US 7594168

US Patent 7594168B2, titled "Browser based web site generation tool and run time engine," was invented by Steven H. Rempell. The original assignee was Akira Tech Inc, and the current assignee is EXPRESS MOBILE Inc and Akira Tech Inc. The patent was filed on January 24, 2003, and issued on September 22, 2009.

The patent has an adjusted expiration date of December 6, 2022, and its legal status is "Expired - Lifetime."

Abstract:
The patent describes a browser-based tool for generating websites and a corresponding runtime engine. The generation tool includes a browser-based build engine, an interface, a screen resolution sensing mechanism, a multi-dimensional array structured database, a web page scaling engine, a multi-level program animation model, and a mechanism for dynamically resizing web pages during editing. The runtime engine creates a compressed, customized program file for the website, along with its database and an HTML shell file. This runtime engine also features web page scaling technology, which adapts web pages and their objects to the user's screen resolution and browser window size when accessed. Additionally, a proprietary multi-level program animation model uses "threads" to respond simultaneously to multiple user interactions and time-sensitive operations.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1: This claim covers a browser-based web site generation tool. Key features include a build engine (written in a full-featured web programming language like JAVA), a browser-based interface (using HTML, JavaScript, and CSS), a screen resolution sensor to adapt the interface, a multi-dimensional database for multimedia objects, a web page scaling engine, a multi-level animation model, and a mechanism for dynamic web page resizing during editing.

• Claim 13: This claim outlines a method for building a website using a browser-based build engine. The method involves creating individual tools during installation, defining a multi-dimensional embedded multimedia object database based on user input, and then generating necessary runtime files (HTML shell, CAB/JAR files, customized runtime engine). Finally, it includes activating a web page size generation engine when the site is viewed by a web surfer to determine screen resolution and browser window size.

• Claim 14: This claim describes a web site generation tool that includes an interface built using HTML and JavaScript. This interface is designed to respond to user input by displaying pop-up windows, updating interface objects, or showing alert messages.

• Claim 26: This claim pertains to a browser-based web site runtime engine. This engine is activated from a user's server to generate web pages. It is capable of determining the web surfer's screen resolution and current browser window size, reading an external database of web page objects, and then scaling and reformatting these objects according to the detected resolution and window size.

• Claim 27: This claim describes a method for generating a website using a browser-based runtime engine. The method involves invoking a web page size generation technology to determine screen resolution and browser window size, reading an external database to generate necessary objects (like images, audio, and video), scaling these objects to fit the user's display, and executing a multi-level web page and object thread technology that also responds to user interactions.

• Claim 32: This claim defines a web site generation tool that features a multi-dimensional array structured database. This database is distinct in its ability to store not only numeric and string data but also multi-dimensional arrays of various multimedia objects, including colors, fonts, images, audio clips, video clips, text areas, URLs, and thread objects.

• Claim 36: This claim describes a browser-based web site generation tool with an interface comprising a "panel" and a "build engine portion." The panel includes interactive elements such as a menu bar, menus, sub-menus, toolbars, status fields, interactive fields, pull-down lists, and operational pop-up windows. The build engine portion displays the actual web page being constructed, allowing direct user interaction.

• Claim 37: This claim details a method for providing a browser-based interface for a web application. It involves creating a panel for a web site generation tool's interface using JavaScript mouse events (onMouseDown, onMouseUp, onMouseOver, onMouseOut, onClick, onchange). The method uses JavaScript arrays for storing attributes and initializing pop-up windows, employs JavaScript techniques for variable typing, and includes innovative JavaScript methods for color selection.

• Claim 38: This claim covers a browser-based web site generation tool that incorporates an interface with direct text entry functionality at any arbitrary cursor location. It utilizes text areas in an unconventional manner to support comprehensive text entry, text editing, application of text button and paragraph styles, and reformatting capabilities.

• Claim 39: This claim describes a method for direct text entry in a browser-based web site generation tool. It involves the browser-based build engine detecting mouse or keyboard events (e.g., Mouse Drag, Mouse Double Click), selecting text based on these events, setting four-dimensional variables, and calling a draw system to visually highlight the selected text. The build engine also sets a flag read by a polling technology to update the panel's "Text" menu with available text manipulation choices.

USPTO and CAFC 2026 Dockets:
The USPTO database would show the details as summarized above, confirming the patent number, title, dates, and assignee information.

Regarding CAFC dockets for 2026, the patent record indicates "Family has litigation," with several cases filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The latest listed case number is 24-1977. While the existence of this case in the CAFC records implies potential activity in 2026, without direct access to live CAFC docket information for April 2026, the specific current status of any litigation in 2026 cannot be definitively confirmed. Opinions and orders from October 1, 2004, to the present are publicly available on the Federal Circuit's website, and all orders issued after 2012 are available through PACER.

US Patent 7594168, titled "Browser based web site generation tool and run time engine," has been involved in extensive litigation across various US District Courts and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The patent is currently assigned to EXPRESS MOBILE Inc. and Akira Tech Inc..

Here is a summary of known litigation involving US Patent 7594168:

Delaware District Court:

• Case Number: 1:18-cv-00105
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-01166
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-00154
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-00155
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-00156
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-00106
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-01167
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-01168
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-01169
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-01173
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-01174
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-01175
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-01176
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-01177
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-01178
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-01179
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-01180
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-01181
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-01182
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-01183
• Case Number: 1:19-cv-00439
• Case Number: 1:19-cv-01936
• Case Number: 1:19-cv-01937
• Case Number: 1:20-cv-01162
• Case Number: 1:20-cv-01163
• Case Number: 1:17-cv-00702
• Case Number: 1:17-cv-00703
• Case Number: 1:17-cv-00704
• Case Number: 1:17-cv-00705
• Case Number: 1:17-cv-00706
• Case Number: 1:17-cv-00707
• Case Number: 1:17-cv-00708
• Case Number: 1:17-cv-00710
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-00102
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-00103
• Case Number: 1:18-cv-00104

California Central District Court:

• Case Number: 2:19-cv-05093
• Case Number: 2:19-cv-05097
• Case Number: 2:19-cv-05102
• Case Number: 2:19-cv-05105
• Case Number: 2:19-cv-05106
• Case Number: 2:19-cv-05110
• Case Number: 2:19-cv-05155
• Case Number: 8:19-cv-01175
• Case Number: 8:19-cv-01177
• Case Number: 2:19-cv-05091

California Northern District Court:

• Case Number: 3:17-cv-02605
• Case Number: 3:18-cv-03287
• Case Number: 3:18-cv-04678
• Case Number: 3:18-cv-04679
• Case Number: 3:18-cv-04681
• Case Number: 3:18-cv-04683
• Case Number: 3:18-cv-04687
• Case Number: 3:18-cv-04688
• Case Number: 3:18-cv-04693
• Case Number: 3:18-cv-04694
• Case Number: 3:18-cv-05058
• Case Number: 3:18-cv-05061
• Case Number: 3:19-cv-03350
• Case Number: 3:19-cv-03352
• Case Number: 3:19-cv-03353
• Case Number: 3:19-cv-03355
• Case Number: 3:19-cv-03357
• Case Number: 3:19-cv-06559
• Case Number: 3:20-cv-06152
• Case Number: 3:20-cv-08297
• Case Number: 3:20-cv-08321
• Case Number: 3:20-cv-08461
• Case Number: 3:20-cv-08491
• Case Number: 3:20-cv-08492
• Case Number: 3:21-cv-06656
• Case Number: 3:21-cv-06657
• Case Number: 3:21-cv-08944
• Case Number: 4:19-cv-03351
• Case Number: 4:20-cv-06152
• Case Number: 4:21-cv-06657
• Case Number: 5:21-cv-06656
• Case Number: 5:21-cv-06657
• Case Number: 3:19-cv-03356

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC):

• Case Number: 20-1511
• Case Number: 20-1617
• Case Number: 23-1646
• Case Number: 23-2265
• Case Number: 24-1977

Florida Middle District Court:

• Case Number: 3:20-cv-00839

Illinois Northern District Court:

• Case Number: 1:17-cv-03815

Texas Eastern District Court:

• Case Number: 1:16-cv-00160
• Case Number: 2:16-cv-00384
• Case Number: 2:16-cv-00558
• Case Number: 2:16-cv-00775
• Case Number: 2:16-cv-00811
• Case Number: 2:16-cv-00906
• Case Number: 2:16-cv-00922
• Case Number: 2:16-cv-00923
• Case Number: 2:16-cv-00924
• Case Number: 2:16-cv-01411
• Case Number: 2:16-cv-01412
• Case Number: 2:16-cv-01413
• Case Number: 2:16-cv-01414
• Case Number: 2:17-cv-00064
• Case Number: 2:17-cv-00065
• Case Number: 2:17-cv-00126
• Case Number: 2:17-cv-00127
• Case Number: 2:17-cv-00128
• Case Number: 2:17-cv-00129
• Case Number: 2:17-cv-00130
• Case Number: 2:17-cv-00160

Texas Western District Court:

• Case Number: 1:21-cv-01141
• Case Number: 6:20-cv-00801
• Case Number: 6:20-cv-00802
• Case Number: 6:20-cv-00803
• Case Number: 6:20-cv-00804

PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) Cases:

• Case Number: IPR2022-00597 (Final Written Decision)
• Case Number: IPR2021-01226 (Final Written Decision)
• Case Number: IPR2022-00572 (Final Written Decision)
• Case Number: IPR2022-00518 (Final Written Decision)

Current Status:

Many of these cases are listed as "litigation" on Google Patents, and some PTAB cases have reached a "Final Written Decision". However, specific plaintiff(s), defendant(s), filing dates, and detailed outcomes for each individual case are not readily available from the provided search results. Accessing PACER directly would likely provide these details. The patent itself is noted as "Expired - Lifetime, expires 2022-12-06" on Google Patents.

Proceedings overview

Four AIA trial proceedings have been filed against US Patent 7,594,168. All four were Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) and have reached a Final Written Decision (FWD). In IPR2022-00597, claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 were found unpatentable. In IPR2021-01226, claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 were found unpatentable. In IPR2022-00572, claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 were found unpatentable. In IPR2022-00518, claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 were found unpatentable. This indicates a significant narrowing of the patent's scope, with multiple claims having been invalidated across several proceedings. From a defensive posture, a defendant facing assertion of this patent now has a strong basis to challenge any claims found unpatentable in these IPRs.

IPR2022-00572 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-02-28
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 found unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Judge Deborah E. Goodin, Judge Michael J. Fitzpatrick, Judge Barbara D. Grahn
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-15, 17-19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over EP 0 889 401 B1 (Matsui) in view of US 2002/0069305 A1 (Chang).
• Institution decision: Instituted on August 29, 2022, on claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on August 29, 2023. Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 were found unpatentable. The panel found that Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims are unpatentable as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: No appeal found for this proceeding as of 2026-05-29.
• Defensive value: Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 are canceled. Any infringement theory based on these claims is significantly weakened, if not entirely eliminated. This provides a strong defense against assertion of these specific claims.

IPR2022-00518 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-02-09
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 found unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Judge Peter F. Ayres, Judge Michael J. Fitzpatrick, Judge Grace Karaffa Obermann
• Petition grounds: Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-15, 17-19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Matsui in view of Chang.
• Institution decision: Instituted on August 10, 2022, on claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on August 10, 2023. Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 were found unpatentable. The panel concluded that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims are unpatentable as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: No appeal found for this proceeding as of 2026-05-29.
• Defensive value: Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 are canceled. This significantly limits the scope of the patent for any potential assertions, as these claims are no longer valid.

IPR2022-00597 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-03-04
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 found unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Judge Josiah C. C. M. Lam, III, Judge Michael J. Fitzpatrick, Judge Michael P. Tierney
• Petition grounds: Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Matsui in view of Chang.
• Institution decision: Instituted on September 7, 2022, on claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on September 7, 2023. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 were found unpatentable. The Board determined that Petitioner showed by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims are unpatentable as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: No appeal found for this proceeding as of 2026-05-29.
• Defensive value: Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 are canceled. This further reduces the patent's enforceable claims and strengthens a defendant's position against claims of infringement related to these invalidated claims.

IPR2021-01226 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-07-16
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 found unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Judge Peter F. Ayres, Judge Michael J. Fitzpatrick, Judge Grace Karaffa Obermann
• Petition grounds: Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-15, 17-19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Matsui in view of Chang. The petition also challenged claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Matsui in view of Chang.
• Institution decision: Instituted on January 19, 2022, on claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang. The petition was denied for claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 16, and 20.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on January 19, 2023. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 were found unpatentable. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims are unpatentable as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: No appeal found for this proceeding as of 2026-05-29.
• Defensive value: Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 are canceled. Claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 16, and 20 were not instituted. This means claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 16, and 20 of the patent survived this IPR process.

Strategic summary

US Patent 7,594,168 has been subjected to four Inter Partes Reviews, IPR2022-00572, IPR2022-00518, IPR2022-00597, and IPR2021-01226, all filed by Unified Patents, LLC against Express Mobile, Inc. The cumulative effect of these proceedings is the unpatentability of a significant number of claims. Specifically, claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 have been canceled across multiple proceedings. Notably, claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 were found unpatentable in IPR2021-01226. While many claims were invalidated, claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 16, and 20 were not instituted in IPR2021-01226, meaning they were not subjected to the same obviousness challenge under Matsui in view of Chang and thus remain potentially valid. No information was found regarding appeals to the Federal Circuit for these IPRs.

The estoppel landscape is critical for any new defendant. Unified Patents, LLC, as the petitioner in all four IPRs, and their privies, would be barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from challenging claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in these IPRs, particularly concerning Matsui in view of Chang. However, the claims that were not instituted (2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 16, and 20) in IPR2021-01226 remain untested with respect to the Matsui/Chang combination. For a different defendant, other prior art combinations or different statutory bases (e.g., § 101, § 112) could still be available for challenging both the invalidated and sustained claims, provided they are not in privity with Unified Patents and their challenges are based on different grounds. The pattern of multiple IPRs by Unified Patents indicates a strategic effort to neutralize the patent, and their success in canceling numerous claims provides strong signals about the patent's vulnerability to obviousness challenges over the cited art.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US7594168, the unpatentability of claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 in IPR2022-00572, IPR2022-00518, IPR2022-00597, and IPR2021-01226 provides a robust defense. Any demand letter or infringement theory relying on these canceled claims would be vulnerable.

Refer to the Final Written Decisions for the precise language of unpatentability:

• IPR2022-00572 Final Written Decision: Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 were found unpatentable. "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 B2 are unpatentable as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang."
• IPR2022-00518 Final Written Decision: Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 were found unpatentable. "For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3–6, 9–11, 13–15, and 17–19 of the ’168 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang."
• IPR2022-00597 Final Written Decision: Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 were found unpatentable. "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3–7, 9–11, 13–15, and 17–19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 B2 are unpatentable as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang."
• IPR2021-01226 Final Written Decision: Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 were found unpatentable. "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 B2 are unpatentable as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang."

The absence of any active proceedings means there are no ongoing IPRs to monitor. The fact that numerous claims have been successfully invalidated through IPRs, all initiated by Unified Patents, indicates a pattern of challenges against this patent and suggests that the invalidated claims are highly vulnerable to obviousness arguments based on the cited prior art. For any remaining claims (2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 16, and 20), further analysis for other invalidity grounds or prior art not presented in the Unified Patents IPRs would be prudent.

Inventors

• Steven H. Rempell (Employer at time of filing: Akira Tech Inc.)

Original assignee

Akira Tech Inc. was the original assignee named on the issued patent. Information regarding whether Akira Tech Inc. shipped a product embodying the claims, its primary line of business, and its current status (operating, acquired, dissolved, in bankruptcy) is not readily available within the provided patent text or standard public patent databases without further extensive corporate research.

Assignment timeline

• 2012-02-28 (executed) / recorded 2012-03-05 — Reel 028169/0355
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: REMPELL, STEVEN
  • Assignee: EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL J. FEGIN, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J. FEGIN, 114 WEST 26TH STREET, SUITE 800, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10001. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter (from inventor to an entity that later became Express Mobile, Inc., which has a history of patent assertion)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7594168
    2003 : Filed by Akira Tech Inc
    2009 : Issued to Akira Tech Inc
    2012 : Assigned to Express Mobile, Inc.

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. While the assignment from inventor Steven Rempell directly to EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. doesn't explicitly show a transfer from an operating assignee to a shell, EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. has been identified in litigation as a plaintiff asserting this patent, suggesting a possible licensing-focused business model. However, without further information on Akira Tech Inc.'s product activities, a definitive shell transfer from an operating entity cannot be established from the provided records.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. is listed as the assignee in Reel 028169/0355. Unified Patents has identified Express Mobile, Inc. as a high-frequency plaintiff and NPE in connection with this patent family.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. MICHAEL J. FEGIN of LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J. FEGIN (114 WEST 26TH STREET, SUITE 800, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10001) is listed as the correspondent on the assignment to EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. (Reel 028169/0355). This is the only recorded assignment in the chain, so recurrence within the chain itself is limited to this single entry, but the prompt asks to flag if the correspondent recurs "elsewhere on this site's tracked patents," which requires external knowledge. For the purposes of this analysis, the single appearance is noted, but the "repeat" aspect would depend on broader data not explicitly provided for this specific patent.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment is recorded in the provided information.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The patent issued in 2009-09-22, and was assigned to Express Mobile, Inc. on 2012-03-05. The Google Patents litigation data indicates the earliest related litigation activity for this family was in 2016. There is a gap of several years between the assignment and the first listed litigation activity. Therefore, a pre-litigation transfer within 6 months is not definitively indicated by the provided data.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of bankruptcy proceedings for Akira Tech Inc. or Steven Rempell is present in the provided patent text.

7. Privateering — unclear. While Express Mobile, Inc. has asserted this patent, there is no explicit information within the provided text to suggest that Akira Tech Inc. (the original assignee) transferred it to Express Mobile, Inc. to assert on its behalf against competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain ends with EXPRESS MOBILE, INC., which is an asserter, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is based on the presence of Express Mobile, Inc. in the assignment chain (Reel 028169/0355), which is a known high-frequency plaintiff and NPE. The patent has also been involved in extensive litigation, as evidenced by the numerous district court and PTAB cases listed in the Google Patents legal events section.

USPTO Assignment Center search for US7594168: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/#!/patent/7594168

I am unable to directly retrieve the complete list of 23 patent citations and 2 non-patent citations for US patent 7594168 from the current search environment. The search results explain how to access such information on platforms like Google Patents or USPTO Public Search, but do not provide the detailed lists within the snippets. Therefore, I cannot provide a breakdown for each of the 23 patent citations as requested.

However, the provided patent text for US7594168 itself references a related patent as its parent application. While a parent patent is not considered prior art for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 in the traditional sense for the claims of a continuation patent, it represents the foundational technology from which the current patent derives and is highly relevant to understanding its scope and development.

The most relevant directly identifiable related patent from the provided full text is:

U.S. Pat. No. 6,546,397

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 6,546,397 (Rempell, S. H.)
• Publication/Filing Date: The application for US7594168 states it is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/454,061, filed Dec. 2, 1999, which matured into U.S. Pat. No. 6,546,397. Thus, the filing date for the parent application is December 2, 1999. The publication date for US 6,546,397 would be its issue date.
• Brief Description: This patent (US 6,546,397) likely covers a "browser-based web site generation tool and run time engine," forming the basis for the improvements and specific claims in US7594168. The abstract of US7594168 states, "The present application is directed to computing systems, and more particularly to methods and apparatus for building a web site using a browser-based build engine." This indicates a shared core inventive concept with its parent.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Performing a definitive anticipation analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires a detailed, claim-by-claim comparison between the claims of US7594168 and the full disclosure of US 6,546,397. This is a legal determination that an AI cannot make. However, as US7594168 is a continuation of the application that led to US 6,546,397, the subject matter disclosed in US 6,546,397 would generally be considered part of the prior art against other applicants, but it typically would not anticipate the claims of its own continuation patent (US7594168) under § 102 unless new matter was introduced or the claims were not adequately supported by the parent. The claims of US7594168 would likely build upon or refine the inventions disclosed in US 6,546,397.

To provide a comprehensive analysis of potential anticipation for other cited prior art, access to the full text and claims of all 23 cited patents would be necessary, along with a thorough legal and technical comparison, which is beyond the scope of this AI's capabilities in this environment.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 7594168 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

A thorough obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires identifying combinations of prior art references that would have rendered the claimed invention obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention, along with a clear motivation to combine those references.

The provided "PTAB challenges" section for US Patent 7594168 (the '168 patent) directly identifies such a combination: EP 0 889 401 B1 (Matsui) in view of US 2002/0069305 A1 (Chang). This combination was repeatedly found by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to render numerous claims of the '168 patent unpatentable as obvious in four separate Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings (IPR2022-00572, IPR2022-00518, IPR2022-00597, and IPR2021-01226).

Specifically, the following claims were found unpatentable as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang:

• Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 (in IPR2022-00572, IPR2022-00518, IPR2022-00597)
• Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 (in IPR2021-01226)

Although the detailed content of Matsui and Chang is not provided in the current search environment, the consistent findings by the PTAB demonstrate that a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these references to arrive at the claimed inventions. Based on the subject matter of the '168 patent and the general state of web technology around its priority date (December 2, 1999), the motivation to combine would likely stem from common challenges and advancements in web development at that time.

Motivation to Combine Matsui and Chang

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in web development during the late 1990s and early 2000s would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Matsui and Chang to address known problems and improve existing solutions for web site generation and display.

1. Addressing Limitations of Static Web Design and Diverse Displays: The '168 patent itself acknowledges the "numerous inherent limitations" of "conventional mark-up and scripting languages" such as HTML and JavaScript, specifically noting their inability to dynamically reformat text and scale buttons or images. It highlights that "most conventional web publishing applications design a web page layout to fit into a 640 pixel wide screen," leading to wasted screen space or unnecessary scrolling on higher resolution monitors. [Patent text: conventional mark-up and scripting languages, most conventional web publishing applications]. If Matsui described a web site generation tool, it likely faced these same limitations. Chang, as prior art used for obviousness, would plausibly teach mechanisms for adapting web content to different display environments, such as varying screen resolutions or browser window sizes. A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine a web page generation tool (Matsui) with dynamic display adaptation techniques (Chang) to create web pages that could intelligently scale and reformat, thereby providing a superior user experience across diverse viewing devices. This directly addresses the "web page scaling technology" and "web page size generation engine" claimed in the '168 patent. [Patent text: web page scaling technology, web page size generation engine].

2. Enhancing Browser-Based Development for Richer Content: The '168 patent emphasizes a "Browser based web site generation tool" and a "Browser Based Interface" that supports "serious multimedia applications" and "advanced intelligent interface objects." [Patent text: the invention includes a Browser Based build engine, a Browser Based Interface, advanced intelligent interface objects, such as a “slider” or a “dial”]. If Matsui offered a foundational browser-based web site generation environment and Chang provided dynamic rendering or interactive content capabilities, a PHOSITA would be motivated to integrate these to move beyond the static limitations of traditional HTML/JavaScript. This combination would enable the creation of more sophisticated, interactive, and visually engaging web pages directly within the browser, offering a richer development experience that more closely resembles a "WYSIWYG" (what you see is what you get) environment, as described in the '168 patent. [Patent text: the entire web site build process is WYSIWYG].

3. Optimizing Performance and Data Management for Dynamic Sites: The '168 patent describes a "multi-dimensional array structured database" for storing multimedia objects (colors, fonts, images, audio/video clips, URLs, thread objects) and a runtime engine that reads this database to generate web pages. [Patent text: multi-dimensional array structured database, the run time engine then begins to read the database and down load image, audio and video files, while simultaneously drawing the first web page]. If Matsui disclosed methods for structuring and managing web content data, and Chang provided techniques for efficient rendering or dynamic loading of web elements, a PHOSITA would be motivated to combine these to create a system that not only generates flexible web pages but also manages and delivers their multimedia components efficiently. The objective would be to improve the responsiveness and load times of dynamic web sites, especially those with rich media.

The consistent invalidation of multiple claims in the '168 patent by the PTAB, specifically citing Matsui in view of Chang, provides strong evidence that a PHOSITA would have found this combination obvious. The motivation would have been to address the known shortcomings of static web design, improve the dynamic adaptability and interactivity of web content for varied display environments, and enhance the efficiency of browser-based web development tools and runtime engines.