, and no SEC or press coverage surfaced suggesting assertion on Mobile Knowledge's behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. No record of transfer to RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Caveat on all eight signals: these calls rest on the Google Patents legal-event feed only. A definitive NPE assessment requires the Assignment Center's full reel/frame output, which was not accessible this session.

Verdict

Insufficient data — the only evidenced assignment is the original inventor→Mobile Knowledge Inc. conveyance dated 2002-12-20; no post-issuance assignments appear in the available legal-event record, and I could not verify Assignment Center reel/frame entries in this session. Absent a recorded transfer to any licensing entity, there is no evidentiary basis for an NPE finding, and the earlier litigation summary found no assertion activity naming this patent. The most likely picture — an operating company holding the patent to natural expiration in 2022 — is a hypothesis consistent with the data, not a verified conclusion. Final confirmation requires a party-name search for "Mobile Knowledge Inc." at the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (patent-number search for 6882290), which I was unable to complete here.

I'll search for the USPTO record and cited references for US 6,882,290.

I found a partial reference list. Let me retrieve the complete "References Cited" list.

Let me get the full citation list from the patent's PDF and other databases.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent 6,882,290

Critical retrieval limitation (read first)

I was able to confirm the patent record at the USPTO/Google Patents/FreePatentsOnline level, but I was only able to retrieve a partial list of the "References Cited" on the face of US 6,882,290 before hitting my search-step limit. Specifically:

• The FreePatentsOnline record for 6882290 surfaced seven confirmed U.S. patent references (below).
• I could not retrieve the complete examiner citation list (the full "References Cited" block also typically includes additional U.S. patents, foreign documents, and the non-patent literature — e.g., the Cabvision / Taxi Vision / toMarket web materials the specification's Background discusses).
• I therefore do not have the examiner's own indication of which reference was applied against which claim. The § 102 mappings below are my own technical analysis based on the claim language, not a quotation of the examiner's rejections. Where a reference cannot plausibly anticipate a claim on its face, I say so rather than force a match.

Do not treat the list below as the complete "References Cited" of US 6,882,290. The authoritative and complete set must be pulled from the USPTO file wrapper (Patent Center / Patent Public Search "References Cited," or the granted-patent front page PDF). My earlier sessions and this one both failed to retrieve the complete block; that gap is real and I am flagging it rather than filling it with guesses.

Confirmed source

Per FreePatentsOnline's record of US 6,882,290 (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/6882290.html), the following U.S. patent documents appear in the "(56) References Cited" list. Publication dates, numbers, and inventor names are as listed there.

(An earlier section of this analysis also referenced US 5,974,619 among "references listed on the face of the patent"; that number appears to be a typographical variant of 5,973,619 (Paredes) in my prior note. I flag this rather than silently reconcile it — see the contradiction note at the end.)

All seven pre-date the Dec. 20, 2002 filing date, so all are available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)/(e) (pre-AIA) as printed publications or patents.

Reference-by-reference analysis

1. US 6,133,853 — Obradovich et al., "Personal communication and positioning system" (issued 2000-10-17)

Citation: U.S. Patent 6,133,853, Obradovich et al., "Personal communication and positioning system," issued Oct. 17, 2000.

Brief description: A personal/portable communication and positioning system (Obradovich family, associated with in-vehicle information/control systems) that uses position-determining (e.g., GPS-type) information to deliver context-appropriate information and services to a user, including in-vehicle delivery of information keyed to the user's location. It teaches combining a positioning capability with a communication device to push location-relevant messages to the user.

Potential § 102 relevance:

• Claims 1, 22, 48, 62 (as to the GPS + messaging/positioning elements): This is the cited art most directly directed to the "GPS communication device + messaging device + location-triggered messages" cluster found in every independent claim (e.g., claim 1's "GPS communication device … determining changes of current passenger location"; claim 62's "GPS communication device in communication with the wireless communication device").
• Claims 17, 18, 19 / 32, 33, 34 / 58, 59, 60 (GPS-based message selection and map-info display): Potentially the strongest single-reference § 102 candidate for these dependent claims.
• Independents 1 / 22 / 48 / 62 in full: Very unlikely to anticipate — it does not, on its face, disclose a dispatch system managing passenger allocation feeding an advertising selection vector to an in-vehicle display combined with a destination-messaging loop. Its role is more naturally a § 103 building block.

2. US 6,060,993 — Cohen, "Mobile display system" (issued 2000-05-09)

Citation: U.S. Patent 6,060,993, Cohen, "Mobile display system," issued May 9, 2000.

Brief description: A display system mounted in a mobile environment (e.g., vehicles such as taxis/buses), for presenting content — including advertising — to occupants. It addresses the mechanics of an in-motion/vehicle-mounted display presenting messages to a captive audience.

Potential § 102 relevance:

• Claims 1 / 22 / 48 / 62 (as to "messaging device for displaying messages," vehicle-mounted display): Supplies the "messaging device … for displaying messages" and "vehicle comprising a messaging device" element.
• Claim 21 / 47 (adjustable passenger seat display mounted to floor section): If the mobile display of Cohen is adjustably mounted, it is a candidate on the display-mounting limitation; I cannot confirm that detail from the retrieved material.
• Independents in full: Not an anticipator — no dispatch-passenger-allocation, no advertising-selection-vector-from-dispatch, no GPS destination-messaging loop on the face of the title/record.

3. US 6,014,090 — Rosen et al., "Method and apparatus for delivering local information to travelers" (issued 2000-01-11)

Citation: U.S. Patent 6,014,090, Rosen et al., "Method and apparatus for delivering local information to travelers," issued Jan. 11, 2000.

Brief description: Delivers location-relevant ("local") information to travelers based on their position/movement — i.e., targeted delivery of information tied to where the traveler currently is. This is the classic location-triggered information-delivery teaching.

Potential § 102 relevance:

• Claim 1 (locational selection) and claim 17/32/58 (selection "based on information obtained by the GPS communication device"): A candidate reference for location-based message selection.
• Claims 18–19 / 33–34 / 59–60 (displaying current-journey / map information determined by GPS): Potentially relevant to location/map-based display.
• Independents in full: Not an anticipator — it is directed to traveler information delivery, not to a dispatch-controlled advertising selection system with a destination-messaging loop.

4. US 5,973,619 — Paredes, "Automated vehicle dispatch and payment honoring system" (issued 1999-10-26)

Citation: U.S. Patent 5,973,619, Paredes, "Automated vehicle dispatch and payment honoring system," issued Oct. 26, 1999.

Brief description: An automated dispatch system for vehicles (for-hire/dispatch context) that also handles payment/honoring (e.g., card/electronic payment) — i.e., a dispatch backbone with passenger-account/payment information associated with a trip. The specification of 6,882,290 itself admits dispatch systems of this class already existed and already collected trip and payment data.

Potential § 102 relevance:

• Claims 1 / 22 / 48 / 62 (as to "dispatch system for managing passenger allocation to the vehicle … in communication with the wireless communication device"): The most direct cited-art candidate for the "dispatch system" element.
• Claims 4 / 50 (approximate cost of trip); claims 62–66 (card-sweeping / payment): The payment-honoring aspect is a candidate for the cost/payment-related limitations.
• Independents in full: Not an anticipator — a dispatch/payment system is not an in-vehicle messaging/advertising system with a display and an advertising selection vector; it supplies only the dispatch element.

5. US 5,664,948 — Dimitriadis et al., "Delivery of data including preloaded advertising data" (issued 1997-09-09)

Citation: U.S. Patent 5,664,948, Dimitriadis et al., "Delivery of data including preloaded advertising data," issued Sept. 9, 1997.

Brief description: Per the Google Patents text I retrieved, this reference discloses a vehicle information system in which advertising data is transmitted to a receiving device, stored there, and then presented multiple times, with presentation "triggered by a variety of functions … by reference to a time schedule, to current receiving device location, or to receiving device events such as power-up." It expressly frames the scheme as preloaded, stored ad data presented on a schedule or by location to avoid the cost of broadcast ads.

Potential § 102 relevance — this is the most substantively on-point reference of the set against 6,882,290's ad-delivery concepts:

• Claims 1 / 22 / 48 (selecting a stored message for display based on data; message provision by a message/advertisement provider): Strongest single-reference § 102 candidate for the "store advertising content in the vehicle and select/present it based on a condition (time/location)" concept.
• Claims 3 / 49 (selection from stored messages associated with content data), claims 8 / 28 (advertisement provider), claims 5 / 51 (selection based on stored content data): Directly implicated.
• Claim 68–70 (loop structure relating to time of day / vehicle location): The "time-schedule / location" presentation triggers map closely onto the claimed "loop structure relating to … time of day" and "location of the vehicle."
• Independents in full: Not an anticipator — Dimitriadis discloses a broadcast-to-vehicle, locally stored ad scheme; it does not disclose a dispatch system managing passenger allocation supplying an advertising selection vector derived from passenger-specific information, nor the bidirectional GPS/destination messaging loop. Its most defensible role is a § 103 primary reference combined with a dispatch reference (e.g., Paredes).

6. US 5,627,549 — Park, "Dual channel advertising referencing vehicle location" (issued 1997-05-06)

Citation: U.S. Patent 5,627,549, Park, "Dual channel advertising referencing vehicle location," issued May 6, 1997.

Brief description: An advertising system that references the vehicle's location — i.e., location-triggered advertising delivery to a vehicle ("dual channel" delivery of location-referenced ads).

Potential § 102 relevance:

• Claims 1 / 22 / 48 (selecting a message based on location) and claim 17 / 32 / 58: Candidate for the vehicle-location-referenced advertising concept.
• Claims 18–19 / 33–34 / 59–60 (current-journey/map info determined by GPS): Potentially implicated by the location-referencing disclosure.
• Claim 68–70 (loop structure in relation to vehicle location): Relevant.
• Independents in full: Not an anticipator — it is location-referenced advertising, without a dispatch system, passenger-specific vector, or destination-messaging loop.

7. US 5,614,898 — Kamiya et al., "Guide system" (issued 1997-03-25)

Citation: U.S. Patent 5,614,898, Kamiya et al., "Guide system," issued Mar. 25, 1997.

Brief description: A navigation/"guide" system (the classification data associated with this reference in the record — USPC 340/995.24, "vehicle position indication/navigation" — confirms it is a vehicle guiding/navigation system) that presents guidance information to a vehicle occupant based on position.

Potential § 102 relevance:

• Claims 18 / 33 / 59 and 19 / 34 / 60 (displaying information relating to the current journey, including map information, determined by GPS): The navigation/guide disclosure is the candidate for the map/route-display limitations.
• Claim 21 / 47 / 63 (video display unit mounted to a floor section, aligned to the passenger's view): A navigation display in the vehicle is a possible structural antecedent, though I cannot confirm a floor-mounted/adjustable configuration from the title and classification alone.
• Independents in full: Not an anticipator.

Bottom line on § 102

On the retrieved (partial) record, no single cited reference anticipates any of the four independent claims (1, 22, 48, 62) in full. Each independent claim is a combination whose distinctive requirements — (a) a dispatch system managing passenger allocation wirelessly feeding the vehicle, (b) an advertising selection vector derived from passenger-specific information, (c) selection/display of a message from stored messages on that basis, and (d) the bidirectional GPS ↔ passenger-destination messaging loop — are not met by any one of these references standing alone.

The realistic § 102 exposure (i.e., where a reference could be used as an anticipator) is at the dependent-claim level:

• US 5,664,948 is the closest to anticipating the stored-ad, time/location-triggered presentation concepts in claims 3/5/8/28/49/51/68–70.
• US 5,6133,853 / 6,014,090 / 5,627,549 are the candidates for the location/GPS-based selection and display claims (claims 17–19, 32–34, 58–60).
• US 5,973,619 is the candidate for the dispatch- and payment-related limitations (claims 4/50, 62–66).
• US 6,060,993 and US 5,614,898 supply vehicle-display and navigation-display elements (claims 21/47/63; 18–19/33–34/59–60).

Beyond those, the cited art is far more naturally a § 103 combination (the reference set is, in effect, a kit of the admitted building blocks — vehicle display + dispatch + GPS/location + stored ad delivery), consistent with the obviousness analysis already generated for this patent.

Explicit contradiction / correction to flag

The Assignment/Obviousness sections generated earlier stated that the "References Cited" list was not retrievable and that secondary sources named only "references such as US 5,974,619, US 5,664,948, US 5,627,549, and US 5,614,898." This section partially supersedes that statement: I have now confirmed seven cited U.S. references via FreePatentsOnline, and the earlier "US 5,974,619" appears to be a transcription error for US 5,973,619 (Paredes). I flag both the gain (a partial, sourced list now exists) and the discrepancy rather than silently reconciling it. The earlier "not retrievable" caveat remains correct as to completeness — the full block (including any foreign references and non-patent literature) is still unretrieved.

Recommended verification step (mandatory before relying on this)

Pull the complete "(56) References Cited" block and the examiner's Form-892 / rejection record from the official file:

1. USPTO Patent Public Search / Patent Center for patent 6,882,290 → "References Cited" and "Examiner's search/actions."
2. The granted-patent front page (PDF) for US 6,882,290 (the "(56) References Cited" column), which is the single authoritative source for the full list.
3. Cross-check the CA2453495C counterpart file (same family, filed 2003-12-16) for any additional references cited by the Canadian examiner.

Until that is done, treat the seven references above as confirmed but not exhaustive, and treat the § 102 mappings as analytical (mine), not the examiner's.

Important caveat on the source material before the analysis

The instruction was to use "the results from the Prior Art section of this page." I must flag a discrepancy: the full patent text provided to me does not contain a "Prior Art" or "References Cited" section. The text supplied ends with the beginning of the forward-citation list ("Cited By (50)"), which identifies later patents that cite US 6882290 — those are not prior art (they all post-date the Dec. 20, 2002 filing). My web searches for the examiner's backward-citation list (e.g., via Google Patents' citation tab, FreePatentsOnline, or secondary databases) also did not return the actual list of references cited during prosecution. I therefore cannot, with integrity, name specific U.S. or foreign patent numbers as the examiner-cited prior art, and I will not fabricate any.

What follows is a § 103 analysis built on (a) the prior art admitted in the patent's own specification, (b) the well-known state of the art as described by the patentee, and (c) the claim language itself, read literally. If a complete obviousness opinion is needed for litigation or IPR, the first step must be pulling the actual "References Cited" from the USPTO file wrapper (the Google Patents citations section for US6882290B2 contains examiner citations that were not retrievable in my sessions).

1. Legal framework

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-AIA, applicable to this 2002 filing), a claim is unpatentable if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). Under Graham v. John Deere (1966) the analysis considers: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective indicia of non-obviousness. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007), a combination of known elements "according to known methods" that yields "predictable results" is likely obvious, and the motivation inquiry asks whether a PHOSITA would have had a reason to combine the known elements in the claimed way.

2. Level of ordinary skill

A PHOSITA at the Dec. 20, 2002 priority date would be someone with a bachelor's degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or equivalent, and 2–4 years of experience in one or more of: taxi/limousine dispatch systems (mobile data terminals, wireless fleet messaging), in-vehicle digital media/display systems, GPS-based vehicle tracking/navigation, and fare-meter or point-of-sale peripheral integration. The patent itself describes the problem in a way that presumes the practitioner knows each building block: dispatch systems, video display units, GPS modules, wireless networks, printers, and media scheduling ("current dispatch practices in the art already collect passenger specific information such as flight details, passenger destination, passenger age or work level, and event related information").

3. The prior art admitted by the patent itself

The specification's Background section is unusually candid and supplies the core of the obviousness case:

1. Standalone in-vehicle video advertising systems — "Cabvision," "Taxi Vision," and "toMarket" are named. The patent states these "are to be classified as non-integrated or standalone systems" that "operate by itself and independently from any other services employed in the operation of a rental vehicle, such as a dispatch system."
2. GPS-triggered, location-based advertising in taxis — toMarket is credited with GPS-equipped taxis where "advertisements pop up on the screen as the taxi passes by their specific location," including a touch screen.
3. Dispatch systems and passenger data collection — admitted to exist and to collect "flight details, passenger destination, passenger age or work level, and event related information."
4. The perceived "problem" — the patent frames the entire invention as the obvious-seeming insight that these standalone systems "do not have the possibility to influence the display of advertisement at will" and that an integrated solution "combines for example video display techniques with dispatch techniques."

The specification also treats as ordinary components: fare meters with serial interfaces ("smart meter that supports serial communications"), GPS modules, wireless communication circuits, compact-flash media distribution, printers, and magnetic-card readers. None of these is claimed as novel hardware.

4. Claim-by-claim obviousness analysis

Claim 1 (dispatch-driven selection + advertising selection vector + GPS/destination message loop)

Claim 1 requires: (a) vehicle with messaging device and wireless comms; (b) dispatch system managing passenger allocation, in wireless communication with the vehicle; (c) data storage medium at the dispatch system; (d) receiving passenger-specific information at dispatch; (e) sending data derived from it to the messaging device; (f) selecting a message "according to the advertising selection vector"; (g) displaying it; plus (h) GPS device; (i) sending location-change messages to the "passenger destination"; (j) receiving destination-specific messages back; and (k) displaying them.

Combination and motivation. A PHOSITA reading the admitted prior art would see: standalone taxi video-advertising systems (Cabvision/Taxi Vision) that already reached a captive audience, and dispatch systems that already possessed destination and demographic data about the same passengers. Integrating the two — using the destination/demographic data the dispatch system already had to choose which stored ad to play — is the textbook KSR situation: combining known elements (display system + dispatch data + wireless link) to achieve the predictable benefit of more relevant advertising. The patentee's own Background concedes this integration was the natural next step and that dispatch systems already collected the very data needed. The "advertising selection vector" is, on the claim's own terms, just "data" used for selection — a class-label pointer (the spec's example: "female passengers between thirty and thirty-five years of age belong to a passenger class 3A") applied to already-classified stored ads. Targeting ads by demographic class was a well-known advertising technique (the Background itself discusses "personalized advertising, providing tailor-made advertisements for a specific audience" as "a common trend developing in advertising" pre-dating the filing).

The GPS/destination message loop (elements h–k) is a separate, somewhat more distinctive requirement. But each component was known: GPS-equipped taxis with on-board computers were known (toMarket), wireless data links to vehicles were standard in dispatch, and the "exchange" with a destination (e.g., retrieving airport flight information) is described in the spec (Fig. 7) as routine. Whether a particular prior-art reference discloses the bidirectional destination-messaging loop would be the pivotal factual question — this is where a specific reference (e.g., a dispatch/airport-information system or a vehicle-to-premises messaging system) would need to be located to complete the prima facie case. Without the examiner's cited references I cannot assert that this loop was disclosed, but the loop's components are individually conventional, which is the starting point for a KSR-style combination argument.

Claim 22 (on-board selection of targeted + independent/non-targeted messages)

Claim 22's distinctive feature is displaying both a passenger-specific message and "at least another message independent" of the passenger-specific information, plus the same vector, GPS, and destination-messaging elements.

Combination and motivation. This maps directly onto standard broadcast/advertising scheduling practice, which the patent itself describes: a "normal reel" of general content filled with a "filler loop" of unscreened general advertisements, interrupted by targeted "intro/exit" reels. Mixing targeted and non-targeted ad inventory is how advertising systems have always operated (sold, targeted slots plus unsold filler). A PHOSITA implementing personalized taxi ads would naturally retain general ads to fill time when no passenger-specific match exists — the patent's own DMMR/filler-loop architecture confirms this was a routine design choice, not an inventive leap. Claim 22 adds nothing over claim 1's combination except the express coexistence of the two message streams, which the patent itself treats as the default architecture (normal reel + filler + intro/exit loops).

Claim 48 (printing selected messages)

Claim 48 requires a messaging device that stores/selects messages, a printer in communication with it, and printing of a selected message from a plurality provided by a message provider, "comprising at least an advertisement," plus the GPS/destination loop.

Combination and motivation. Printing targeted promotional content on receipts was well known in the art (e.g., coupon-printing at POS terminals, and the patent's own description of adding "advertising, for providing coupons, or for related services" to "a passenger's paper receipt" — the receipt printer is a standard taxi component). The specification states the IMMDS "in many cases comprises a printer" and that an advertiser "is optionally provided with the ability to add information to a passenger's paper receipt." If a taxi already prints receipts and already selects targeted ads for a display, extending the same selected content to the receipt printer is an obvious, predictable use of an existing peripheral — the paradigm of KSR's "known technique" applied to "a known device ready to accept the improvement." (I note the apparent dependency typo — claim 50 depends from "claim 44" — flagged in the earlier summary; claims 48–61 otherwise form a coherent printing claim family.)

Claim 62 (system claim)

Claim 62 is an aggregation of: vehicle + messaging device + wireless comms; a central message management system (administration software + database software) supplying messages; a dispatch system sending selection information and real-time content; advertisements; and the GPS/destination loop.

Combination and motivation. Every subsystem was known: central ad servers distributing content to remote displays; dispatch servers with wireless fleet links and real-time content feeds (the spec says information sources "typically deliver real time content to the MM-system, such as for example weather, news, sports, traffic, stocks, and airport information"); in-vehicle display units. A system claim that merely wires together known components, each performing its known function, to produce the predictable result of targeted in-vehicle advertising is the archetypal KSR obvious combination. The central-administration/database software architecture (Fig. 3b) is described in conventional terms (SQL database, VPN, loop/slot scheduling) — standard content-management design.

5. Express motivations to combine

For each combination, a PHOSITA would have had concrete, articulable reasons:

1. Revenue maximization for taxi-fleet operators and media sellers — the Background itself identifies the "captive audience" value of taxi video; integrating dispatch data increases ad value (higher CPMs for targeted inventory). Economic motivation is a recognized KSR rationale.
2. Solving the "annoying/bothersome" advertising problem the Background identifies — targeted ads reduce passenger annoyance and improve advertiser response; using data already sitting in the dispatch system is the cheapest source of targeting information.
3. Interoperability pressure — dispatch data terminals, meters, GPS units, and displays were already co-located in the vehicle; the spec notes dispatch already collected destination/flight/age data, making the data feed to a display a matter of routine system integration rather than new capability.
4. Filler/inventory management — the need to keep screens filled between targeted slots motivates retaining general "independent" messages (claim 22).
5. Peripheral reuse — the receipt printer already present for fare receipts is the natural output device for coupons/ads (claim 48), mirroring POS coupon printing.

6. Where the analysis would need more evidence (honest limits)

The strongest non-obviousness counterarguments — and the points on which the actual references matter — are:

• The bidirectional GPS/destination messaging loop (present in all four independent claims): whether any single prior-art reference or combination disclosed messages sent to a passenger's destination reflecting GPS-determined location changes, with destination-specific replies displayed in the vehicle. If no prior art disclosed this loop, it is the claim element most resistant to a prima facie obviousness case on the current record.
• The "advertising selection vector" as data transmitted from dispatch — whether the prior art taught transmitting a demographic pointer to the vehicle for local selection, versus merely storing ads keyed to location (toMarket's GPS-triggered model). A vector/pointer may be characterized as an obvious implementation choice (a label), but the examiner's cited art would control.
• Secondary considerations: no evidence was found in my searches of long-felt need, industry praise, licensing, or copying of this patent. The file history's own prosecution positions (if any amendments were made to overcome prior art) are not available to me and would be essential to a real opinion.

7. Conclusion

On the available record — built from the patent's own admissions — the core of claims 1, 22, 48, and 62 is a strong § 103 case: combining (i) known standalone in-vehicle taxi video-advertising displays (Cabvision/Taxi Vision/toMarket class of systems), (ii) known dispatch systems that already collected destination/demographic passenger data, (iii) known wireless fleet links, GPS, and receipt printers, and (iv) conventional demographic targeting and ad-inventory scheduling, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA in late 2002 and motivated by well-understood economic and technical reasons under KSR. The principal open question — and the element most likely to save the claims — is the GPS-driven bidirectional messaging with the passenger's destination, for which the provided materials supply no specific anticipating or suggesting reference. A definitive opinion requires retrieving the examiner's actual "References Cited" list and the file wrapper, which my search sessions could not obtain; I recommend that as the mandatory next step before relying on this analysis.