UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01432
`U.S. Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO
`PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
`(37 C.F.R. §42.64(b)(1))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`Exhibit 1002 (“d’Arnaud Declaration”) .......................................................... 1 
`I. 
`Exhibit 1002A (“Potmesil”) ............................................................................ 3 
`II. 
`III.  Exhibit 1007 (“Migdal”) .................................................................................. 5 
`IV.  Exhibit 1008 (“Michalson Declaration”) ......................................................... 5 
`A. 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix B (“Samet”) ................................................. 18 
`B. 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix C (U.S. Patent No. 5,263,136 to
`DeAguiar) ............................................................................................ 19 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix D (U.S. Patent No. 4,972,319 to
`Delorme) .............................................................................................. 19 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix E (“Fuller and Richer”) ............................... 19 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix F (“CCITT Recommendation T.81”) .......... 21 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix G (“Cabeen and Gent”) ............................... 22 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix H (“Antonini”) ............................................. 23 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix I (U.S. Patent No. 5,321,520 to Inga) .......... 25 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix J (U.S. Patent No. 6,182,114 to Yap) .......... 25 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix K (U.S. Patent No. 5,179,638 to
`Dawson) ............................................................................................... 26 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix L (“Williams”) ............................................. 27 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix M (“OpenGL 1.1 Standard”) ....................... 28 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix N (“Hoppe”) ................................................ 30 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix O (U.S. Pat. 5,798,770 to Baldwin) ............. 32 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix P (U.S. Patent No. 5,987,256 to Wu) .......... 32 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix Q (Wireless LAN Product Listings) ............ 32 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix R (“Rabinovich & Gotsman”) ..................... 34 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix S (User Datagram Protocol (UDP)) ............. 36 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix T (OpenGL Standard Version 1.2.1) ........... 37 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix U (Claim Chart Showing Teachings of
`Potmesil (Exhibit 1002) and Hornbacker (Exhibit 1003)) .................. 39 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`E. 
`F. 
`G. 
`H. 
`I. 
`J. 
`
`K. 
`L. 
`M. 
`N. 
`O. 
`P. 
`Q. 
`R. 
`S. 
`T. 
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`
`U. 
`
`V. 
`
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix V (Claim Chart Showing Teachings of
`Rutledge (Exhibit 1005), Ligtenberg (Exhibit 1004), and
`Cooper (Exhibit 1006)) ....................................................................... 39 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix W (Claim Chart Showing Teachings of
`Rutledge (Exhibit 1005), Ligtenberg (Exhibit 1004), Cooper
`(Exhibit 1006), and Migdal (Exhibit 1007)) ....................................... 39 
`W.  Exhibit 1008, Appendix X (“Forman & Zahorjan”) ........................... 40 
`X. 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix Y (“Brown & Singh”) .................................. 41 
`Y. 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix Z (“Kreller”) ................................................ 43 
`Z. 
`Exhibit 1008, Appendix AA (“Hansen”) ............................................ 44 
`AA.  Exhibit 1008, Appendix BB (Claim Chart Showing Teachings
`of Fuller and Hornbacker) ................................................................... 45 
`BB.  Exhibit 1008, Appendix CC (Claim Chart Showing Teachings
`of Yap and Rabinovich) ...................................................................... 46 
`CC.  Exhibit 1008, Appendix DD (“Rhyne”) .............................................. 46 
`Exhibit 1011 (“Lindstrom”) ........................................................................... 48 
`V. 
`VI.  Exhibit 1012 (“Lindstrom Declaration”) and Exhibits B and C Thereto ...... 49 
`VII.  Exhibit 1013 (“Carpenter Declaration”) and Exhibits B, C, and D
`Thereto ........................................................................................................... 51 
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner Bradium Technologies
`
`LLC (“Bradium”) objects to the admissibility of the exhibits that accompanied
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) June 16, 2015 Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,139,794.
`
`In this paper, a reference to “F.R.E.” means the Federal Rules of Evidence, a
`
`reference to “C.F.R.” means the Code of Federal Regulations, and “’794 patent”
`
`means U.S. Patent No. 7,139,794. All objections under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay) apply
`
`to the extent that Petitioner relies on exhibit(s) for the truth of the matter asserted
`
`therein.
`
`Patent Owner objects as follows:
`
`I.
`
`EXHIBIT 1002 (“D’ARNAUD DECLARATION”)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1002 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) because
`
`the Petition does not discuss the declaration. Petitioner also objects to the
`
`declaration under F.R.E. 402, 403, 602, and 701 because the declaration lacks
`
`foundation and fails to establish that Exhibit 1002A qualifies as a “printed
`
`publication” under § 102(b) and therefore is irrelevant and misleading.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the purported testimony in Paragraph 5 of Exhibit
`
`1002 because it is unclear and does not explain the relationship between the
`
`purported “Theme Issue FORTE 95” which lists articles beginning on pages 731
`
`through 861, and the Contents of Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 29
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`
`(1997) vii-xi, which lists articles beginning at page 865 (after an editorial and
`
`credits) through page 1531, including Potmesil, which begins at page 1327, and
`
`therefore is objectionable as lacking foundation and as irrelevant, misleading and
`
`unreliable under F.R.E. 402, 403, 602 and 701.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1002 (which is not explained in the Petition)
`
`under F.R.E. 801, 802, and 901 because it does not show that Potmesil is a printed
`
`publication, as the d’Arnaud Declaration relies on unauthenticated hearsay. A
`
`UCSC library sticker upon which Ms. d’Arnaud relies as purporting to show a
`
`receipt date of November 6, 1997 for Potmesil is unauthenticated hearsay as it
`
`appears that it is being relied upon for the truth of this date. Thus, Petitioner
`
`objects under F.R.E. 802. Petitioner has not shown that a hearsay exception
`
`applies.
`
`The Petition and Ex. 1002 contain insufficient information to authenticate
`
`Potmesil and its purported library sticker. See F.R.E. 901(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a).
`
`The cover of Potmesil in Ex. 1002 is incomplete because one of the library stickers
`
`on the left-hand side is partially obscured, and because the back cover page is
`
`entirely omitted. As mentioned above, the Petition refers to Potmesil as “issues 8-
`
`13,” while the purported cover page lists the issue as issue 7. (Petition at ii; Ex.
`
`1002 at pp. 4-5.) Therefore, Patent Owner objects to the declaration under F.R.E.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`
`402, 403, 602 and 701 and objects that a complete copy was required under F.R.E.
`
`106 and an original was required under F.R.E. 1002.
`
`Also, the library sticker purports to show only a library receipt date, which is
`
`insufficient to establish public accessibility without competent evidence as to (1)
`
`when and how Potmesil was made available to the public and (2) the library’s
`
`specific practices as to indexing and cataloging papers.
`
`Ms. d’Arnaud’s naked opinion at Paragraph 6 that “[b]ased on the library’s
`
`normal procedures” Potmesil was placed “into circulation” has no foundation in
`
`personal knowledge or expertise, and she further does not explain what the
`
`library’s applicable “circulation” procedures were in 1997, and thus her
`
`unsupported opinion is entitled to no weight. See F.R.E. 602, 701, 702 and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.65. Therefore, Petitioner has submitted no competent evidence that
`
`Potmesil was disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that an
`
`ordinarily skilled artesian exercising reasonable diligence could locate it.
`
`II.
`
`EXHIBIT 1002A (“POTMESIL”)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1002A because Petitioner has not shown
`
`that it qualifies as a “printed publication” under § 102(b). See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(a)(3) and 42.22(a)(2). The Petition's only statement on this key issue is in a
`
`single, conclusory sentence on page 13, which is insufficient to show that Exhibit
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`
`1002A is a “printed publication.” Id. Patent Owner further objects to this exhibit
`
`under F.R.E. 901 because no authenticating information has been provided.
`
`A purported UCSC library sticker purporting to show a receipt date of
`
`November 6, 1997 is unauthenticated hearsay as it appears that it is being relied
`
`upon for the truth of this date, and Petitioner has not shown that a hearsay
`
`exception applies. Therefore, Patent Owner objects under F.R.E. 801, 802, and
`
`901.
`
`Further, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 402 and 403, and
`
`objects that a complete copy was required under F.R.E. 106 and an original was
`
`required under F.R.E. 1002, because the relationship between the purported
`
`“Theme Issue FORTE 95” which lists articles beginning on pages 731 through
`
`861, and the Contents of Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 29 (1997) vii-xi,
`
`which lists articles beginning at page 865 (after an editorial and credits) through
`
`page 1531, including Potmesil, which begins at page 1327, is unclear and
`
`unexplained based on the facially incomplete nature of the exhibit.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 402 and 403, and
`
`objects that a complete copy was required under F.R.E. 106 and an original was
`
`required under F.R.E. 1002, because Ex. 1002 is incomplete in that one of the
`
`library stickers on the left-hand side is partially obscured, and because the back
`
`cover page is entirely omitted, and also because images within the exhibit such as
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`
`those appearing on pages 1333 and 1338 are not reproduced accurately and/or are
`
`obscured by the reproduction method that was used, and because the exhibit is an
`
`incomplete copy of a larger document.
`
`III. EXHIBIT 1007 (“MIGDAL”)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1007 under F.R.E. 901 because no
`
`authenticating information has been provided and further because there are color
`
`markings at columns 6, 9 and 10. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit because, on
`
`its face, it does not appear to be a true and correct copy of a U.S. Patent and has
`
`not been shown by Petitioner to be a “patent” under 35 U.S.C. 311(b). Further,
`
`Petitioner has not even attempted to establish that Exhibit 1007 is a printed
`
`publication within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b). Thus, Petitioner
`
`failed to show that the reference is prior art to the ’794 Patent.
`
`IV.
`
`EXHIBIT 1008 (“MICHALSON DECLARATION”)
`
`Patent Owners object to Exhibit 1008 under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3) and
`
`42.24(a)(1)(i) and as not relevant and prejudicial under F.R.E. 402 and 403 to the
`
`extent that the Declaration includes material that is not sufficiently referenced and
`
`explained, or not referenced or explained at all, in the Petition, in an attempt to
`
`circumvent the 60-page limit for Petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) and
`
`42.104(b)(4). Patent Owner’s objections in this regard include the following:
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`
` The Petition on page 9 asserts that the ’794 Patent is “repetitive of the
`
`long history of prior art,” and cites over forty paragraphs of the
`
`Michalson Declaration, specifically Exhibit 1008 ¶¶ 33 – 77, without
`
`any further explanation.
`
` The Petition on Page 9 asserts that “all of the features and the
`
`combinations in claims 1 and 2 were known or predictable and/or
`
`obvious combinations of the prior art features,” and cites over one
`
`hundred and fifty paragraphs of the Michalson Declaration,
`
`specifically Exhibit 1008 ¶¶ 95 – 277, without any further
`
`explanation.
`
` The Petition on page 9 asserts that “Prof. Michalson opines that
`
`claims 1 and 2 are obvious for additional grounds,” and cites over one
`
`hundred paragraphs of the Michalson Declaration, specifically Exhibit
`
`1008 ¶¶ 278 – 385, without any further explanation.
`
` The Petition on page 11 states that “Prof. Michalson opines that
`
`claims 1 and 2 are obvious over the Yap reference in view of
`
`additional prior art,” and incorporates by reference the arguments in
`
`paragraphs ¶¶ 340 – 384 of the Michalson Declaration, over forty
`
`paragraphs that span a total of twenty-three pages, without further
`
`explanation.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`
` The Petition on page 19 cites Exhibit 1008 ¶¶ 95 – 172, a range of
`
`over seventy paragraphs, as support for the proposition that “the
`
`combination of Potmesil, Hornbacker, and Lindstrom collectively
`
`teaches or suggests all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 and renders
`
`each of claims 1 and 2 as a whole obvious and unpatentable,” without
`
`further explanation.
`
` The Petition on Page 45 cites Exhibit 1008 ¶¶ 172 – 241, a range of
`
`over sixty paragraphs that span twenty-five pages, without further
`
`explanation.
`
` Putting aside the above citations to large sections of the Michalson
`
`Declaration without additional discussion or support, the Petition fails
`
`to discuss or even refer to the following paragraphs of Exhibit 1008 in
`
`the Petition: ¶¶ 1 – 92, 94 – 99, 101 – 103, 108 – 11, 147 – 48, 160,
`
`172 – 192, 201, 210, 214, 216, 219, 221, 224, 226, 228, 231, 235, 238,
`
`241, 246 – 48, 253, 258, 261, 267, 269, 271, 274 and 277 – 394.
`
`Therefore, each of these paragraphs from Exhibit 1008 should not be
`
`considered by the Board.
`
`In addition, Petitioner attempts to circumvent the 60-page limit by
`
`systematically and improperly incorporating arguments and statements from
`
`the Declaration in the Petition, for example the following:
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`
` On page 25, the Petition improperly incorporates by reference
`
`Paragraphs 121 – 124 of Exhibit 1008 in support of the statement that
`
`“[a]ccordingly, a POSITA would be motivated to consider the
`
`combined teachings of these references in regard to a similar
`
`problem,” without providing any discussion or explanation of these
`
`four paragraphs of the Declaration.
`
` On Page 39, the Petition improperly incorporates by reference
`
`Paragraphs 163 – 166 of Exhibit 1008 in support of the statement that
`
`“[i]t would be obvious to a POSITA in light of these combined
`
`teachings that the tiles used in a system displaying a 2D or 3D
`
`perspective view as in Potmesil or Lindstrom or at a given zoom level
`
`and scale as in Hornbacker would preferably request tiles at a
`
`resolution that the display was capable of displaying, e.g. less than the
`
`predetermined resolution of the display as the tiles are rendered, but
`
`that would still produce a satisfying image,” without providing any
`
`discussion or explanation of these four paragraphs of the Declaration.
`
` On Page 40, the Petition improperly incorporates by reference
`
`Paragraphs 167 – 69 of Exhibit 1008 in support of the statement that
`
`“[t]herefore, a POSITA would readily recognize that the three
`
`references contain similar teachings to the effect that they relate to
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`
`large images divided into fixed-size tiles arranged in a pyramid by
`
`resolution and that the tiles contain the textures for a corresponding
`
`portion of the image at a particular resolution,” without providing any
`
`discussion or explanation of these three paragraphs of the Declaration.
`
` On page 45, the Petition improperly incorporates by reference
`
`Paragraphs 193 – 200 of Exhibit 1008 in support of the statement that
`
`“[t]herefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to combine Ligtenberg and Cooper with Rutledge to benefit
`
`from the reduced I/O and 20 CPU utilization of Ligtenberg and
`
`Cooper’s efficient use of network bandwidth,” without providing any
`
`discussion or explanation of these eight paragraphs of the Declaration.
`
` On page 46, the Petition improperly incorporates by reference
`
`Paragraphs 202 – 206 of Exhibit 1008 in support of the statement that
`
`“[a] POSITA would have further recognized that Cooper’s use of
`
`priorities for requesting additional visual data would benefit the
`
`combination of Rutledge and Ligtenberg by providing a way by which
`
`available network bandwidth can be efficiently used,” without
`
`providing any discussion or explanation of these five paragraphs of
`
`the Declaration.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`
` On page 47, the Petition improperly incorporates by reference
`
`Paragraphs 207 – 209 of Exhibit 1008 in support of the statement that
`
`“[a] POSITA would have been motivated to combine Cooper’s
`
`priority queue with Rutledge and Cooper’s map tile fetching to control
`
`network bandwidth utilization while providing high quality user
`
`experience when navigating around a map image,” without providing
`
`any discussion or explanation of these three paragraphs of the
`
`Declaration.
`
` Also on page 47, the Petition improperly incorporates by reference
`
`Paragraphs 211 – 213 of Exhibit 1008 in support of the statement that
`
`“[i]t would have been obvious to a POSITA that the memory of
`
`Ligtenberg or Cooper can be combined with Rutledge’s disclosure for
`
`storing image data received by Rutledge’s client device during
`
`reception and rendering operation,” without providing any discussion
`
`or explanation of these three paragraphs of the Declaration.
`
` On page 50, the Petition improperly incorporates by reference
`
`Paragraphs 222 – 223 of Exhibit 1008 in support of the statement that
`
`“[a] POSITA would have combined Cooper’s priority assignment
`
`with Rutledges’s zoom functionality to efficiently use the available
`
`network bandwidth. Further, a POSITA would have combined this
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`
`feature with Ligtenberg to benefit from low I/O utilization due to
`
`Ligtenberg’s I/O platform,” without providing any discussion or
`
`explanation of these two paragraphs of the Declaration.
`
` On page 52, the Petition improperly incorporates by reference
`
`Paragraphs 232 – 234 of Exhibit 1008 in support of the statement that
`
`“[a] POSITA would be motivated to combine Ligtenberg’s use of tile
`
`blocks of same lengths with Rutledge and Cooper to provide an
`
`efficient representation of image data without having to specify tile
`
`size for each resolution layer,” without providing any discussion or
`
`explanation of these three paragraphs of the Declaration.
`
` On page 54, the Petition improperly incorporates by reference
`
`Paragraphs 242 – 245 of Exhibit 1008 in support of the statement that
`
`“[a] POSITA would have also realized that Migdal’s texture mapping
`
`technique would further benefit the Rutledge-Ligtenberg-Cooper
`
`combination by further reducing memory and processor requirements
`
`of a user device for rendering map and image data to a user,” without
`
`providing any discussion or explanation of these three paragraphs of
`
`the Declaration.
`
` On page 55, the Petition improperly incorporates by reference
`
`Paragraphs 243 – 245 of Exhibit 1008 in support of the statement that
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`
`“a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Migdal’s
`
`three dimensional texture rendering technique with Rutledge,
`
`Ligtenberg and Cooper to provide a reduced memory implementation
`
`for rendering image data such as satellite images,” without providing
`
`any discussion or explanation of these three paragraphs of the
`
`Declaration.
`
` On page 56, the Petition improperly incorporates by reference
`
`Paragraphs 255 – 257 of Exhibit 1008 in support of the statement that
`
`“[s]ince Rutledge, Ligtenberg and Migdal teach storing image and
`
`map data as multiple tiles of different resolution such that different
`
`tiles have different importance for rendering to a viewer based on the
`
`viewpoint, the use of Cooper’s priority queue would have been a
`
`natural modification to Rutledge, Ligtenberg and Migdal combination
`
`that is well within the skill of a POSITA,” without providing any
`
`discussion or explanation of these three paragraphs of the Declaration.
`
`Therefore, Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1008 under 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.6(a)(3) and 42.24(a)(1)(i) as not relevant and prejudicial under F.R.E. 402 and
`
`403.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit 1008 under F.R.E. 702 because the
`
`declaration does not show that Dr. Michalson’s testimony is based on sufficient
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`
`facts or data, and does not show that the testimony is the product of reliable
`
`principles and methods that have been reliably applied to facts that are of record in
`
`this proceeding, because, for one, Dr. Michalson’s opinion is based on documents
`
`that are either not sufficiently referenced, or not referenced at all, in the Petition
`
`and/or Exhibit 1008. See Exhibit 1008 ¶ 6. Patent Owner also objects to this
`
`exhibit under F.R.E. 602 and 701 because the declaration contains insufficient
`
`facts and because the declarant fails to provide a foundation for personal
`
`knowledge of the matter asserted. In short, Exhibit 1008 is objectionable because
`
`Dr. Michalson fails to support his opinions, as shown by the following examples:
`
` At Paragraph 9, Dr. Michalson makes the sweeping and unsupported
`
`assertion that “[w]ithin this declaration, I discuss specific grounds of
`
`invalidity of Claims 1 and 2; however, my opinion that Claims 1 and 2
`
`are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 is not limited to these specific
`
`grounds, and indeed, it is my opinion that Claims 1 and 2 would have
`
`been invalid in light of the general knowledge of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.” Dr. Michalson
`
`offers no support for this assertion. Dr. Michalson’s failure to support
`
`his opinion regarding purported “general knowledge” continues
`
`throughout the declaration without providing support for this assertion,
`
`for example at the end of Paragraph 162, stating “[i]n my opinion, it
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`
`would be further obvious over the teachings of Potmesil in view of the
`
`specific teachings of Lindstrom in light of the general knowledge in
`
`the art at the time that terrain stored in multi-resolution image tiles can
`
`be selectively rendered so that the parcels having the highest
`
`associated resolutions are rendered at the appropriate portions of the
`
`image.”
`
` Dr. Michalson asserts in Paragraph 64 that “[i]n 1974, a ‘texture
`
`mapping’ was developed as a further improvement in adding detail to
`
`objects or images,” but he provides no citation or other explanation of
`
`what facts or data this assertion is based upon, and he provides no
`
`explanation as to whether this assertion is based upon personal
`
`knowledge.
`
` Dr. Michalson asserts in Paragraph 72 that “[b]y the late 1990s,
`
`mipmaps were commonly used in 3D graphics applications, among
`
`other purposes.” However, Dr. Michalson does not explain what his
`
`basis is for this assertion, including what facts or data he is relying
`
`upon in support of the assertion, if any. Further, he provides no
`
`explanation as to whether this assertion is based upon personal
`
`knowledge.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`

`
` Dr. Michalson repeatedly makes unsupported statements regarding a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. For example, Paragraph 106 states
`
`that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the
`
`technical challenges involved in online display of 2D and 3D maps
`
`overlap in issues such as how to best request and obtain image data
`
`for display and how to optimize the use of the cache memory at the
`
`client,” and further, “[i]n my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would recognize that the teachings of Hornbacker would be
`
`advantageous in addressing the technical challenges of displaying
`
`either a 2D or a 3D image,” without explanation, citation, or other
`
`support. As another example, Paragraph 298 make the generic and
`
`unsupported assertion that “[i]n my opinion, it would be readily
`
`apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Fuller and
`
`Hornbacker both teach the use of (1) progressive resolution
`
`enhancement and (2) pre-caching tiles in order to avoid delays
`
`associated with downloading new tiles. The references therefore
`
`address similar problems with similar solutions and accordingly a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to consider the
`
`combined teachings of these references in regard to a similar problem.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`

`
`resolution enhancement and (2) pre-caching tiles in order to avoid
`
`delays.”
`
` Dr. Michalson’s assertion that a person of ordinary skill would have
`
`been motivated to combine three different references in support of his
`
`second ground is similarly unsupported. For example, at Paragraph
`
`197, Dr. Michalson makes the following unsupported assertions: “A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have known at the time that,
`
`whether images or computer graphics, the finer the detail rendered to
`
`a user, the higher the user satisfaction in viewing the image would be.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, for
`
`computer graphic rendering, the number of polygons rendered will
`
`increase the perceived quality of the images.” In the next Paragraph,
`
`he makes the unsupported assertion that “To a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, a user’s viewpoint would obviously influence the zoom
`
`layer.” Exhibit 1008 at ¶ 198 (emphasis added). As yet another
`
`example, in Paragraph 200, the Dr. Michalson makes the entirely
`
`unsupported assertion that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have found it obvious to use progressive resolution
`
`enhancement techniques because the progressive.”
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`

`
` Dr. Michalson’s assertion that a person of ordinary skill would have
`
`been motivated to combine four different references in support of his
`
`second ground is similarly unsupported. The Dr. Michalson makes
`
`the unsupported statement at Paragraph 245 that “[a] person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have also realized that Migdal’s texture
`
`mapping technique would further benefit the Rutledge-Ligtenberg-
`
`Cooper combination by further reducing memory and processor
`
`requirements of a user device for rendering map and image data to a
`
`user.”
`
` Dr. Michalson also repeatedly makes unsupported statements
`
`regarding the asserted prior art and its contents, and in regards to how
`
`the asserted prior art would apply to the patent claim(s) at issue. For
`
`example, in regards to one claim element that is listed by Dr.
`
`Michalson, he merely recites a laundry-list of factual citations
`
`regarding the reference (Cooper), and then states, without explanation
`
`that “based on the above, it is my conclusion that the technical feature
`
`recited in this claim is taught by Cooper.” Exhibit 1008 at ¶¶ 248 –
`
`251.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit 1008 under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3)
`
`and 42.24(a)(1)(i) to the extent that Exhibit 1008 is an improper attempt to include
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`

`
`Appendices A through DD, which are insufficiently referenced and explained, or
`
`not referenced and explained at all, in the Petition. As explained further below
`
`with respect to each appendix, the appendices are therefore not relevant and
`
`prejudicial under F.R.E. 402 and 403, and their inclusion is further an improper
`
`attempt to circumvent the 60-page limit for Petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2)
`
`and 42.104(b)(4).
`
`A.
`
`EXHIBIT 1008, APPENDIX B (“SAMET”)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1008B under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3) and
`
`42.24(a)(1)(i) and as not relevant and prejudicial under F.R.E. 402 and 403
`
`because it is not referenced or explained at all in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner’s attempt to rely upon Exhibit 1008B
`
`without referencing this exhibit in the Petition is an improper attempt to
`
`circumvent the 60-page limit for Petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) and
`
`42.104(b)(4).
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 402 and 403, and
`
`objects that a complete copy was required under F.R.E. 106 and an original was
`
`required under F.R.E. 1002, because Ex. 1008B appears to be an incomplete copy
`
`of a larger document and lacks, for example, complete cover pages.
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`

`
`B.
`
`EXHIBIT 1008, APPENDIX C (U.S. PATENT NO. 5,263,136 TO
`DEAGUIAR)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1008C under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3) and
`
`42.24(a)(1)(i) and as not relevant and prejudicial under F.R.E. 402 and 403
`
`because it is not referenced or explained at all in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner’s attempt to rely upon Exhibit 1008C
`
`without referencing this exhibit in the Petition is an improper attempt to
`
`circumvent the 60-page limit for Petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) and
`
`42.104(b)(4).
`
`C.
`
`EXHIBIT 1008, APPENDIX D (U.S. PATENT NO. 4,972,319 TO
`DELORME)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1008D under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3) and
`
`42.24(a)(1)(i) and as not relevant and prejudicial under F.R.E. 402 and 403
`
`because it is not referenced or explained at all in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner’s attempt to rely upon Exhibit 1008D
`
`without referencing this exhibit in the Petition is an improper attempt to
`
`circumvent the 60-page limit for Petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) and
`
`42.104(b)(4).
`
`D.
`
`EXHIBIT 1008, APPENDIX E (“FULLER AND RICHER”)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1008E under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3) and
`
`42.24(a)(1)(i) and as not relevant and prejudicial under F.R.E. 402 and 403
`
`because it is not referenced or explained at all in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`

`
`42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner’s attempt to rely upon Exhibit 1008E
`
`without referencing this exhibit in the Petition is an improper attempt to
`
`circumvent the 60-page limit for Petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) and
`
`42.104(b)(4).
`
`Patent Owner objects that Petitioner has failed to establish that Exhibit
`
`1008E is a printed publication within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b),
`
`and that the reference is prior art to the ’794 Patent. In particular, Petitioner fails
`
`to show in the Petition, or even otherwise, that the reference was “publicly
`
`accessible,” prior to the critical date, i.e., that the reference “has been disseminated
`
`or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily
`
`skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.”
`
`There is, for example, no cover page, library sticker, or accompanying declaration
`
`indicating how the reference was available prior to the critical date or from where
`
`the reference was obtained. The Michalson Declaration, Exhibit 1008, simply
`
`asserts without explanation that Exhibit 1008E “was published in the May/June
`
`1996 issue of IEEE Network.” Exhibit 1008 at ¶ 280. The Michalson Declaration
`
`lacks foundation for this assertion, and therefore the statement is irrelevant and
`
`prejudicial. See F.R.E. 602, 701 and 402–03.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 402 and 403, and
`
`objects that a complete copy was required under F.R.E. 106 and an original was
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`

`
`required under F.R.E. 1002, because Petitioner attempted to rely on an “issue of
`
`IEEE Network” with respect to Ex. 1008E that was not provided, and the exhibit is
`
`an incomplete copy of a larger document and lacks, for example, cover pages.
`
`E.
`
`EXHIBIT 1008, APPENDIX F (“CCITT RECOMMENDATION T.81”)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1008F under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3) and
`
`42.24(a)(1)(i) and as not relevant and prejudicial under F.R.E. 402 and 403
`
`because it is not referenced or explained at all in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner’s attempt to rely upon Exhibit 1008F
`
`without referencing this exhibit in the Petition is an improper attempt to
`
`circumvent the 60-page limit for Petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) and
`
`42.104(b)(4).
`
`Patent Owner objects that Petitioner has failed to establish that Exhibit
`
`1008F is a printed publication within the meaning