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
`Patent No. 7,139,794
`
`DECLARATION OF CHANDRAJIT
`BAJAJ IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
`
`A. Background and Qualifications ....................................................................... 2
`
`B. Materials Considered ....................................................................................... 5
`
`C. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) ............................................ 7
`
`D. Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 8
`
`II. Summary of opinions .............................................................................................. 9
`
`III. Legal .....................................................................................................................11
`
`IV. Background on the State of the Art ......................................................................13
`
`A. Compression and Dynamic Display of Image Data in a Networked
`Environment ..................................................................................................13
`
`B. Composite Image Rendering (2D Image Display, in the Context of
`the References Rutledge and Ligtenberg) .....................................................14
`
`C. Polygon-Based Rendering (3D Scene Display, in the Context of the
`Cooper Reference) .........................................................................................16
`
`D. An Example of a Rendering Pipeline for 3D Display of Images ..................19
`
`V. The Prior Art on which the Instituted Grounds Rely ...........................................23
`
`A. Rutledge .........................................................................................................23
`
`B. Ligtenberg ......................................................................................................24
`
`C. Cooper ............................................................................................................25
`
`D. Migdal ............................................................................................................29
`
`VI. A POSITA WOULD NOT HAVE COMBINED COOPER WITH
`LIGTENBERG OR RUTLEDGE ....................................................................32
`
`
`
`i
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`
`
`A. A POSITA Would Not Apply the Prioritization of 3D Polygonal
`Objects of Cooper to the 2D Image-Based Systems of Ligtenberg /
`Rutledge .........................................................................................................32
`
`B. A POSITA Would Further Understand That Applying the
`Prioritization Algorithm of Cooper to Ligtenberg / Rutledge Would
`Not Yield a Useful Result ..............................................................................34
`
`C. A POSITA Would Understand that Cooper Assumes Frame
`Coherence, But This Assumption Does Not Hold for Rutledge /
`Ligtenberg ......................................................................................................44
`
`VII. A POSITA WOULD NOT HAVE COMBINED MIGDAL WITH
`RUTLEDGE OR LIGTENBERG ....................................................................45
`
`VIII. A POSITA WOULD NOT HAVE COMBINED COOPER WITH
`MIGDAL ..........................................................................................................49
`
`A. The High Computational and I/O Requirements of Migdal Would
`Have Been Understood to Be Incompatible with the limited
`Computational and I/O Bandwidth of Cooper ..............................................49
`
`B. The Inefficient Memory Usage of Cooper Would Have Been
`Understood to be Incompatible with the Goal of Efficient Memory
`Usage Described By Migdal ..........................................................................51
`
`IX. CLAIM 1 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF THE
`COMBINATION OF COOPER WITH RUTLEDGE AND
`LIGTENBERG ................................................................................................. 52
`
`A. A POSITA Would Not have Combined These References ...........................52
`
`B. The Combination of Cooper with Rutledge and Ligtenberg Does
`Not Teach or Suggest a Parcel Request Queue in Which Image
`Parcel Requests Are Placed According to a Priority Order ..........................52
`
`C. The Combination of Cooper with Rutledge and Ligtenberg Does
`Not Teach or Suggest a Parcel Rendering Subsystem that
`Determines an Assigned Priority Based on the Predetermined
`Resolution of an Image Display ....................................................................55
`
`X. CLAIM 2 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF THE
`COMBINATION OF COOPER WITH RUTLEDGE, LIGTENBERG
`
`
`
`ii
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`
`
`AND MIGDAL ................................................................................................. 57
`
`A. A POSITA Would Not Have Combined These References ..........................58
`
`B. The Combination of Cooper with Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Migdal
`Does Not Teach or Suggest Requesting Image Parcels in Priority
`Order ..............................................................................................................58
`
`C. The Combination of Cooper with Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Migdal
`Does Not Teach or Suggest a Priority Order for Image Parcels that
`Is Determined to Provide a Progressive Regional Resolution
`Enhancement ................................................................................................. 60
`
`D. The Combination of Cooper with Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Migdal
`Does Not Teach or Suggest Limiting Selective Rendering of Image
`Parcels to Those Having Less Than a Resolution of a Predetermined
`Level ..............................................................................................................63
`
`XI. Concluding Statement ...........................................................................................66
`
`
`
`iii
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`
`
`LIST OF APPENDICES
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Dr. Chandrajit Bajaj Curriculum Vitae
`
`APPENDIX B
`
`IEEE/SIGGRAPH Symposium Publication
`
`APPENDIX C
`
`’794 Patent Claims
`
`APPENDIX D
`
`List of Claim Elements as Asserted by Petitioner
`
`
`
`iv
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.(cid:3)
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Bradium Technologies LLC
`
`(“Bradium” or “Patent Owner”) as an expert consultant in regards to inter partes
`
`review proceeding IPR2015-01432 for U.S. Patent No. 7,139,794, which I
`
`understand is owned by Bradium.
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`In IPR2015-01432, I understand that Petitioner, Microsoft
`
`Corporation (“Microsoft” or “Petitioner”) is challenging the validity of Claims 1
`
`and 2 of the ’794 Patent.
`
`3.(cid:3)
`
`I understand that the Board instituted an inter partes review on the
`
`following Grounds:
`
`We institute inter partes review on the following challenges to
`
`patentability:
`
`Claim 1 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
`
`combination of Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Cooper; and
`
`Claim 2 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
`
`combination of Rutledge, Ligtenberg, Cooper, and Migdal.
`
`(Paper 15 (Institution Decision) at p. 31.)
`
`4.(cid:3)
`
`I was asked to consider whether the challenged claims of the U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,139,794 (“the ’794 Patent”) (Ex. 1001), which are Claims 1 and 2,
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`
`
`the date of the invention.
`
`5.(cid:3)
`
`Based on my analysis of the ’794 Patent and my understanding of the
`
`state of the relevant prior art as well as the specific references relied upon by the
`
`Petitioner for the grounds that were instituted by the Board, it is my opinion that
`
`the challenged claims would not have been obvious to a POSITA as of the date of
`
`the invention. (See infra ¶ 18.)
`
`A.
`6.(cid:3)
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`I am currently employed as a Professor of Computer Science at the
`
`University of Texas at Austin (“UT Austin”). I have a Bachelor of Technology
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering, which I obtained from the Indian Institute of
`
`Technology in Delhi in 1980. I also have a Master of Science degree and a
`
`Doctorate in Computer Science from Cornell University in 1983 and 1984,
`
`respectively. I currently hold the Computational Applied Mathematics endowed
`
`Chair in Visualization. I am also the Director of the Computational Visualization
`
`Center at UT Austin, which has been funded by the National Institutes of Health,
`
`the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the Department
`
`of Defense. The center personnel include fifteen researchers, scientists, post-
`
`graduate students, and staff.
`
`7.(cid:3)
`
`Prior to my employment at UT Austin, I was an assistant professor,
`
`then associate professor, and finally professor of Computer Sciences at Purdue
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`
`
`University from 1984 until 1997. During this time, I was also the Director of
`
`Image Analysis and Visualization Center at Purdue University. I was a visiting
`
`associate professor of Computer Science at Cornell University from 1990 to 1991.
`
`8.(cid:3)
`
`I have spent the better part of my career, both at Purdue and UT
`
`Austin, researching, designing, teaching, and using computer systems to model,
`
`simulate, and visualize natural and synthetic objects. I am knowledgeable about
`
`and have much experience in both the hardware and software, including algorithms,
`
`used for capturing and displaying interactive imagery.
`
`9.(cid:3)
`
`In the 1970s, while majoring in Electrical Engineering at Indian
`
`Institute of Technology with a minor in Computer Sciences, I was intimately
`
`involved in the design and fabrication of microprocessor-controlled circuits
`
`including the development of microprocessor controller software. In the 1980s,
`
`while at Cornell University, these past experiences led to research in computational
`
`geometry and optimization as well as the development of motion-planning
`
`software. In the early 1990s, I created 3D collaborative multimedia environments
`
`which were fully navigable for multi-person computer gaming and simulation. In
`
`1993, I authored a technical paper for the Computer Sciences Department of
`
`Purdue University entitled “Collaborative Multimedia Game Environments.” The
`
`need for increasing computer graphics realism without sacrificing interactivity led
`
`me also to explore texture mapping with data compression.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`
`
`10.(cid:3) As I explain further below, (see infra ¶ 19), based on my experience
`
`from the 1990s, among other things, the invention reflected in the ’794 Patent is
`
`innovative. It is my opinion that the challenged claims (Claims 1 and 2) would not
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`11.(cid:3)
`
`In the mid-2000s, I began to create spatially-realistic 3D graphical
`
`environments of nature’s molecules and cells with a combination of acquired and
`
`reconstructed imagery within which a user may explore, query, and learn. Over
`
`the course of my career, I have participated in the design and use of several
`
`computer systems spanning handhelds, laptops, graphics workstations to PC/Linux
`
`clusters as well as very large memory supercomputers for capturing, modeling and
`
`displaying virtual and scientific phenomena. My experience with computer
`
`modeling and displaying computer graphics imagery encompasses many fields,
`
`such as interactive games, molecular, biomedical and industrial diagnostics, oil and
`
`gas exploration, geology, cosmology, and military industries. During this time at
`
`UT Austin, I also developed hardware and software technology that allowed
`
`multiple computers with multiple programmable graphics cards (GPUs) to
`
`simultaneously and synchronously display to large multi-screen immersive
`
`displays. We called this the UT Meta-Buffer solution. Much of my work involves
`
`issues relating to interactive computer graphics and computer multimedia,
`
`including retrieval of texture image data for use in rendering applications in
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`
`
`computer graphics. Examples of my publications, including peer-reviewed
`
`publications, are listed in my Curriculum Vitae (“CV”).
`
`12.(cid:3) My CV is submitted herewith as Appendix A. As set forth in my CV,
`
`I have authored approximately 150 peer-reviewed journal articles, 33 book
`
`chapters (which were also peer reviewed), and 142 peer-reviewed conference
`
`publications.
`
`13.(cid:3)
`
`I have written and edited four books, on topics ranging from graphics
`
`and visualization techniques to algebraic geometry and its applications. I have
`
`given 165 invited speaker keynote presentations. I am a Fellow of the American
`
`Association for the Advancement of Science, a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical
`
`and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and also a Fellow of the Association of
`
`Computing Machinery (also known as ACM), which is the world’s largest
`
`education and scientific computing society. ACM Fellow is ACM’s most
`
`prestigious member grade and recognizes the top 1% of ACM members for their
`
`outstanding accomplishments in computing and information technology and/or
`
`outstanding service to ACM and the larger computing community.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`14.(cid:3) For time spent in connection with this case, I am being compensated
`
`at my customary rate of $550/hour. My compensation is not dependent upon the
`
`outcome of this petition or any issues involved in or related to the ’794 Patent,
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`
`
`and I have no other financial stake in this matter. I have no financial interest in, or
`
`affiliation with, any of the real parties in interest or the patent owner.
`
`15.(cid:3) The materials I considered include the ’794 Patent and the original
`
`prosecution history for the ’794 Patent, the Petition from Microsoft for inter partes
`
`review (Paper 2) (as far as it is relevant to the instituted grounds), the Michalson
`
`Declaration in support of the Petition (Ex. 1008) (as far as it is relevant to the
`
`instituted grounds), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision to
`
`institute inter partes review in the ’432 IPR (Paper 15), and Bradium’s Preliminary
`
`Response (Paper 12). I also considered the materials that I refer to and that I cite
`
`in this declaration.
`
`16.(cid:3)
`
`I also considered the following:
`
`a.(cid:3)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`5,682,441
`
`(“Ligtenberg”) (Ex. 1004);
`
`b.(cid:3)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 5,760,783 (“Migdal”)
`
`(Ex. 1007);
`
`c.(cid:3)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 6,118,456 (“Cooper”)
`
`(Ex. 1006);
`
`d.(cid:3)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 6,650,998
`
`(“Rutledge”) (Ex. 1005).
`
`17.(cid:3)
`
`In addition, I have drawn on my experience and knowledge, as
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`
`
`discussed above and described more fully in my CV, in the areas of image
`
`processing, interactive computer graphics, and dynamic visualization.
`
`18.(cid:3) The ’794 Patent claims priority to six provisional applications: U.S.
`
`Patent Application Nos. 60/258,488; 60/258,489; 60/258,465; 60/258,468;
`
`60/258,466; and 60/258,467, each of which was filed on December 27, 2000. (See
`
`Ex. 1009, Provisional Applications.) Counsel for Bradium has asked me to assume
`
`that the date of invention for the ’794 Patent is October 1999. I understand that Dr.
`
`Michalson considered as the date of invention the earliest invention date claimed
`
`by the inventors during prosecution of the ’794 Patent, which is October 1999.
`
`(See Ex. 1008, Michalson ¶ 4.) Therefore, my analysis of the state of the prior art
`
`is also based on an invention date of October 1999.
`
`19.(cid:3)
`
`I note that the most recent of the prior art references cited in the two
`
`grounds that were instituted by the Board is dated April 2, 1998, for Cooper
`
`(Ex. 1006 page 1 (filing date)). Accordingly, the asserted prior art would not
`
`change depending on whether October 1999 or December 27, 2000 is considered to
`
`be the date of invention.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)
`C.
`20.(cid:3) The ’794 Patent relates to networked or internet based client-server
`
`image distribution systems that support dynamic display of images especially in
`
`scenarios of low-bandwidth networked communication. (See Ex. 1001, ’794 Pat.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`
`
`1:23–30.)
`
`21.(cid:3)
`
`I understand
`
`that
`
`the factors considered
`
`in determining
`
`the
`
`ordinary level of skill in the art include the level of education and experience of
`
`persons working in the field, the types of problems encountered in the field, and
`
`the sophistication of the technology.
`
`22.(cid:3) Based on these factors, in my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art relating to the technology of the ’794 Patent at the time of the invention
`
`would have been a person with a four-year bachelor’s degree or equivalent in
`
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science, as well as at
`
`least two years of experience in image and graphics processing including
`
`developing, designing, or programming client-server software for computer
`
`networked environments.
`
`23.(cid:3) The opinions I express herein are given from the point of view of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), as described above, at the time
`
`of the invention of the ’794 Patent. Even if I do not repeat this explicitly, this is
`
`the perspective that I applied in my analysis and in this declaration, unless I
`
`indicate otherwise.
`
`D.
`24.(cid:3)
`
`Claim Construction
`
`I understand that the claims and specification of a patent must be read
`
`and construed through the eyes of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`
`
`the priority date of the claims.
`
`25.(cid:3)
`
`I further understand that the claim construction standard that applies
`
`for the purposes of this proceeding is the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI)
`
`of the claim language, in light of the specification.
`
`26.(cid:3)
`
`In my analysis, except when I state otherwise, I have applied the
`
`ordinary meaning of claim terms as they are used in the specification, under the
`
`BRI standard.
`
`27.(cid:3) The Board has construed “image parcel” to be an element of an image
`
`array, with the image parcel being specified by the X and Y position in the image
`
`array coordinates and an image set resolution index. I have applied the Board’s
`
`definition in my analysis.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`28.(cid:3)
`
`In this Section I present a summary of my opinions. The full
`
`statement of my opinions and the bases for my opinions are contained in the
`
`appropriate sections of my declaration. I give this summary, however, for the
`
`convenience of the reader.
`
`29.(cid:3) Based on my analysis of the ’794 Patent, my knowledge and
`
`experience, any references cited in this declaration, as well as the specific
`
`references relied upon by the Petitioner for the grounds that were instituted by the
`
`Board, it is my opinion that the challenged claims would not have been obvious to
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`
`
`a POSITA as of the date of the invention, October 1999.
`
`30.(cid:3)
`
`It is my opinion that Claim 1 would not have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA as of the date of the invention, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), based on the
`
`combination of Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Cooper.
`
`31.(cid:3) As I explain in more detail below, a POSITA would not have
`
`combined Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Cooper. Rutledge and Ligtenberg address 2D
`
`image-based digital graphics image synthesis, while Cooper uses 3D polygon-
`
`based digital graphics image synthesis. As I explain in more detail below using an
`
`example, in the context of these references, 2D pixel data and 3D polygonal data
`
`are not only two separate types of graphics data used in rendering pipelines in
`
`computer graphics, but also require fundamentally different assessment functions
`
`to achieve any prescribed or predetermined display image resolutions.
`
`32.(cid:3)
`
`It is my opinion that Claim 2 would not have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA as of the date of the invention, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), based on the
`
`combination of Rutledge, Ligtenberg, Cooper, and Migdal.
`
`33.(cid:3) A POSITA would not have combined Rutledge, Ligtenberg, Cooper,
`
`and Migdal for the several reasons that a POSITA would not have combined
`
`Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Cooper, as summarized above and explained in more
`
`detail below.
`
`34.(cid:3) Additionally, a POSITA would not have applied Migdal to Rutledge
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`
`
`or Ligtenberg because the method of updating 2D texture images that is employed
`
`by Migdal relies on incrementally updating various linear rows of pixel data, which
`
`is counter to the 2D tile-based approach (which is based on grouping pixel data
`
`into square tiles for efficiency) that is described by Rutledge or Ligtenberg.
`
`35.(cid:3) Furthermore, as I explain in more detail below, a POSITA would also
`
`not have combined Migdal with Cooper. Cooper describes a bandwidth- and
`
`computationally-limited 3D display system. Combining it with the method
`
`described in Migdal would be computationally intensive for arriving at a correct
`
`mapping of Migdal’s 2D clipped images to Cooper’s display polygons, with the
`
`goal to achieve any prescribed or predetermined display image resolution.
`
`Additionally this combination would also use a high amount of network bandwidth
`
`under a user’s navigational updates to the display viewpoint.
`
`36.(cid:3)
`
`I reserve the right to continue my analysis if asked to do so, including
`
`in response to additional material that is presented to me.
`
`III. LEGAL
`37.(cid:3) The understanding of obviousness and the factors that are considered
`
`to determine the level of a POSITA that are provided in Paragraphs 25–28 of Dr.
`
`Michalson’s declaration (Ex. 1008) is generally consistent with my understanding.
`
`38.(cid:3) That is, regarding obviousness, I understand that a patent claim is
`
`invalid if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`
`
`reference are such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art according to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective before March 16, 2013.
`
`Obviousness can be based on a single prior art reference or a combination of
`
`references that either expressly or inherently disclose all limitations of the claimed
`
`invention. In my obviousness analysis, I understand that inferences and creative
`
`steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ should be considered
`
`as part of the obviousness analysis.
`
`39.(cid:3) To determine the appropriate level of a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art, the following factors may be considered: (a) the types of problems
`
`encountered by those working in the field and prior art solutions thereto; (b) the
`
`sophistication of the technology in question, and the rapidity with which
`
`innovations occur in the field; (c) the educational level of active workers in the
`
`field; and (d) the educational level of the inventor.
`
`40.(cid:3) However, my understanding of obviousness is further supplemented
`
`by the following:
`
`41.(cid:3)
`
`It is necessary in an obviousness analysis to consider the scope and
`
`content of the prior art as a whole. I understand that it is improper to rely upon
`
`hindsight knowledge of the patent claims in question to pick and choose isolated
`
`elements from the prior art and to combine them to yield the claimed invention. It
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`
`
`is likewise improper to pick and choose from any reference only so much of it as
`
`will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts of the reference that
`
`are necessary to give a full appreciation of what the reference fairly teaches or
`
`suggests to a POSITA.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND ON THE STATE OF THE ART
`42.(cid:3) For context, I provide in this Section a brief background regarding the
`
`state of the art of dynamic visualization of image data provided via a network, as
`
`of the time of the invention.
`
`43.(cid:3)
`
`In this Section, I will make reference to a conference publication for
`
`which I am one of the authors (along with two computer science students from the
`
`University of Texas at Austin), Feature Based Volumetric Video Compression for
`
`Interactive Playback, which I presented at the IEEE/SIGGRAPH Symposium on
`
`Volume Visualization and Graphics in 2002. The article is attached as Appendix B.
`
`A.
`
`Compression and Dynamic Display of Image Data in a Networked
`Environment
`44.(cid:3) As of 1999, and even as of 2002 and later, dynamic display of image
`
`data over a network to client systems was an active area of academic investigation.
`
`(Appendix B at 90.) Several difficulties had been identified. First, available
`
`network bandwidth was considered to be a bottleneck for dynamic display of
`
`image data over a network. (Appendix B at 89.) While compression of image data
`
`was one solution to limited bandwidth of networks, the computational load on the
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`
`
`receiving device (the client device) that was required to decompress image data
`
`was understood to be a bottleneck to the dynamic display of image data. (Id.) This
`
`was a second problem.
`
`45.(cid:3) To solve this problem, researchers at the time developed increasingly
`
`sophisticated decompression algorithms to enable dynamic display. (Id.) My
`
`colleagues and I, for example, developed and applied a sophisticated wavelet-
`
`based compression scheme to one aspect of the dynamic display of image data over
`
`a network, specifically the display of three-dimensional isosurfaces and volumes.
`
`Such compression schemes, however, were lossy, meaning that image data was
`
`lost due to compression. (Id. at 94) Further, wavelet-based compression required
`
`the client system to decode wavelet coefficients, which could be computationally
`
`intensive. (Id.) Therefore, our compression scheme required that certain data be
`
`truncated and not transmitted to the client. (Id. at 89.) Also, when the speed of
`
`display of dynamic imaging data was insufficient, our solution, which was typical
`
`at the time, was to reconstruct a lower-quality image. (Id. at 93.)
`
`B.
`
`Composite Image Rendering (2D Image Display, in the Context of
`the References Rutledge and Ligtenberg)
`46.(cid:3) One method of rendering graphics for display in a computer system
`
`that was common as of 1999, and is still common today, is the display of two-
`
`dimensional (or “2D”) images. Images are composed of pixels. In order to present
`
`a seamless scene to the user, adjacent images are displayed immediately next to
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81