US 11289093

US Patent 11,289,093 B2 — Summary

Bibliographic data

Sources: Google Patents (patents.google.com/patent/US11289093/en); PatentLeaderboard (Takuro Mano / Ricoh).

Abstract (as published)

A display control apparatus includes circuitry to: receive voice data, text data converted from the voice data, and time information indicating a time when the text data was generated, from a server that manages content data generated during an event; control a display to display the text data in an order according to the time when the text data was generated, and a graphical control region that sets playback position in a total playback time of the voice data; receive selection of particular text data from the text data being displayed; and control the display to display the graphical control region at a location determined based on a time when the particular text data was generated.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Caveat: I do not have the verbatim text of the granted claims; the four independent claim sets below are reconstructed from the patent's published abstract/example-embodiment summaries (which track the independent claims 1, system, method, and recording medium). Exact claim wording and the total number of independent claims should be confirmed against the USPTO full text.

1. Display control apparatus (apparatus claim). A device that (a) obtains from a server voice data of an event, its transcribed text, and timestamps indicating when each portion of text was generated; (b) shows the transcript in chronological order together with a timeline/scrubber control reflecting the total playback duration of the voice; (c) lets the user select a particular portion of the displayed text; and (d) automatically moves the playback-position control on the timeline to the point corresponding to when that selected text was generated — so the user can start playback from the right spot without manually scrubbing.

2. System claim. A client–server combination: the server (first circuitry + memory) stores, per event, recorded voice data, converted text data, and generation-time information; the display-control apparatus (second circuitry) renders the text in time order plus the playback-position graphical control, and in response to a user selecting particular text, repositions the graphical control to a location derived from that text's generation time.

3. Display control method. The corresponding method steps: receiving voice data, converted text data, and generation-time information from a managing server; displaying the text chronologically with the playback-position control; receiving a selection of particular text; and controlling the display to place the playback-position control at a location determined from the selected text's generation time.

4. Recording medium. A non-transitory (computer-readable) recording medium storing a control program that causes a computer system to carry out the display control method of claim 3.

Litigation status (USPTO / courts — as of April 26, 2026)

• Active district court case: Ricoh Company, Ltd. v. Zoom Communications, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01095-JCG (D. Del.), filed August 29, 2025. The '093 patent is one of seven Ricoh videoconferencing patents asserted against Zoom (along with 10,904,487; 10,909,059; 10,931,917; 11,256,464; 11,516,278; 11,546,548).
• § 101 motion: On May 1, 2026 (opinion signed by Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves), the court denied Zoom's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for patent ineligibility. The court found the asserted claims (including the '093 patent's transcript/audio-playback synchronization claims) directed to abstract ideas at Alice step one, but held that Ricoh plausibly alleged inventive concepts at step two — factual disputes about whether the elements were conventional precluded dismissal at the pleading stage. A joint proposed scheduling order is due on or before June 1, 2026.
• CAFC 2026 dockets: No CAFC appeal docket was found for US 11,289,093 in my searches. The case remains pending at the district court level; no appeal to the Federal Circuit has been identified as of the search date.
• Data hygiene note: One search hit (an EPO/Global Patent Index page for EP 0672084) listed "US 11289093 A" (1993) — that is an unrelated, much older US application number for a metal-surface-treatment composition, not this patent (US 11,289,093 B2). I have excluded it as a false positive per your instruction to avoid similar numbers.

Key uncertainties

• Exact granted claim text (dependent limitations, claim count) not independently verified from the USPTO full text — the above is based on the published abstract and the four example-embodiment summaries on Google Patents, which consistently correspond to the four independent claim categories (apparatus, system, method, recording medium).
• The Google Patents "litigation" indicator and the Darts-ip family link are consistent with the D. Del. case above; no separate PTAB/IPR or CAFC proceeding for this patent was found.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11289093 across several sources.

The searches confirm a Delaware case. Let me verify details and check for any other proceedings (PTAB/IPR, ITC, other defendants).

Let me verify whether any PTAB/IPR proceedings target the '093 patent specifically, and check the judicial reassignment in the Delaware case.

Based on my searches of CourtListener, PACER-based dockets (Justia, PACER Monitor), the district court opinion, and PTAB docket aggregators, here is the known litigation involving US Patent 11,289,093 B2 (the '093 patent). Note: the live search results reflect events through mid-2026, and I have flagged anything that is not affirmatively confirmed to involve the '093 patent.

---

1. District Court — Ricoh Company, Ltd. v. Zoom Communications, Inc.

Sources: CourtListener docket 71231937 and opinion 10852070; Justia docket (dedce/1:2025cv01095/90435); PACER Monitor case 59853180; District Court opinion PDF (business.cch.com/ipld/RicohCompanyZoomCommunications20260501050426.pdf); Mondaq / MarketScreener case reports; VitalLaw IP Law Daily summary (May 5, 2026).

---

2. PTAB — Related inter partes review proceedings (target patent NOT yet confirmed)

Zoom has filed several PTAB petitions in 2026 that appear related to the Ricoh dispute, but the search results do not yet identify which specific patent(s) they challenge, so I cannot confirm that any of them targets the '093 patent:

• IPR2026-00411 — Zoom Communications Inc. v. Ricoh Co. Ltd. (PTAB), filed July 10, 2026, status: pending, no institution decision yet, no outcome. Source: Ex Parte PTAB case page; LegalTech Monitor (July 2026).
• IPR2026-00407 (filed ~July 1, 2026) and IPR2026-00424 (filed ~July 24, 2026) — blog coverage identifies Zoom as petitioner but states the challenged patent numbers are not yet public.

Recommendation: Monitor these dockets (PTAB public dockets / PTAB E2E) to confirm whether any petition challenges claims of US 11,289,093. As of the latest search, no IPR petition is affirmatively confirmed to target the '093 patent.

---

3. What I did NOT find

• No CAFC appeal involving the '093 patent was found (the May 1, 2026 order is a non-final Rule 12(b)(6) ruling; no appeal docket exists as of the search date).
• No ITC (Section 337) investigation involving the '093 patent was found.
• No other district court cases naming the '093 patent were found.
• False positive excluded: An unrelated, much older application number "US 11289093 A" (1993, metal-surface-treatment composition) appears in some databases; that is not this patent (US 11,289,093 B2) and was excluded per your instruction.

---

Bottom line

The only litigation affirmatively known to involve US Patent 11,289,093 is Ricoh Company, Ltd. v. Zoom Communications, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01095 (D. Del.), filed August 29, 2025 — Ricoh asserting the '093 patent (among seven) against Zoom's videoconferencing/collaboration products. The court denied Zoom's § 101 motion to dismiss on May 1, 2026, and the case is pending. Zoom has also filed PTAB petitions in 2026 (e.g., IPR2026-00411), but confirmation that any of them challenges the '093 patent specifically is not yet publicly available.

I'll verify what public information exists for the canonical proceeding on file for US 11,289,093 (IPR2026-00461) before drafting the analysis. The proceeding was filed 2026-08-24 — one day before today's date — so I expect minimal public record, but let me confirm.

No public docket content for IPR2026-00461 has surfaced yet — consistent with a filing date one day before today. Let me run two final confirmation searches on the PTAB docket and the broader Zoom–Ricoh IPR wave before drafting.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is on file for US 11,289,093 B2 — IPR2026-00461, filed 2026-08-24 (yesterday), status Pending. There are zero proceedings with an institution decision, zero Final Written Decisions, zero invalidated claims, and zero settlements. The breakdown: 1 pending / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied.

Bottom line for a defendant: This patent has never been tested at the PTAB — no IPR has been instituted against it, and no claim has been canceled. All claims remain intact and are affirmatively asserted against Zoom in Ricoh v. Zoom, No. 1:25-cv-01095-JCG (D. Del.). The sole IPR on file was filed one day before today's date; the petition is so new that its claim-by-claim grounds and judge panel are not yet public. A defendant facing assertion today cannot point to any PTAB cancellation — the patent is hardened by absence of testing, not weakened by it — and the pending IPR is an untested, institution-stage defensive weapon, not a resolved one.

---

IPR2026-00461 — Zoom Communications, Inc. v. Ricoh Co., Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-08-24
• Status: Pending (verbatim from the USPTO Open Data Portal; plain-English gloss: the petition was filed one day ago — no preliminary response, no institution decision, no trial has started)
• Judge panel: Not yet public / not yet assigned. No Administrative Patent Judge names have been published for this proceeding as of 2026-08-25 (PTAB typically assigns the panel within weeks of filing; the parallel Zoom–Ricoh IPR2026-00411 likewise shows "Pending Judge Assignment" — see Ex Parte case page).
• Petition grounds: Not yet publicly available. The petition was filed 2026-08-24 and has not appeared in any searchable database (PTAB E2E, Ex Parte, Law360, CourtListener) as of 2026-08-25. I will not speculate on which claims are challenged or which references are cited. Per IPR practice the petition necessarily asserts § 102 and/or § 103 grounds over patents/printed publications (35 U.S.C. § 311(b)), but the specific claims and art must be pulled from PTAB E2E once the petition posts.
• Institution decision: None yet. Statutory deadline under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) is within 3 months of filing — on or about 2026-11-24 (in practice, the panel often issues a few weeks later, after the patent-owner preliminary response window closes). No reasoning exists to summarize.
• Final Written Decision: None. No FWD can issue before institution plus the statutory 1-year trial (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)); earliest conceivable FWD would be ~2027-11-24 if the petition is instituted on the current schedule.
• Settlement / termination: None. No settlement or termination has been filed.
• Appeal: None. Nothing to appeal — no institution decision, no FWD.
• Defensive value: Neutral-to-positive for the petitioner (Zoom) but entirely unrealized. This is Zoom's own IPR — filed while the same patent is asserted against it in Delaware — but with no institution decision, it creates no estoppel, no claim cancellations, and no stay leverage beyond the mere pendency of the petition. The Delaware court has already denied Zoom's § 101 dismissal (order of 2026-05-01; CourtListener opinion; VitalLaw summary), so the PTAB is now Zoom's principal validity forum. Watch the ~2026-11-24 institution window closely.

---

Strategic summary

Claims CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. No claim of US 11,289,093 has been canceled by any AIA trial proceeding. No claim has been sustained either — because no proceeding has reached a Final Written Decision. Every claim of the patent is UNTESTED at the PTAB: the apparatus, system, method, and recording-medium claim sets (which track the four published example-embodiment summaries; exact granted claim count remains unverified from the USPTO full text) stand as granted, and the patent's legal status is Active with adjusted expiration ~2040-04-02 (Google Patents). The only proceeding on file (IPR2026-00461) is at the petition stage, ~48 hours old as of today.

Estoppel landscape. No § 315(e) estoppel exists yet — estoppel attaches only after institution (for grounds actually raised, per the Federal Circuit's emerging reading) and, at most, after a Final Written Decision under § 318(a) for grounds "reasonably could have raised." Because IPR2026-00461 has not been instituted, Zoom and its privies remain free to raise any prior-art ground in district court or the ITC, and — critically — § 101/§ 112 defenses remain fully available regardless of IPR outcome, because IPR grounds are confined to § 102/§ 103 over patents and printed publications (35 U.S.C. § 311(b)). A defendant should not assume the pending IPR will collateralize the Delaware case; the district court already rejected Zoom's ineligibility theory at the pleading stage on 2026-05-01, holding Ricoh's inventive-concept allegations sufficient (VitalLaw).

Pattern signals. Zoom has been building a multi-front attack on the seven-patent Ricoh portfolio asserted in Ricoh v. Zoom: IPR2026-00461 (2026-08-24, confirmed on this patent), plus at least IPR2026-00411 (filed 2026-07-10, pending, judge not assigned — Ex Parte) and other 2026 petitions reported in coverage of the dispute. The USPTO Open Data Portal associates only IPR2026-00461 with US 11,289,093; the other Zoom–Ricoh IPRs are presumed to target different Ricoh patents and should not be conflated with this one. No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears in the chain for this patent — Unified Patents appears only as the litigation-data source on the Google Patents page, not as a party. Ricoh has not yet had to defend this patent at the PTAB, so there is no track record of Ricoh's IPR behavior (settlement propensity, motion practice, or CAFC aggressiveness) to extrapolate.

---

Recommended next steps

1. If you are the defendant (Zoom, or a party in privity): Treat the patent as presumed valid and fully asserted — there is no FWD to cite, and the "PTAB challenge pending" narrative has no teeth until institution. Pull the IPR2026-00461 petition from PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov — search "IPR2026-00461") the moment it posts, and verify which claims and references Zoom actually pled. The institution decision is due on or about 2026-11-24 (35 U.S.C. § 314(b)); the patent owner's preliminary response is due roughly 3 months from the notice of filing date (also ~2026-11-24). If instituted, the statutory 1-year trial clock runs to ~2027-11-24 for the FWD (extendable up to 6 months for good cause under § 316(a)(11)).

2. Do not over-claim PTAB value in the Delaware case. The district court denied Zoom's § 101 motion on 2026-05-01 with fact-based Berkheimer/Aatrix reasoning (CourtListener opinion 10852070), and the Delaware docket (1:25-cv-01095-JCG) is proceeding. Any settlement or stay analysis should discount the IPR until institution.

3. If the IPR is instituted and reaches FWD: The decision will be public at the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal; at that point, check whether any independent claim (e.g., claim 1, apparatus) or dependent claims were canceled under § 318(b), and whether Ricoh appeals to the Federal Circuit — no CAFC docket exists for this patent today. Until then, the honest position is: one pending, uninstituted IPR; zero canceled claims; all claims untested and standing. The absence of prior IPRs on a patent that has been asserted since 2025-08-29 is itself notable — it reflects that this patent drew no third-party challenge for roughly a year, until the accused infringer (Zoom) itself stepped in.

Inventors

Takuro Mano — sole named inventor. Per PatentLeaderboard, US 11,289,093 B2 lists no co-inventors (field "Co-Inventors: —"). His inventor profile (patents-review.com) places him in Kanagawa, Japan (Yokohama per PatentLeaderboard) and attributes 23–24 published US applications to him — every one assigned to RICOH COMPANY, LTD. (23 to Ricoh, Tokyo; 1 to Ricoh, Ohta-ku, Tokyo).

Unusual patterns? None. This is the inverse of the "inventor departs within 12 months" tell: Mano's first Ricoh patent granted in 2013, his most recent in May 2025, and he has a new publication dated 2026-06-25 (US 2026/0181030 A1) — all still assigned to Ricoh. He remains an active, in-house Ricoh inventor with a continuous 13-year record; there is no departure or portfolio-sale precursor pattern.

Original assignee

Ricoh Company, Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan) — the entity named on the issued patent and, per Google Patents, the current assignee. Ricoh is a publicly traded Japanese multinational (TSE: 7752) whose primary business is office imaging (printers/MFPs), IT services, and — directly relevant here — collaboration hardware/software including interactive electronic whiteboards and videoconferencing, the exact product category the '093 patent's sharing-system/meeting-minutes embodiments cover. Ricoh ships products embodying the claimed display-control/meeting-minutes technology (e.g., its interactive whiteboard line with meeting-minutes and voice-to-text features). Current status: operating, solvent, no bankruptcy. The continuity chain (US 17/693,448 → US 11,915,703 B2; US 18/414,577 → US 12,300,246 B2; US 19/178,980 → US 2025/0329331 A1) is also Ricoh-filed, confirming continued Ricoh ownership of the family.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center records were not directly retrievable in my search session (I could not pull the reel/frame or correspondent-of-record fields). However, the Google Patents legal-event feed for US 11,289,093 (fetched 2026-08-25) shows exactly one recorded assignment, and no post-issuance assignments at all:

• 2019-11-27 (executed and recorded same date as filing) — Reel/frame not retrievable from available search results (verify at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ by searching patent number 11289093)
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)
  • Assignor: Takuro Mano
  • Assignee: Ricoh Company, Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources — flagging this gap rather than guessing
  • Context: standard employment/inventor-to-company assignment recorded on the filing date (application US 16/697,190 filed 2019-11-27). Not an acquisition, fire-sale, or reorg — this is the routine initial vesting of title in the employer.

No post-issuance assignments exist. The only other legal events on the record are USPTO-internal actions (2020-06-04 publication of US 2020/0175991 A1; 2022-03-29 grant; 2022/2024/2025 priority entries for the continuation applications) — none of which is an assignment. That absence is itself a finding: Ricoh Company, Ltd. still owns the patent, consistent with Ricoh appearing as plaintiff in its own name in Ricoh v. Zoom.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11289093
    2018 : Priority date filed
    2019 : US application filed
         : Assigned to Ricoh Company
    2022 : Patent granted
    2025 : Ricoh sues Zoom in Delaware
    2026 : Zoom files IPR petition

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The single recorded assignment (2019-11-27) moves title from inventor Takuro Mano directly to Ricoh Company, Ltd. — a multinational operating company, not a licensing LLC. No "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" entity, no registered-agent address, no Delaware/Texas single-member LLC anywhere in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Ricoh Company, Ltd. does not appear on any NPE directory (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN, Conversant, RPX, Unified Patents asserter lists, etc.). The plaintiff is an operating company asserting in its own name, not a licensing vehicle.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT PRESENT. There is only one recorded assignment, so no correspondent recurs. (The correspondent-of-record field could not be retrieved in my session; verify at the Assignment Center link below, but with a single entry there is no chain to exhibit a repeat-player pattern.)

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. One assignment in 7+ years (2019 → present). No chained LLCs, no rapid-fire re-recordings.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only assignment was recorded 2019-11-27; the first infringement suit naming the patent (Ricoh v. Zoom, 1:25-cv-01095, D. Del.) was filed 2025-08-29 — roughly 5 years 9 months apart, far outside the 6-month tell window. No venue/standing choreography is evident.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. Ricoh is operating and solvent; no Chapter 7/11 proceeding or court-supervised patent sale exists.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. Ricoh is asserting directly in its own name against Zoom; there is no operating-company-to-NPE handoff, and no SEC/Patent Progress/EFF coverage suggests a covert Ricoh-funded NPE.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at Ricoh, an operating company that is affirmatively asserting the patent. No RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN involvement (Unified Patents appears only as the litigation-data licensor on the Google Patents page, not as a party or assignee).

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The record shows a single, ordinary inventor-to-employer assignment recorded 2019-11-27 (assignor Takuro Mano → assignee Ricoh Company, Ltd.), with no post-issuance transfers of any kind. The current assignee, Ricoh Company, Ltd., is a publicly traded operating company that ships the electronic-whiteboard/videoconferencing products embodying the claims and is suing an actual competitor, Zoom, in its own name (Ricoh Company, Ltd. v. Zoom Communications, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01095-JCG, D. Del., filed 2025-08-29). None of the eight NPE signals is present; the absence of any post-issuance assignment is affirmative evidence that the original assignee still owns and is enforcing the patent.

Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 11289093) — confirm reel/frame and correspondent-of-record for the single 2019-11-27 assignment, which my search session could not retrieve.

I'll search for the specific patent and its citation records.

Initial results are noisy (with false positives from the unrelated 1993 "US 11289093 A" metal-treatment application and a PubMed PMID). Let me target the actual citation record.

Found a lead — the Google Patents "Citations (33)" block. Let me pull the full citation list and verify individual references.

Prior-Art / Patent-Citation Analysis — US 11,289,093 B2

0. Scope, method, and verification status (read first)

What I was asked to do: search the USPTO database for patent number 11289093 and enumerate the patent citations of that patent with citation data, description, and § 102 anticipation mapping.

What I could and could not retrieve — stated plainly:

1. I could not reach the authoritative USPTO record. The search tool surfaced the Google Patents mirror of the patent (patents.google.com/patent/US11289093), the WO/EP family members, and third-party aggregators — not USPTO Patent Center / USPTO Open Data Portal "References Cited" (form PTO-892 / IDS listing). The USPTO's certified citation list was not independently retrieved in this session.
2. The citation list I did obtain is partial. The Google Patents page for this patent carries a "Citations (33)" block (i.e., 33 patent documents cited in this patent). My search returned only 9 of those 33 entries — the remaining 24 entries are unknown to me, and I will not reconstruct or guess them.
3. Consequently, the following is a partial, non-certified census. Any statement here about "the most relevant prior art" is bounded by those 9 entries plus the false-positive exclusions below.
4. Date note (carried forward): the task header says "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the earlier-generated sections of this analysis are timestamped 2026-08-25 and record IPR2026-00461 as filed 2026-08-24. This section's content is date-insensitive (the patent granted 2022-03-29; all citations predate it), so nothing here turns on that discrepancy.

---

1. False positives excluded (per your "do not auto-correct" rule)

These are the only literal "11289093" collisions I found. No other similarly-numbered patent was substituted — I confirm the subject patent is US 11,289,093 B2, application US 16/697,190, filed 2019-11-27, priority 2018-11-29, granted 2022-03-29, Ricoh Company, Ltd., inventor Takuro Mano, and that the IPR docket IPR2026-00461 independently records Respondent Patent Number 11289093 / Respondent Application Number 16697190 (GreyB IPverse), corroborating the identity.

---

2. Retrieved patent citations (9 of 33)

All rows are prior art cited on the face of the patent (documents cited in US 11,289,093 B2). Source for all: Google Patents citation table for US11289093B2 / US20200175991A1, https://patents.google.com/patent/US11289093 (mirror; not the USPTO certified list). Google's table columns are Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee/Inventor | Title — the priority date is given below as Google lists it and is not necessarily the § 102(b) critical date; the publication date is the operative prior-art date and is well before the 2018-11-29 priority date in every case.

Forward citations (not prior art — listed only to avoid confusion with § 2): the same page's "Families Citing this family (7)" block lists later documents citing this patent, including Ricoh's own follow-ons (JP7302270B2; US11625155B2; JP7491025B2; US11349888B2), CN114153316B (China Telecom, AR conference-summary), and EP3762321A2 (Rite-Hite Holding Corporation, loading-dock monitoring) — the last of which is prima facie unrelated and I flag as an apparent citation-graph artifact rather than treat it as meaningful.

---

3. § 102 bottom line on the retrieved citations

No retrieved citation anticipates any claim of US 11,289,093 B2, alone or in combination of elements within a single reference. Applying the four-element map already used in this analysis (E1 server-supplied voice + converted text + generation-time; E2 chronological transcript + playback-position graphical control over total playback time; E3 receipt of a selection of particular text; E4 repositioning that control to the selected text's generation time):

• C4 (Nice Systems) is the only retrieval that even reaches the "content data generated during an event, with per-portion metadata" concept (part of E1). It is silent on E2, E3 and E4.
• C2, C5, C6 each touch a fragment of E1 (recorded speech with event context; voice→text; multimodal text entry) but none discloses the transcript-plus-scrubber display or the selection-driven repositioning interaction that the independent claims require.
• C1, C3 are generic GUI/browsing art; C7, C8 appear non-analogous.
• C9 is unassessed.

Accordingly, the retrieved face-of-patent citations are § 102 non-starters and function only as § 103 secondary references — consistent with the earlier Obviousness section's conclusion that the realistic attack is a combination, not a single-reference anticipation.

Note on the citation profile itself. The mix of cited art — interactive map GUIs (C1), media-database browsing GUIs (C3), candidate-response comparison (C2), plus generic display/MFP art (C7, C8) — is the characteristic signature of an examiner citation set used to support an abstract-idea rejection, not an art-specific novelty rejection. That is corroborating context for the D. Del. court's 2026-05-01 holding that the asserted claims are directed to abstract ideas at Alice step one before surviving at step two on the pleadings (CourtListener opinion 10852070).

---

4. Conflicts and anomalies I am obligated to flag

(a) Conflict with the earlier Obviousness section — US 6,263,307 B1 (Arons). The previously-generated Obviousness section treats US 6,263,307 B1 (Arons, MIT) as the highest-confidence lead reference. Arons does not appear anywhere in the citation data I retrieved for US 11,289,093 B2, and I could not verify it as a citation of record on this patent in this session. Two possibilities exist and I cannot resolve them here: (i) Arons sits among the 24 unretrieved entries of the 33-entry list, or (ii) Arons came from a separate prior-art search (the "Prior Art section" referenced by the Obviousness section, which is not in my possession) and is not on the patent's face. Do not represent Arons as a citation of record on the '093 patent until the full list is pulled. This is a genuine, unresolved inconsistency between sections, flagged per the operating rules.

(b) Anomalous citations C7 and C8. US 7,610,079 B2 (shock-wave imaging) and US 8,050,586 B2 (image forming apparatus) are technically unrelated to display/transcript/audio-playback control. They may be genuine IDS/examiner entries (some examiners cite broadly), or artifacts of the mirror's citation table. I list them literally rather than silently drop them.

(c) C9 unassessed. Title/disclosure not retrieved; no characterization offered.

---

5. What must be pulled before this section is relied upon

1. USPTO Patent Center → application 16/697,190 / patent 11289093 → "References Cited" (PTO-892 + IDS): obtain the complete 33-entry list, and separate examiner-cited from applicant-cited art. (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov)
2. USPTO Open Data Portal / PTAB E2E → confirm whether any of the 33 references are asserted as § 102 or § 103 grounds in IPR2026-00461 (petition filed 2026-08-24; grounds not yet public as of the prior sections). Institution decision due on or about 2026-11-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b).
3. Verify Arons US 6,263,307 B1 against the full list to resolve conflict (a) above before any § 103 chart is filed.

---

6. Summary

• Patent searched: US 11,289,093 B2 only; no similar-number results carried forward.
• Citations retrieved: 9 of 33 (Google Patents mirror — not the certified USPTO list); 24 entries unknown.
• Most relevant of the retrieved nine: US 2005/0108775 A1 (Nice Systems, event-driven content analysis) — relevant to the "content data generated during an event" element (E1) and a plausible § 103 secondary reference, but not a § 102 anticipation.
• § 102 verdict: no retrieved reference anticipates any claim. No single reference discloses the combination of (i) server-supplied voice + converted text + generation-time data, (ii) chronological transcript display with a graphical control region setting playback position in the total playback time, and (iii) repositioning of that control to a location based on the selected text's generation time.
• Conflicts flagged: (a) Arons US 6,263,307 B1 — relied on by the earlier Obviousness section but not found in the retrieved citation record; (b) two apparently non-analogous citations (US 7,610,079; US 8,050,586); (c) one reference (US 2012/0310649 A1) unassessed.
• Excluded false positives: US 11289093 A (1993, Bulk Chemicals metal-surface treatment) and PMID 11289093 (2001) — neither is this patent.

Honest limitation: Because 24 of 33 citations, the complete certified list, and the IPR2026-00461 petition grounds were all unavailable to me, this section should be treated as an interim, partial census, not a complete prior-art characterization.

§ 103 Obviousness Analysis — US Patent 11,289,093 B2

Preliminary notes and conflicts

Date discrepancy (flagged per operating rules). The system context date is 2026-08-25; the task header states "Current Date: April 26, 2026." The earlier-generated sections of this analysis (which I treat as authoritative) are timestamped 2026-08-25 and record IPR2026-00461 (Zoom v. Ricoh) as filed 2026-08-24 — one day before today. A filing dated 2026-08-24 cannot exist as of April 26, 2026, so I treat the task header date as an artifact and rely on the more recent, internally consistent data (system date 2026-08-25; IPR2026-00461 pending, grounds not yet public). Nothing in this obviousness analysis turns on that discrepancy.

Claim-text caveat (carried forward). The exact granted claim text and numbering were never independently verified from the USPTO full text. I analyze the four independent claim categories reconstructed from the published abstract and example-embodiment summaries — apparatus, system, method, recording medium — and refer to claim categories rather than inventing claim numbers.

Search verification attempt. I attempted to verify US 6,263,307 B1 (Arons) and the IPR2026-00461 docket via live web search. Both searches returned empty results in this session. Per the task instruction ("Use the results from the Prior Art section of this page"), the Prior Art section is the authoritative reference base for this analysis; the Arons reference is there labeled high confidence, and the server-minutes/NPL references are labeled medium/low-to-medium. I have not fabricated any reference not already identified in that section.

---

1. Legal framework

Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 asks whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious, at the time the invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), based on the Graham factors: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill; and (4) objective indicia of non-obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).

Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a combination of known elements is obvious when the skilled artisan would have had reason to combine them "according to known methods" to achieve "the predictable result" — even absent an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the references. Relevant KSR rationales here include: (i) combining prior-art elements to yield a predictable result; (ii) "obvious to try" — a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to a known problem; (iii) design need or market pressure directing the artisan to known alternatives; and (iv) simple substitution of one known element for another (known interchangeability). The analysis must avoid hindsight reconstruction, but it may use the patent's own Background as evidence of the problem the art was trying to solve.

Level of ordinary skill (assumed). A designer or engineer with a bachelor's degree in computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent, and roughly 2–4 years of experience developing multimedia/meeting-collaboration systems — including client–server web applications, audio recording and playback, speech-recognition integration, and timestamped transcript rendering — or equivalent combination of education and experience. This skill level matters: the core references (Arons, Filochat) are ~20–25 years old by the 2018 priority date, and the server/cloud technologies are generic, so the bar for a non-obvious combination is high.

---

2. The claimed invention (element map)

The independent claims require, in substance:

The system claim adds a server (first circuitry + memory storing, per event, voice data, converted text data, and generation-time information) plus a communicatively connected display-control apparatus (second circuitry). The method and medium claims track the apparatus claim.

Key observation for § 103: The invention is a combination of (a) a client–server content-management architecture for meeting recordings (E1), (b) a timestamped-transcript display UI (E2), and (c) a text-selection-driven repositioning interaction (E3–E4). None of these three pillars is individually new; the only question is whether the combination would have been obvious. It would.

---

3. Prior-art foundation (from the Prior Art section)

What the prior art does not establish as of the 2018 priority date (per the Prior Art section): a single reference that teaches both the server-managed per-event content store and the click-to-reposition UI. That gap is precisely why a one-reference § 102 anticipation of the full independent claims is weak, and why the realistic validity attack — and the pending IPR — is § 103 over combinations.

---

4. The combinations

Combination A — Arons '307 (lead) + server-based meeting-minutes/content-management system

Mapping the gaps filled:

• Arons supplies E2, E3, E4 (chronological transcript display; timeline/scrubber graphical control reflecting total playback time; selection of displayed text; repositioning/jumping to the time of the selected text) and most of E1's data elements (voice data, converted text data, time information) — but in a standalone-computer context.
• The server-based minutes system supplies the missing E1 architecture: a server that manages content data (voice, transcript, timestamps) generated during an event, and serves it to a client for display.

The combination is the claim, element-for-element. A PHOSITA reading Arons and any competent meeting-minutes server reference would arrive at exactly the claimed apparatus: a client that receives per-event voice + timestamped transcript from the server, renders the transcript chronologically with a playback-position control, and, on selection of text, moves the control to the selected text's generation time.

Motivation to combine (KSR rationales):

1. Design need / market pressure (KSR). By 2018, meeting-minutes systems were overwhelmingly client–server or cloud-based: participants expect to review minutes remotely, after the event, from any device, with recordings and transcripts persisted centrally. Arons' single-machine paradigm was obsolete for that use case. The '093 patent's own Background concedes the problem the art faced — users "usually select a playback start time using, for example, a slider… finding a right time to start could be difficult." A PHOSITA trying to solve that problem in a meeting-minutes product would naturally graft Arons' clickable-transcript navigation onto the server architecture the product already had. That is the textbook KSR scenario: a known problem, a known solution (Arons), and a known environment (server minutes) in which to deploy it.

2. Predictable result. Moving the transcript, timestamps, and audio from Arons' local storage to a server changes nothing about the interaction; it is a straightforward relocation of data and a substitution of a network fetch for a local read. The result — clicking text positions the scrubber — is exactly what Arons teaches, and it is predictable.

3. "Obvious to try." There is a finite set of ways to let a user navigate a long recording (manual scrubbing, chapter markers, transcript-clicking). Transcript-clicking was a known, demonstrated option (Arons 1996–2001; Filochat 1994). Choosing it to address the acknowledged difficulty of finding a playback start time is the paradigmatic "obvious to try" case.

4. Known interchangeability. Server-side storage/retrieval of multimedia content was generic by 2018; substituting it for local storage is a simple substitution of one known element for another.

Combination B — Arons '307 + network/cloud speech-to-text conversion service

Even if a challenger wants to avoid relying on the server-minutes systems, the "text data converted from the voice data … from a server" limitation can be met by combining Arons with the well-known network speech-to-text service (the '093 patent's own "voice-to-text conversion server 9" is itself an admission that outsourcing ASR to a server was conventional). By 2018, cloud ASR APIs (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, IBM Watson, Nuance) were commodity infrastructure.

• Motivation: offload computationally heavy ASR from the endpoint; support long recordings; improve accuracy with server-side models; centralize processing for a fleet of meeting rooms. All predictable engineering motivations.
• Result: a client receives, from a server, voice data and text converted from that voice data and the conversion timestamps — meeting E1 directly, with Arons supplying E2–E4. This combination is arguably even cleaner than Combination A because it maps one-for-one onto the claimed "receive … from a server" language.

Combination C — NPL (Filochat / Audio Notebook) + server-based minutes system (alternative lead)

If a challenger wants an independent, non-patent lead, the CHI '94 Filochat system and Audio Notebook (1996) disclose the user-selects-text/notes → jump-to-audio-position paradigm years before Arons' patent. The same server-graft motivation as Combination A applies. This combination is somewhat weaker as a primary because the NPL predates modern client–server web UIs, but it is a powerful corroborating prior-art line showing the core interaction was well-known and in the public domain long before 2018 — which undercuts any argument that the combination was non-obvious.

Extended combinations for dependent-type limitations (from the example embodiments)

The specification's dependent-type features are also individually conventional and would be obvious extensions of Combinations A/B/C:

• Screenshot image data captured during the event displayed with the transcript. Screen capture of presentation slides/video during meetings was routine (the '093 spec itself describes capturing "materials… displayed on a screen" as an obvious feature); synchronizing screenshots to timestamps and displaying them with a transcript is the same timestamp-mapping technique Arons teaches for text.
• Action-item generation with owner and due date. Meeting-minutes systems with action-item tracking were ubiquitous (this is a standard minutes feature); linking an action item to a timestamped transcript position is the same selection-and-locate interaction.
• Total-playback-time scrubber / graphical control region. Sliders and scrubbers bound to total media duration are generic UI elements (Windows Media Player, YouTube, etc.), and Arons' "graphical representation of the audio timeline" is the direct antecedent.
• Server-side per-event storage (system claim). Per-event content repositories (voice, transcript, timestamps keyed by event ID) are the ordinary design of the server-minutes systems referenced above.

No combination-specific feature in the specification rises above "well-understood, routine, conventional" (the same conclusion the D. Del. court's Alice step-two analysis implicitly supports — it found Ricoh's inventive-concept allegations plausible, not proven, and those allegations are about a combination of elements, which is precisely the terrain § 103 governs).

---

5. Motivation to combine — synthesized

The single most important point: the '093 patent's Background itself states the problem and admits the solution space. The Background says users found it "cumbersome" to select a playback start time and that "finding a right time to start could be difficult" — i.e., the patent concedes a known problem. The claimed solution — let the user click a transcript line to move the playback control — is the known solution Arons published in 1996–2001 and Filochat demonstrated in 1994. The only arguably new element is the client–server wrapper, and client–server meeting-content management was commodity technology by 2018. A PHOSITA with the problem statement in front of them, aware of Arons, and working in the meeting-minutes domain would have had every reason — design need, market pressure, obvious-to-try, predictable result — to combine them. That is the KSR standard.

Counterargument and rebuttal — the strongest defense point. Ricoh will argue the claims require more than "jump playback": they require repositioning the graphical control region to the selected text's time, and they require the server-managed per-event data flow. But:

• Repositioning vs. jumping. Arons teaches jumping playback to the selected text's time; moving the slider/scrubber to that same time is a trivial, predictable UI variant — a PHOSITA would implement the control to reflect the playback position as a matter of course, since a scrubber that doesn't reflect its position is unusable. This is at most an obvious design choice, not an inventive step.
• Server limitation. The server is recited at a high level of generality ("a server that manages content data generated during an event") — no particular server architecture, protocol, or data structure is claimed. The prior art section flags this as the weak point for § 102, but for § 103 it is the weak point for Ricoh: generic server limitations are the classic "known environment" element that KSR says cannot rescue a combination.
• No unexpected result. The combined system does exactly what each part promises: central storage (server) + click-to-navigate (Arons). There is no synergy, no new capability, no surprising behavior.

Secondary considerations (Graham factor 4) — no meaningful evidence for Ricoh:

• Long-felt need? The Background asserts users found scrubbing cumbersome, but the need was met in the literature decades earlier (Arons, Filochat); a long-felt need that was already solved is not evidence of non-obviousness.
• Commercial success / copying? No evidence in the record links the '093 patent's commercial success (Ricoh's whiteboard/videoconferencing products) to the claimed features, and Zoom's alleged copying is litigation allegation, not objective evidence. Ricoh's Alice step-two allegations (unique "portable, user-friendly" videoconferencing) relate to other asserted patents and to the accused products, not to this claim's transcript-sync feature.
• Unexpected results / industry skepticism / praise? None identified.

---

6. Claim-by-category assessment

Strongest single combination: US 6,263,307 B1 (Arons) + a server-based meeting-recording/minutes content-management system (any of the 2010s UC/minutes servers; Ricoh's own earlier meeting-support patents would be especially probative, though unverified). For the "text from a server" element specifically, Arons + cloud speech-to-text service is the cleanest mapping. NPL (Filochat/Audio Notebook) is corroborating and provides an independent non-patent lead if patent references face validity or eligibility objections.

---

7. Conclusion and tie to the pending IPR

Bottom line: Every independent claim category of US 11,289,093 B2 is highly vulnerable under § 103. The core interaction (select transcript text → move playback control to that text's generation time) was published by Arons ~17–22 years before the 2018 priority date and demonstrated in academic systems (Filochat, Audio Notebook) even earlier. The server-side per-event content-management architecture was commodity client–server/cloud technology by 2018. The combination is the textbook KSR case: known elements, known problem (acknowledged in the patent's own Background), predictable result, strong design-need/market-pressure motivation, and no countervailing secondary considerations.

Consistency with the litigation posture: This analysis is fully consistent with the pending IPR2026-00461 (Zoom v. Ricoh, filed 2026-08-24, pending; grounds not yet public). A § 103 petition over patents/printed publications (35 U.S.C. § 311(b)) is the only available PTAB ground, and Arons '307 is the natural lead reference — the Prior Art section independently identified it as the highest-confidence candidate for the core concept, and the server-minutes/cloud-ASR art supplies the missing "server" element. The petition's grounds, once posted (institution decision due on or about 2026-11-24 per § 314(b)), should be checked against this combination map. Separately, the D. Del. court's 2026-05-01 denial of Zoom's § 101 motion is not inconsistent with a strong § 103 case: the court found only that Ricoh plausibly alleged inventive concepts sufficient to survive a 12(b)(6) motion — a pleading-stage, fact-based Berkheimer/Aatrix ruling that says nothing about whether the combination would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, and in fact identified the very "well-understood, routine, conventional" inquiry that § 103 now puts at issue.

Residual uncertainty (honest disclosure): The two things that could change this assessment — (i) the exact granted claim text (particularly any dependent claim reciting a specific, non-obvious mechanism for mapping text to playback position or for the server data flow) and (ii) the examiner's actual References Cited list (which I could not retrieve and which might include art even closer than Arons) — were not independently verified from the USPTO full text in this session. Both should be pulled from USPTO Patent Center ("11289093") and from PTAB E2E ("IPR2026-00461") before this analysis is relied upon in any filing.