US 9629287

Summary: US Patent 9,629,287 B2 ("the '287 patent")

Verified identifiers (searched literally — no auto-correction):

• Patent number: US 9,629,287 B2 (US9629287B2)
• Application: US 15/180,968, filed June 13, 2016 (a continuation in a chain from US 14/803,848 → US 14/508,767 → US 13/937,777 → US 13/605,530 → US 12/620,330)
• Priority date claimed: March 3, 2008 (via the continuation chain); the patent family page lists priority to US provisional 61/033,064 (filed Mar. 3, 2008) and others
• Issue date: April 18, 2017
• Inventor: William Dunn
• Assignee (recorded): Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. (MRI)
• Status: Active (maintenance fees paid for 4th year in 2020 and 8th year in 2024); anticipated expiration listed as 2028-09-19. A certificate of correction was issued May 30, 2017.

Title: System for using constricted convection with closed loop cooling system as the convection plate

Abstract (verbatim from the patent):

An electronic display assembly is disclosed herein. An electronic display may be positioned within a housing where the display is cooled by a combination of airflows. A closed loop of isolated gas may be used with an open loop of ambient air which passes through the housing in order to cool the display. Preferably, the closed loop of isolated gas cools the front surface of the display while the open loop of ambient air cools the rear surface of the display. Preferably, the closed loop of isolated gas is not permitted to mix with the open loop of ambient air.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The patent has 23 claims; four are independent (claims 1, 12, 18, 21):

• Claim 1 (broadest): An electronic display assembly with (a) a housing, (b) a closed-loop gas cooling chamber inside the housing, (c) an electronic display inside the housing but outside that closed-loop chamber, and (d) an open-loop path for ambient air through the housing. The display is cooled by both the circulating closed-loop gas and the through-flowing ambient air.

• Claim 12: A housing containing an LCD with a backlight, where the display is cooled by a combination of (a) a closed loop of isolated gas circulating within the housing and (b) an open loop of ambient air passing through the housing and along the backlight.

• Claim 18: A housing with an electronic display, plus a rear cooling chamber behind the display that contains an electrical component connected to the display. The front surface of the display is cooled by a closed loop of isolated gas, while the rear surface is cooled by an open loop of ambient air.

• Claim 21: A housing with a closed loop of cooling gas adapted to circulate within it, an open-loop ambient air pathway through the housing, and a display positioned so it is isolated from the closed-loop gas but contactable by the ambient air — cooled by the combination of both.

Notable prosecution/litigation facts (from search results)

• IPR2023-00255 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. & [[Samsung Electronics America](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America), Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) v. MRI): The PTAB's Final Written Decision (before Judges Lee, Kokoski, and Hudalla) found claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 10–23 unpatentable, and claim 9 not shown unpatentable. Only claims 1, 4, 5, and 8–23 were challenged; claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 were not part of that IPR.
• The '287 patent has also been involved in: E.D. Tex. case 2:22-cv-00320 (MRI v. Samsung), ITC Investigation 337-TA-1331 (Certain Outdoor and Semi-Outdoor Electronic Displays), a D. Del. case against Civiq Smartscapes (17-269-RGA), and Google Patents lists CAFC appeals 24-2300 and 24-1749 involving the family.

Uncertainty note

• I could not independently verify the content or current status of the CAFC 2026 dockets for this specific patent — the CAFC case numbers 24-2300 and 24-1749 appear on the Google Patents litigation record, but my searches returned no docket-level detail, and the CAFC does not list a 2026-dated appeal for the '287 patent in the results I obtained. Treat any statement about pending CAFC proceedings as unconfirmed.
• The assignee name on Google Patents is "Manufacturing Resources International Inc." (current legal entity "MANUFACTURING RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, INC." per the assignment record); the PTAB decision confirms MRI as Patent Owner.

Based on my searches (which included the Unified Patents portal, RPX Insight, ex parte, and ITC/Federal Register sources), here is what I can confirm regarding litigation involving US Patent 9,629,287 (i.e., US9629287B2, "System for using constricted convection with closed loop cooling system as the convection plate"):

---

1. Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. — E.D. Tex.

• Case No.: 2:22-cv-00320
• Plaintiff: Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. (MRI)
• Defendants: [Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd. and related Samsung entities (Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung SDS Co., Ltd., Samsung SDS America, Inc.), plus Coates Signco Pty Limited, Coates Visual LLC, and Industrial Enclosure Corporation d/b/a Palmer Digital Group (per the parallel ITC complaint and the case's docket)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Judge Rodney Gilstrap)
• Filed: August 19, 2022
• Patents asserted (from the initial complaint docket): US 8,854,595; 9,173,322; 9,629,287 (i.e., 9629287); 10,506,740; 11,013,142 — US 9,629,287 was expressly one of the patents-in-suit (Exhibit I, Claim Chart for US Patent 9,629,287)
• Status: Closed / terminated; latest docket entry per RPX is March 12, 2024. (The ex parte case tracker lists status "Closed.")

---

2. In re Certain Outdoor and Semi-Outdoor Electronic Displays, Products Containing Same, and Components Thereof — ITC

• Inv. No.: 337-TA-1331
• Complainant: Manufacturing Resources International, Inc.
• Respondents: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung SDS Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDS America, Inc.; Coates Signco Pty Limited; Coates Visual LLC; Industrial Enclosure Corporation d/b/a Palmer Digital Group
• Complaint filed: August 19, 2022; Investigation instituted: September 19, 2022
• Patents asserted: US 8,854,595; 9,173,322; 9,629,287 (i.e., 9629287); 10,506,740; 11,013,142
• Outcome: On February 28, 2024, the ITC declined to review the ALJ's November 13, 2023 final initial determination of no infringement and terminated the investigation. On May 8, 2024, the ITC denied complainant's petition for reconsideration and did not review the no-infringement determination. No exclusion order was issued.

---

3. IPR2023-00255 — PTAB (Inter Partes Review)

• Petitioners: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung SDS Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDS America, Inc.; Coates Signco Pty Limited; Coates US, Inc.; and Industrial Enclosure Corporation d/b/a Palmer Digital Group
• Patent Owner: Manufacturing Resources International, Inc.
• Filed: Effective December 15, 2022 (per the patent's USPTO legal-events record)
• Status: The patent's Google Patents file wrapper records this IPR as reaching a Final Written Decision (the entry reads "PTAB case IPR2023-00255 filed (Final Written Decision)"). I was unable to confirm the substantive outcome (claims upheld vs. found unpatentable) from my search results, so I will not guess at the result.

---

4. and 5. Federal Circuit Appeals — Cases 24-1749 and 24-2300

• The patent's Google Patents record lists two Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cases associated with this patent family: 24-1749 and 24-2300.
• I was not able to retrieve docket-level detail (parties, filing dates, dispositions) for these two appeals within my search limits. Given the timing (2024 case numbers), they most plausibly relate to appeals from the ITC final determination in 337-TA-1331 and/or the IPR final written decision, but I cannot confirm the specific subject matter or outcome — this is an explicit uncertainty.

---

Summary Table

Caveats: (1) The patent number appears in court filings as "9,629,287" and in Google Patents as "US9629287B2" — both refer to the same patent. (2) For the two CAFC appeals and the IPR outcome, my search results were insufficient to confirm the details; I have flagged those rather than speculate.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on US 9,629,287: IPR2023-00255, which resulted in a Final Written Decision invalidating 18 of the 19 challenged claims (all four independent claims) while sustaining one dependent claim (claim 9) — that FWD is now on appeal at the Federal Circuit (Docket 24-2300). No proceeding is active at the PTAB, none was settled, and none was denied institution.

Bottom line for a defendant: every independent claim of the patent (claims 1, 12, 18, 21) has been found unpatentable and ordered canceled by the PTAB; the only surviving claims (2, 3, 6, 7, 9) are dependents that hang off canceled parent claims. If your demand letter cites any of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, or 10–23, the patent owner's case is gutted — with the single caveat that the invalidity ruling is being appealed (24-2300) and could theoretically be reversed.

Data-source flag: The "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt (USPTO ODP API) reports no AIA trials. That is stale or incomplete: the patent's own Google Patents record and legal-events tab list IPR2023-00255, and the PTAB's FWD in that case is public. Treat the ODP "no proceedings" entry as an ingest gap, not a statement of fact.

---

IPR2023-00255 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. & [[Samsung Electronics America](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America), Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) v. Manufacturing Resources International, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. § 311)
• Filed: 2022-12-15 (Corrected Petition, Paper 9)
• Status: Final Written Decision – Appealed (verbatim from Patexia's PTAB tracker; plain-English gloss: trial complete, claims canceled, patent owner appealed to the Federal Circuit)
• Judge panel: Jameson Lee, Jo-Anne M. Kokoski (author of the FWD), and John A. Hudalla, Administrative Patent Judges
• Petition grounds (all § 103 obviousness):
  • Ground 1: Claims 12–23 over Karppanen (WO 2007/116116A1)
  • Ground 2: Claims 1, 4–5, 8–12, 14–17, 21–23 over Nagashima (US 6,798,655) in view of Karppanen
  • Grounds 3 & 4: Ohta in view of Marumoto, with or without Yare (claims including 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21)
  • Ground 5: Claims 12–20 over Kitamura (JP H8-54834) in view of Harris (US 5,748,269)
• Real parties in interest: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung SDS Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDS America, Inc.; Coates Signco Pty Limited; Coates US, Inc.; Industrial Enclosure Corporation d/b/a Palmer Digital Group (per the FWD).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2023-07-18 (Paper 11) as to claims 1, 4, 5, and 8–23 "on the grounds advanced in the Petition." The Board found the petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the dual-loop (closed-loop isolated gas + open-loop ambient air) obviousness theories.
• Final Written Decision (2024-07-17): The panel held, verbatim: "we determine that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ... show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 10-23 of U.S. Patent No. 9,629,287 B2 ... are unpatentable, and does not show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 9 of the '287 patent is unpatentable."
  • Canceled — independent claims: 1, 12, 18, 21 (all four independents).
  • Canceled — dependent claims: 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23.
  • Held patentable: claim 9 (challenged, but the Board was not persuaded it was obvious) — note claim 9 depends on claim 8, which was canceled.
  • Untouched: claims 2, 3, 6, 7 (never challenged; each depends on canceled claim 1).
  • Representative reasoning (on the Nagashima/Karppanen ground for claim 1): the Board was "not persuaded that Nagashima teaches that 'gas circulation within the closed loop gas cooling chamber' cools the electronic display," because Nagashima's liquid-filled tubes transfer heat onto the rear of the LCD rather than cooling it — meaning claim 1 fell on the other grounds (e.g., Ohta/Marumoto). The Board also gave MRI's objective-indicia evidence (long-felt need, Samsung "copying") little to no weight for lack of nexus.
• Settlement / termination: None. The case ran to a merits FWD.
• Appeal: Yes — Patent Owner MRI filed a Notice of Appeal on 2024-09-06 (Paper 65; counsel John C. Alemanni, Kilpatrick Townsend). Federal Circuit Docket 24-2300, Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. v. Squires (Director of the USPTO intervening). I could not locate a disposition for 24-2300 in the available sources as of the search date — treat it as pending. (Related MRI appeals of sibling IPRs were decided against MRI: 24-2228, affirmed 2026-03-31; 24-2224/24-2231, affirmed 2026-04-07 — see Strategic summary.)
• Defensive value: Extremely high. The PTAB canceled every independent claim and all but one dependent claim on obviousness grounds, so any infringement theory built on claims 1, 12, 18, or 21 (or their dependents) is presently unsupported by an enforceable claim — the FWD is the operative authority unless the Federal Circuit reverses on appeal.

Sources: FWD text via Exparte/IPR2023-00255 (Paper 65, Notice of Appeal + FWD); Patexia IPR2023-00255 summary; Unified Patents PTAB portal; DocketAlarm docket; oral-hearing transcript (2024-04-24) confirming the proceeding was one of five MRI IPRs tied to ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1331.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status — CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. After IPR2023-00255, the claims of 9,629,287 break down as follows:

• CANCELED (per the FWD, subject to the pending appeal): 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.
• SUSTAINED (challenged but held patentable): 9 — but claim 9 depends on claim 8, which was canceled, so it is an orphaned dependent with no live base claim.
• UNTESTED (never challenged): 2, 3, 6, 7 — all depend on canceled claim 1, so they are likewise unenforceable standing alone.

Net practical effect: the patent has no surviving independent claim. A certificate of cancellation should issue consistent with the FWD (the patent remains "Active" on the register and MRI paid the 8th-year maintenance fee on 2024-09-10), but the appeal in 24-2300 is the one open variable. If the Federal Circuit affirms (as it did in MRI's two other cooling-patent appeals, 24-2228 and 24-2224/24-2231, in March–April 2026), the cancellation becomes effectively permanent.

Estoppel landscape. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), Samsung and its privies (Samsung SDS, Coates Signco, Palmer Digital/Industrial Enclosure — all named real parties in interest) are barred from re-litigating in the E.D. Tex. case or ITC any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2023-00255 — i.e., the Karppanen, Nagashima, Kitamura/Harris, and Ohta/Marumoto/Yare obviousness combinations are locked in for that coalition. But estoppel is petitioner-specific: a new defendant is not estopped and can freely deploy the same art, though the Board's finding that claim 9 was not shown obvious over those references is persuasive (non-binding) authority a patent owner will cite back at you. The strongest play for a new defendant is simply the FWD's cancellation of the independent claims, not a fresh IPR.

Pattern signals. This was not a one-off: in late 2022 Samsung filed five parallel IPRs (IPR2023-00199, 00220, 00221, 00254, 00255) against five MRI cooling patents asserted in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1331; IPR2023-00255 is the one on 9,629,287. MRI has litigated aggressively — E.D. Tex. (2:22-cv-00320), the ITC (which found no violation; the ITC's no-violation determination was not reviewed in Feb. 2024), and earlier D. Del. litigation against Civiq Smartscapes — and MRI appealed every adverse PTAB result to the Federal Circuit. Those appeals have gone badly for MRI: the ITC appeal (24-1749) was voluntarily dismissed on 2024-08-29, and the CAFC affirmed the PTAB's invalidations in the sibling cases on 2026-03-31 (24-2228) and 2026-04-07 (24-2224/24-2231). Unified Patents appears in the record only as the data aggregator hosting the PTAB case page — it is not the petitioner here; Samsung is. The direction of travel is unmistakable: the MRI outdoor-display cooling portfolio is being systematically dismantled, and 9,629,287 is the patent that is already stripped to orphaned dependent claims.

---

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant facing assertion of 9,629,287: point the patent owner to the FWD in IPR2023-00255, which ordered claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 10–23 canceled as unpatentable under § 103 (FWD text via Exparte, Paper 65; Unified Patents case page). Quote the disposition: "claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 10-23 ... are unpatentable." If the demand letter is built on any independent claim (1, 12, 18, 21) or a canceled dependent, there is no enforceable claim to infringe; a complaint based on those claims invites a Rule 11 / fee-shifting response.
2. Monitor the appeal (24-2300). The FWD is not final while the Federal Circuit has the case. Check the CAFC docket (CourtListener / PACER) for Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. v. Squires, No. 24-2300; if the court affirms (as it has in MRI's other appeals), the cancellation is locked. If it reverses, the claims would be reinstated and a new IPR strategy would be needed.
3. Do not assume a second IPR is necessary or even available. With all independents canceled, a new defendant's best defense is the FWD itself, not a fresh petition. If you are not in privity with Samsung and the patent owner somehow salvages claims on appeal, you remain free to raise Karppanen, Nagashima, Kitamura/Harris, and Ohta/Marumoto/Yare — those grounds are not estopped against you — but you would need to overcome the Board's claim-9 analysis if the surviving claim is 9.
4. Watch the certificate of cancellation. Confirm on USPTO Patent Center whether the certificate canceling claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 10–23 has issued; if it has, the PTO's own register reflects the patent's narrowed (effectively empty) claim set even while the appeal pends.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 9,629,287, starting with the USPTO assignment records and cross-referencing available sources.

The searches returned general information but not the specific assignment record. Let me dig deeper into the specific reel/frame and related legal events.

Good — MRI is clearly an operating company (Atlanta manufacturer of outdoor LCD displays). Now let me verify the full recorded assignment history for this specific patent number, checking for any security agreements or transfers beyond the single inventor-to-MRI assignment.

I've reached the search limit, but I have sufficient verified information to complete the analysis. Let me consolidate the findings.

Key evidence gathered:

• Google Patents legal events for US 9,629,287 B2 list exactly one recorded assignment: reel 038899/0557 (Dunn → Manufacturing Resources International, Inc., recorded 2016-06-13, executed 2012-12-02)
• No security agreements, mergers, or transfers to LLCs appear in the legal-events feed
• MRI is a documented operating manufacturer (Alpharetta, GA; 51–200 employees; 80+ engineers) producing outdoor/semi-outdoor LCD displays, menu boards, and kiosks
• MRI itself is the plaintiff/patent owner in E.D. Tex. 2:22-cv-00320, ITC 337-TA-1331, and CAFC 24-1749 (dismissed Aug. 29, 2024) — all against Samsung, a competitor
• MRI paid 4th-year (2020) and 8th-year (2024) maintenance fees, evidencing continued ownership

---

Inventors

• William Dunn — sole named inventor. Employer at filing: Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. (MRI), based on the recorded assignment (reel 038899/0557) transferring his entire interest to MRI — the standard employee-to-employer conveyance. No unusual pattern: single inventor, no post-filing departures relevant to a portfolio fire-sale.

Original assignee

• Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. (MRI) — named assignee on the issued patent (issue date April 18, 2017).
• Line of business / product embodiment: MRI is an operating manufacturer (HQ: 6415 Shiloh Rd E, Alpharetta, Georgia) of outdoor and semi-outdoor digital LCD displays (47"–84"), digital menu boards, mobile displays, and self-ordering kiosks — products that directly embody the claimed closed-loop/ambient-air cooling architecture for outdoor displays.
• Current status: Operating and actively litigating. MRI paid maintenance fees in 2020 (4th year) and 2024 (8th year), and defended the patent in IPR2023-00255 (Samsung v. MRI) and CAFC appeal 24-1749. No evidence of acquisition, dissolution, or bankruptcy.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center could not be queried directly (dynamic web application; no static result pages surfaced in my searches). The assignment record below is taken from the Google Patents legal-events feed, which mirrors USPTO recordation data for this patent. Only one recorded conveyance exists for US 9,629,287.

• 2012-12-02 (executed) / recorded 2016-06-13 — Reel 038899/0557
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest (see document for details)
  • Assignor: William Dunn
  • Assignee: Manufacturing Resources International, Inc.
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the sources available to me (the recorded cover-sheet PDF was not accessible via web search; no correspondent name is published in the Google Patents legal-events feed). This is a stated limitation, not a finding.
  • Context: Inventor-to-employer assignment executed Dec. 2, 2013 and recorded on the June 13, 2016 filing date of this continuation — a routine chain-of-title cleanup for the continuation family, not an acquisition or transfer-to-asserter.

No other recorded assignments exist on the public record for this patent: no post-issuance transfers, no security agreements, no changes of name, no mergers, no releases. That absence is itself the finding — the original assignee (MRI) still owns the patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9629287
    2008 : Priority claimed via provisional filings
    2013 : Dunn assigns rights to MRI
    2016 : Assignment recorded reel 038899
         : Continuation filed Jun 13
    2017 : Patent issued Apr 18
    2020 : Maintenance fee paid year 4
    2022 : MRI sues Samsung in E D Tex
         : ITC investigation opened
    2023 : Samsung files IPR2023-00255
    2024 : Maintenance fee paid year 8
         : CAFC appeal dismissed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only assignee is Manufacturing Resources International, Inc., a 51–200-employee operating manufacturer with a product line embodying the claims. No "IP / Licensing / Holdings" LLC, no registered-agent address, no licensing-only entity anywhere in the chain (reel 038899/0557; no other conveyances).

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. MRI does not appear on any public NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Round Rock, etc.), and no such entity appears in the chain. The only litigant is MRI itself, in its own name.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present / unclear. Only one recorded conveyance exists, so there is no chain in which a correspondent could recur. I could not retrieve the correspondent name from reel 038899/0557; per the task's own standard, a single appearance would not be a finding regardless. MRI's litigation counsel (Alemanni, Morlock, Reed, Sanders per the CAFC docket) is a separate matter from the assignment correspondent.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Single transfer, executed 2013, recorded 2016. No chained LLCs, no rapid-fire conveyances.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The assignment was recorded June 13, 2016 — more than six years before the first infringement suit naming this patent (E.D. Tex. 2:22-cv-00320, filed Aug. 19, 2022). No assignment was recorded in the six months preceding the suit; standing was based on the original assignee.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. MRI is solvent and operating; it paid maintenance fees in 2020 and 2024 and continues to manufacture.

7. Privateering — Not present. MRI asserts in its own name against Samsung — a direct competitor in outdoor/semi-outdoor signage displays — not through a proxy NPE. This is the inverse of privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain terminates at MRI, an operating company, not RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

MRI is the original assignee and current owner (reel 038899/0557; maintenance fees 2020/2024), an operating manufacturer whose outdoor-display products embody the claimed cooling architecture. Its enforcement — E.D. Tex. 2:22-cv-00320, ITC 337-TA-1331, and CAFC 24-1749 — is directed against Samsung, a genuine competitor in the same product space, in MRI's own name. None of the eight NPE signals are present; the assignment record shows a single inventor-to-employer conveyance and nothing else, which is the classic profile of a patent still held and enforced by its practicing original owner.

Verification link: USPTO Patent Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search Patent Number 9629287); cross-reference: Google Patents legal events at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9629287B2](/patent/US9629287B2)/en.

Caveat: I could not pull the Assignment Center's full abstract of title directly (the site is a JS application that did not surface in search), and the correspondent name on reel 038899/0557 was not retrievable from available sources. If a recorded security interest or license exists that Google Patents' feed does not index, it would appear in a direct Assignment Center query; based on all evidence obtainable, however, the chain is a single Dunn → MRI assignment.

The initial searches returned some noisy results (including an unrelated Japanese utility model JP9629287U and a WO publication with the same number). I'll now search the USPTO directly and dig into the IPR2023-00255 record, which identified the most probative prior art for this patent.

I found the IPR2023-00255 Final Written Decision. Now I need the specific prior-art references and grounds used in that decision, plus verification of the cited reference US6007205A.

I have reached the search limit, so I'll now synthesize the findings from the USPTO/Google Patents record (authoritative source provided), the IPR2023-00255 Final Written Decision, and the petition exhibits. Below is the completed analysis.

---

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent 9,629,287 B2 ("the '287 patent")

1. Literal USPTO verification of the number 9629287

Searching literally for 9629287 (not 9,629,187; not the unrelated Japanese utility model JP9629287U; not WO 9629287 A1, a Dead Sea Works potash-granulation publication) confirms:

The IPR2023-00255 Final Written Decision (Paper 65, before Judges Lee, Kokoski, Hudalla) confirms the same patent number, title, and claim set, and identifies the pending E.D. Tex. case 2:22-cv-00320 and ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1331.

2. The citation structure of the '287 patent

The Google Patents record for the '287 patent shows two distinct citation groups, which must not be conflated:

1. "Patent Citations (1)" — the single reference appearing on the face of the '287 patent itself: US6007205A.
2. "Family Cites Families (64)" — 64 references cited somewhere in the patent family (i.e., during prosecution of the parent applications US 12/620,330, US 13/605,530, US 13/937,777, US 14/508,767, US 14/803,848, and related applications). For a continuation, these are the prosecution references that the family inherited.

I address each group below, then overlay the IPR2023-00255 record, which identifies the most probative art actually used to invalidate claims.

---

3. The one on-face patent citation: US6007205A (Seiko Epson)

Full citation: US 6,007,205 A — "Optical lens unit having internalized fan unit and projection apparatus housing the same," inventor(s) assigned to Seiko Epson Corporation; priority/filing date March 30, 1995; granted December 28, 1999. Cited by the examiner on the face of the '287 patent.

Brief description: A projection display apparatus in which an optical lens unit contains a substantially sealed chamber holding three LCD light valves and a prism. A fan inside the sealed chamber circulates air in a closed path to cool the light valves and prism (claims 12–14). Separately, an air induction means introduces ambient air into the exterior case, and an air-intake path channels that ambient air across the external surface of the sealed chamber to promote heat exchange between the circulating internal air and the ambient air (claims 6, 9–11, 18). In other words, it discloses the same core architectural idea as the '287 patent: a closed loop of gas circulating inside a chamber + an open loop of ambient air flowing over the chamber's exterior, without the two air streams mixing.

§ 102 anticipation assessment (claims potentially anticipated):

Bottom line: US6007205A is the closest single on-face citation to the dual-loop concept and was evidently considered by the examiner, but it does not cleanly anticipate claim 1 (or any claim) under § 102 because the display sits inside the sealed chamber rather than outside it, and there is no backlight/rear-chamber structure.

---

4. The most probative prior art (from IPR2023-00255, Samsung v. MRI)

The Final Written Decision held claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 10–23 unpatentable (claim 9 not shown unpatentable; claims 2, 3, 6, 7 not challenged). The petition's grounds — technically § 103 obviousness grounds, not § 102 — identify the art most relevant to the '287 claims. Assessed for § 102 anticipation potential:

(a) WO2007116116A1 — Karppanen / Symbicon Oy ("Electronic information board")

• Full citation: WO 2007/116116 A1, published October 18, 2007 (priority April 11, 2006), applicant Symbicon Oy (also appears in the family cites list).
• Description: Weatherproof outdoor electronic information board. A sealed display casing contains an LCD with internal fans circulating air — the "closed loop of isolated gas." Behind it, a separate "common cooling space" has external ambient air circulated by fans through flow ducts — the "open loop of ambient air." Heat-transfer elements couple the sealed casing to the open-loop space.
• IPR result: Board found claims 12–23 unpatentable as obvious over Karppanen alone (Ground 1).
• § 102 anticipation potential: Highest of any reference. Karppanen alone plausibly anticipates claims 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 (sealed closed loop of isolated gas; open loop of ambient air in the housing; display cooled by the combination; open loop contacting an exterior surface of the chamber while isolated gas contacts the interior). The Board's Ground-1 holding means every limitation of claims 12–23 was found in Karppanen (as modified by ordinary skill), which is the practical equivalent of a strong anticipation case for those claims. Claim 15 (drive electronics in the rear chamber) and claim 17 (perpendicular flow directions) are the limitations the Patent Owner fought hardest on; those are weaker for pure § 102.

(b) US6798655 — Nagashima (used with Karppanen)

• Full citation: US 6,798,655 B2 (Fujitsu Limited), an all-in-one computer with an LCD; published September 28, 2004.
• Description: LCD computer with an open-loop "chimney" between the rear of the LCD panel and the main chassis through which ambient air flows, plus a rear chamber housing the CPU/motherboard cooled by a fan — which the petitioner mapped to the claimed "closed loop gas cooling chamber," with the LCD "outside" that chamber.
• § 102 potential: Nagashima alone discloses an open-loop ambient pathway along the rear of the display and a rear chamber with electronics, but the "closed loop of isolated gas" is not literally present (the rear chamber is not a sealed gas loop). Best characterized as anticipating elements of claims 1, 8, 9, 18, 20; the closed-loop-isolated-gas element requires Karppanen.

(c) US5748269A — Harris / Westinghouse Air Brake ("Environmentally-sealed, convectively-cooled active matrix liquid crystal display (LCD)")

• Full citation: US 5,748,269 A, filed November 21, 1996, granted May 5, 1998 (also in the family cites list).
• Description: A sealed LCD in which the backlight is cooled by an open-loop plenum through which ambient air is drawn by a fan.
• IPR result: Used in Ground 5 (Kitamura + Harris) against claims 12–20.
• § 102 potential: Harris alone is the strongest single-reference anticipation candidate for the backlight cooling element of claim 12 ("open loop of ambient air which passes through the housing and along the backlight") and claim 3 (rear surface of an LED backlight), but it lacks the closed-loop isolated-gas circulation, so it cannot alone anticipate claims 12, 18, or 21 in full.

(d) JP 3118907 — Ohta; JP H8-152604 — Marumoto (used together, optionally with "Yare")

• Full citation: Japanese Patent No. 3118907 (Ohta); Japanese Unexamined Patent Publication H8-152604 (Marumoto). Both pre-2000 publications.
• Description: Ohta discloses a display cooling device with a heat sink and circulating airflow; Marumoto is used for additional airflow/structure teachings.
• IPR result: Grounds 3–4 (Ohta + Marumoto, with/without Yare) were relied on by the Board for several dependent claims (e.g., claims 13, 14, 16).
• § 102 potential: Neither alone is a clean anticipation of any independent claim; they supply combination elements (heat sinks, airflow channels, perpendicular flow configurations argued for claims 5 and 17).

(e) JP H8-54834 — Kitamura (used with Harris)

• Full citation: Japanese Unexamined Patent Publication H8-54834 (Kitamura).
• Description: An LED display installed in a building wall with a hermetically sealed inner housing containing fans circulating internal air (closed loop) and an air channel between the inner and outer housings through which ambient air flows (open loop).
• § 102 potential: Kitamura alone discloses the dual-loop structure but uses an LED display, not an LCD with a backlight — hence the need for Harris (LCD + backlight) in the obviousness ground. For § 102, Kitamura is a candidate for claims 1, 4, 5, 21, 22, 23 but not for the LCD/backlight claims 12–17.

---

5. The 64 "Family Cites" references — condensed mapping

These references appeared during prosecution of the family. Only a subset is probative against the dual-loop claims; the rest relate to LCD heating, optical films, and projector cooling. Key items, with § 102 potential:

Caveat: For the foreign-language family cites I have only titles/assignees from the family list; I did not retrieve full texts, so the "claim" column for those is an inference from title and art area, not a verified element-by-element mapping.

---

6. Conclusions

1. The only reference on the face of US 9,629,287 itself is US6007205A (Seiko Epson). It is the closest single-reference anticipation candidate for the dual-loop concept but fails § 102 on the "display outside the closed-loop chamber" and "backlight" limitations.
2. The most relevant prior art overall is WO2007116116A1 (Karppanen/Symbicon), which the PTAB held renders claims 12–23 unpatentable (obviousness) and which is the strongest § 102 anticipation candidate for claims 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 23.
3. US5748269A (Harris) is the key reference for the "open loop of ambient air … along the backlight" element of claims 12 and 3; US6798655 (Nagashima) and JP H8-54834 (Kitamura) supply the rear-chamber/closed-loop and dual-housing structures used against claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10–11, 15, 17, and 20–23 in combination.
4. Of the 64 family cites, the probative subset for the cooling claims is small (Karppanen, Harris, US5991153A, US6493440B2, GB2402205A, JP2002158475A, KR20060070176A, KR100772247B1, FI116491B, US20100171889A1); the remainder bear at most on claim 10 (display type) or are unrelated.

Uncertainty note: I could not open the full USPTO file-wrapper image to independently re-count the front-page references; the citation counts above come from the Google Patents record (authoritative per the task instructions) and the IPR2023-00255 docket (Docket Alarm, ex parte, Patexia). The IPR grounds are § 103 grounds; my § 102 "anticipation potential" labels are analytical assessments, not Board findings, and should be verified element-by-element against the actual claim charts (Petition, Ex. 1002 Smith-Gillespie declaration) before use in litigation.

I'll verify a few specifics from the IPR record and the references before building the § 103 analysis.

Let me pull two more specifics — the Kitamura/Harris ground and the claim 9 finding.

§ 103 Obviousness Analysis — US 9,629,287 B2

Builds on the Prior Art section above (which is not repeated here). New material: element-by-element obviousness mappings, the motivation-to-combine rationales, and a claim-by-claim disposition. Sources below are the IPR2023-00255 Final Written Decision (Paper 65), the parties' briefs, and the Google Patents record already relied on.

---

0. Two framing points that drive everything else

(a) Art-qualification (pre-AIA § 103(a) governs). The '287 patent's claims carry an effective filing date of 2008-03-03 through the continuation chain (no claim has a post-March 16, 2013 effective date), so pre-AIA § 102/§ 103 apply. That matters only for reference qualification, not for the obviousness standard — KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), supply the framework the Board applied.

(b) The claims are broad, and the Board construed them broadly — that is the whole ballgame.

• "coolable by a combination" was read as a capability recitation, not a requirement that both loops be necessary or simultaneously operative. The Board rejected MRI's effort to require that the closed-loop actually cool the display in Nagashima — but only because Nagashima's liquid tubes heat the panel (a factual defect in that reference), not because the claim demands more than capability. FWD § II.D.2.
• "along the backlight" was held not to require contact with the backlight surface: "We agree with Petitioner that 'along the backlight' does not require contact with the surface of the backlight." FWD § II.C.2.b.
• "closed loop of isolated gas" was satisfied by a generic sealed casing with internal recirculating fans (Karppanen) — no hermetic seal, no dedicated gas supply required.
• The claims are not limited to outdoor displays, to any display size, or to LCDs alone (claim 10 is a Markush of display types). This cuts both ways: it maximizes the prior-art field, and it destroys nexus for MRI's objective indicia (see § 6).

---

1. Combination A — Karppanen alone (single-reference obviousness/anticipation-grade) → claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

This is the strongest and simplest theory: a single reference discloses every element of the LCD/dual-loop claims, so no motivation-to-combine analysis is even required (a single-reference § 103 case collapses into § 102).

Why a POSITA would have been motivated (for the dependent claims where Karppanen is arguably silent, e.g., claim 15's driver location): Karppanen's own stated "basic idea" is to separate the display element from the control electronics "for facilitating the arrangements for temperature control and cooling" (Karppanen 3:23-28). Placing a backlight driver in the sealed display casing is (i) a known, conventional placement for LCD drivers (noise/signal-integrity rationale), (ii) required by physical necessity — there is no space on the front or sides, and a front-mounted driver would block the image, and (iii) consistent with Karppanen's disclosure that backlight power supplies live in the casing. That is the MPEP 2143 "known design choice / obvious placement of a known component" rationale, reinforced by KSR's "person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."

Vulnerability: claim 21's "display isolated from the closed loop of cooling gas but contactable by ambient air" fits Karppanen only if "contactable" is read loosely (the display is separated from ambient air by the sealed front plate; heat passes through cooling elements). This is the one element where a § 102/single-reference case for claims 21–23 is genuinely contestable, which is why the Board also analyzed claim 21 under the Ohta/Marumoto ground. Claims 21–23 are better supported by Combination C or D.

---

2. Combination B — Ohta + Marumoto (+ optionally Yare) → claim 1 (and claims 4, 5, 8–11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23)

This is the combination that actually killed claim 1. After Nagashima/Karppanen failed on the "coolable by a combination" limitation (see Combination C), the Board found the Ohta/Marumoto combination teaches all limitations of claim 1 and was obvious with a reasonable expectation of success. FWD § II.E.3.e.

Element mapping (reconstructed from the FWD):

Motivations to combine — as found by the Board (FWD § II.E.3.d):

1. Substitution of a known gas coolant for a known liquid coolant to obtain a predictable improvement (MPEP 2143(B)). Ohta's coolant fluid 6 causes known problems; Marumoto teaches the coolant can be a gas. The Board accepted the DyStar universal-motivator framing — the substitution "would reduce maintenance costs, prevent leakage of liquid fluid, and reduce energy costs."
2. Elimination of a disclosed disadvantage in the primary reference. Ohta expressly teaches that external-light reflection on the plasma panel degrades contrast and that the fix is dying the coolant black or using a colored face plate — which "have the downside of darkening the images being shown on the display." Marumoto's LCD "provides strong contrast without the need for colored equipment or dyed fluids." Fixing a problem identified in the primary reference with a known alternative is a textbook rationale. The Board cited DyStar, 464 F.3d at 1368 (implicit motivation where the combination is "stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient").
3. Simultaneous advantages and disadvantages do not negate motivation. MRI argued plasma had better contrast/viewing angle/response rate. The Board rejected that under Medichem, 437 F.3d at 1165.
4. Same field, reasonably pertinent. Both references are display thermal-management devices (a plasma panel cooling device and an LCD panel heating/cooling plate). MRI's "different fields" argument failed; the Board also noted the claims are not limited to large-format displays, so MRI's "unique cooling needs of large format information displays" argument was legally irrelevant.
5. Design choice / ordinary creativity (claims 5, 17). The Board held that positioning a fan within Ohta's cooling device "to cool both the heat sink and the LCD display would have been within a POSITA's abilities" — expressly invoking KSR's "person of ordinary creativity" language. FWD § II.E.3 (claim 5).

Reasonable expectation of success: "apply a known cooling architecture to a known display type" is a mechanical, predictable-result combination; no unpredictable art, no inoperable combination.

---

3. Combination C — Nagashima + Karppanen → claims 1, 4, 5, 8–12, 14–17, 21–23 (ground asserted; failed for claim 1)

Include this because a new defendant (not estopped — see § 7) may still want it, and because its failure is instructive.

• Mapping: Nagashima's LCD all-in-one computer has an open-loop ambient "chimney" between LCD panel 5 and main chassis 3 (ambient-air cooling of the display, "heat dissipation … at high efficiency while utilizing this large area"), plus a rear chamber (main chassis 3 + rear cover 12) housing the CPU/motherboard, which Petitioner mapped to the "closed loop gas cooling chamber," with the LCD "outside" it. Karppanen supplies the sealed-casing teaching.
• Asserted motivation to combine: Nagashima itself warns that ambient air contains "dust and dirt." Because Nagashima's rear chamber houses critical electronics, a POSITA would seal that chamber as taught by Karppanen's weatherproof sealed casing — applying a known technique to a known device to obtain the predictable result of contaminant protection without altering the primary function (MPEP 2143(A)/(C)).
• Why it failed: the Board held the combination does not teach that "gas circulation within the closed loop gas cooling chamber" cools the display, because Nagashima "teaches the deliberate heating of the display rear surface in order to transfer heat to the display from the electronics inside of the cover 12" — the liquid tubes run hotter than the panel, so heat flows onto the LCD. FWD § II.D.2. In short: the theory was right architecturally but the primary reference's own disclosure of heat flow direction defeated the "coolable" limitation.
• Takeaway: the Nagashima/Karppanen ground is worth reviving only if paired with a reference that supplies a genuinely cooling closed gas loop — i.e., Karppanen itself (Combination A) or Ohta (Combination B).

---

4. Combination D — Kitamura + Harris → claims 12–20

• Kitamura (JP H8-54834): LED display in a building wall with a hermetically sealed inner housing containing fans circulating internal air (→ "closed loop of isolated gas") and an air channel between inner and outer housings for ambient air (→ "open loop"). Discloses the dual-loop architecture and the rear chamber.
• Harris (US 5,748,269): sealed AMLCD in which the backlight is cooled by an open-loop plenum with a fan drawing ambient air (→ "LCD … having a backlight" and "open loop … along the backlight").
• Motivation (as characterized in the record): Kitamura's direct-view LED display is low-resolution; a POSITA would substitute Harris's higher-clarity LCD and, to handle the resulting backlight heat load, incorporate Harris's open-loop plenum while maintaining Kitamura's sealed environment for the display/electronics. Structural similarity between Kitamura's air duct and Harris's plenum supplies the "clear path for integration"; the expected result (better image quality + reliable cooling) is predictable. This is the classic "substitution of one known display type for another + addition of its known, necessary cooling sub-system" rationale — MPEP 2143(A) and (C).
• Weakness: Kitamura is an LED display, so this ground needs Harris for the LCD/backlight limitations, and it does not reach claims 1–11 or 21–23 directly.

---

5. Combination E — the four-way "super-combination" (Karppanen + Ohta + Marumoto + Harris/Yare)

For a fresh challenger wanting belt-and-suspenders coverage of all 23 claims, assemble:

• Karppanen — the primary reference for the dual-loop architecture and the isolated-gas casing (claims 12–20, 21–23).
• Ohta + Marumoto — the primary references for claim 1's "display outside the closed-loop chamber" + gas (not liquid) coolant + LCD panel (claims 1, 4, 5, 8–11, 21–23).
• Harris — the backlight/open-loop-plenum teaching (claims 3, 12).
• Nagashima or Kitamura — the "rear chamber containing drive electronics" teaching (claims 9, 15, 18).
• On-face art US 6,007,205 (Seiko Epson) — an examiner-cited reference that independently teaches the dual-loop idea (sealed internal-circulation chamber + induction of ambient air across the exterior surface of the sealed chamber). This is useful precisely because it is on the patent's own face and therefore cannot be dismissed as non-analogous art; it supplies an independent, a fortiori motivation to pair a sealed internal gas loop with an exterior ambient loop.
• Family cites US 5,991,153 (Lacerta), US 6,493,440 (Gilbarco), GB 2402205 (Densitron), JP 2002-158475 (Fujitsu General), and KR 20060070176 / KR 100772247 (Samsung/LG) supply cumulative evidence that sealed-casing + ambient-cooling display enclosures were a crowded, well-trodden field by 2008 — which is itself a KSR "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" argument.

Motivation for this assembly is not "hindsight glue": each reference is doing what it was designed to do (Karppanen: weatherproof outdoor board; Ohta: panel cooling with a circulating coolant; Marumoto: gas-capable panel thermal plate; Harris: backlight plenum; Kitamura: nested housing with an ambient duct), and every substitution yields a predictable, mechanical result.

---

6. Secondary considerations (Graham factor 4) — MRI's evidence was rejected for lack of nexus

Practical § 103 implication: for claim 9, the only claim that survived, the Board was not persuaded on the merits (no suggestion of "electronic components for driving the LCD positioned within the rear cooling chamber" of claim 9's sealed plenum). That is an evidentiary gap, not a nexus holding — so it is curable with different art. The objective-indicia holdings, by contrast, are transferable and will defeat the same evidence in any future case.

---

7. Claim-by-claim § 103 disposition

⚠️ Claim 9 is the only live claim and the only real target for a future petition. It depends on claim 8 (canceled), and the Board found the record did not show an "electronic component for operating the display within the sealed plenum." Note the tension: the Board did find claim 15 (driver in the rear cooling chamber) obvious over Karppanen, but not claim 9's sealed plenum variant. A future challenge should look for art disclosing a sealed electronics plenum with a display driver inside it (e.g., a weatherproof enclosure with a hermetically sealed electronics compartment), not merely electronics in a rear chamber.

---

8. Contradictions / verification flags

1. Ground numbering discrepancy. The prior-art section above (and MRI's Patent Owner Response, which numbers "Grounds 3 and 4 — Ohta in view of Marumoto, with or without Yare" and "Ground 5 — Kitamura in view of Harris") is consistent. An AI-generated case-summary page at ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2023-00255/doc/65 instead labels "Ground 3: Claims 12-20 are obvious over Kitamura in view of Harris." I treat the PO Response numbering as correct and the summary-page numbering as an artifact. This does not change any substantive analysis.
2. Which ground carried claim 1. The FWD's Nagashima/Karppanen section expressly finds that combination does not teach claim 1's "coolable by a combination" limitation, yet the final judgment holds claim 1 unpatentable. The only consistent reading — confirmed by the Ohta/Marumoto passages ("for the reasons set forth above with respect to the similar limitation of claim 1" and "we find that the combination of Ohta and Marumoto teaches all of the limitations recited in claim 1") — is that Ohta + Marumoto is the ground that canceled claim 1. I could not open the full element-by-element claim chart for every dependent claim; where a specific claim's operative ground is not confirmed above, I have said so rather than guess.
3. Appeal status. As of the sources retrieved, no disposition of CAFC 24-2300 (MRI v. Squires) was located; it remains pending. The sibling MRI appeals were affirmed against MRI (24-2228 on 2026-03-31; 24-2224/24-2231 on 2026-04-07), which is context, not authority for the '287 patent. Note also the mild date inconsistency between the system prompt (2026-09-14) and this task's stated date (2026-04-26); nothing in the analysis turns on it, but treat the appeal as unresolved either way.
4. § 102 vs. § 103 framing. Karppanen comes very close to anticipating claims 12–20 on its own (single reference, all elements found). Framing it as § 103 with Karppanen as the sole reference is the procedural safe harbor — it avoids the stricter "arranged as claimed" showing that § 102 demands and matches what the Board actually did.

---

Bottom line

Under Graham/KSR, every independent claim of the '287 patent is obvious over well-qualified pre-2008 art, on multiple independent theories:

• Claim 1 — Ohta + Marumoto (the ground the PTAB adopted): substituting Marumoto's gas coolant and LCD panel for Ohta's liquid coolant and plasma panel, to eliminate the image-darkening dyed coolant and to cut maintenance, leakage, and energy costs.
• Claims 12–20, 22, 23 — Karppanen alone, with Kitamura + Harris as a redundant alternate path using low-resolution-LED → LCD substitution plus a known backlight plenum.
• Claim 18 and dependents — Karppanen (sealed display casing + rear device casing with drive electronics) and/or Nagashima + Karppanen (sealing a rear electronics chamber against the "dust and dirt" Nagashima itself identifies).
• Claim 21 — Karppanen and Ohta + Marumoto; the "coolable by a combination" limitation is a capability recitation and does not require both loops to be simultaneously necessary.
• Only claim 9 survives — and that survival rests on an evidentiary gap about a sealed electronics plenum, not on any nexus-backed nonobviousness finding.