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 7,139,794
`____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S
`RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`Exhibit List .............................................................................................................. iv
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`A POSITA WOULD NOT HAVE MODIFIED RUTLEDGE OR
`LIGTENBERG IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COOPER PRIORITY
`QUEUE ............................................................................................................ 4
`
`A. A POSITA Would Understand that 2D Image-Based Methods
`Such as Rutledge and Ligtenberg Are Fundamentally Different
`from 3D Polygon-Based Methods Such as Described by Cooper ........ 4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`A POSITA would Not Combine the 3D Polygonal Object
`Prioritization of Cooper with the Single Composited Image
`Display Systems of Rutledge and Ligtenberg ....................................... 7
`
`The Tiles in Rutledge or Ligtenberg Would Be Incapable of Being
`Prioritized by the Object Assessment Function of Cooper .................17
`
`1. The Bounding Box Primitives that Are Essential for the Object
`Assessment Function of Cooper Are Absent in Rutledge and
`Ligtenberg ...........................................................................................18
`
`2. The Object Assessment Function of Cooper Would Not Be
`Employed by a POSITA to Enhance the Visual Richness of the
`Image Display of Rutledge or Ligtenberg ...........................................22
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`The Screen Area Value Would Be Incapable of Meaningfully
`Distinguishing the Tiles of Rutledge or Ligtenberg .................25
`
`The Distance Value Would Be Incapable of Enhancing the
`Appearance of the Tiles of Rutledge or Ligtenberg .................25
`
`The Focal Point Factor Would Be Incapable of
`Distinguishing the Tiles of Rutledge or Ligtenberg .................26
`
`The Movement Value Would Not Enhance the Appearance
`of the Tiles of Rutledge or Ligtenberg ......................................28
`
`The Message Value Would Be Incapable of Distinguishing
`the Tiles of Rutledge or Ligtenberg ..........................................29
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`The Frames Ignored Value Would Be Incapable of
`Distinguishing the Tiles of Rutledge or Ligtenberg .................29
`
`Since None of the Importance Value Factors Would Enhance
`the Visual Richness of the Tile Display of Rutledge or
`Ligtenberg, a POSITA Would Have No Reason to Apply the
`Object Prioritization of Cooper to Rutledge or Ligtenberg ......30
`
`D.
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish that a POSITA Would Have
`Applied the Cooper Priority Queue to Rutledge or Ligtenberg ..........30
`
`III. A POSITA WOULD NOT HAVE COMBINED MIGDAL WITH
`RUTLEDGE OR LIGTENBERG ................................................................. 37
`
`IV. A POSITA WOULD NOT HAVE COMBINED COOPER WITH
`MIGDAL ....................................................................................................... 39
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM 1 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF THE
`COMBINATION OF COOPER WITH RUTLEDGE AND
`LIGTENBERG .............................................................................................. 41
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`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 ................41
`
`Cooper Does Not Teach or Suggest a Parcel Rendering Subsystem
`that Determines an Assigned Priority Based on the Predetermined
`Resolution of an Image Display ..........................................................44
`
`The Petition Fails to Address the Concept of a Parcel Request
`Priority Order Determined on the Basis of a Predetermined
`Resolution of a Display .......................................................................46
`
`VI. CLAIM 2 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF THE
`COMBINATION OF COOPER WITH RUTLEDGE, LIGTENBERG,
`AND MIGDAL .............................................................................................. 49
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`The Combination of Cooper with Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and
`Migdal Does Not Teach or Suggest Requesting Image Parcels in
`Priority Order ......................................................................................49
`
`The Combination of Cooper with Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and
`Migdal Does Not Teach or Suggest a Priority Order for Image
`
`ii
`
`

`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Parcels that Is Determined to Provide a Progressive Regional
`Resolution Enhancement .....................................................................51
`
`The Petition and the Michalson Declaration Erroneously Assume
`that the Progressive Regional Resolution Enhancement of Claim 2
`is Satisfied by the 3D Polygonal Object Prioritization of Cooper ......54
`
`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............................................................................55
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Ex. 2001 Declaration of Dr. Chandrajit Bajaj
`Ex. 2001
`Declaration of Dr. Chandrajit Bajaj
`
`Exhibit List
`Exhibit List
`
`iv
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Bradium Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) hereby submits
`
`this Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition filed by Microsoft Corporation
`
`(“Petitioner”) in case IPR2015-01432 for review of claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,139,794 (the “’794 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The PTAB instituted inter partes review limited to two challenges to
`
`patentability:
`
`(1) whether claim 1 is patentable over the combination of U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,650,998 (“Rutledge”), U.S. Pat. No. 5,682,441 (“Ligtenberg”), and U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,118,456 (“Cooper”).
`
`(2) whether claim 2 is patentable over the combination of Rutledge,
`
`Ligtenberg, Cooper, and U.S. Pat. No. 5,760,783 (“Migdal”).
`
`As explained in more detail below, Rutledge and Ligtenberg address 2D
`
`image rendering, which is based on pixel data, whereas Cooper addresses
`
`rendering of 3D objects composed of line segment and vertices data. The 2D image
`
`data described by Rutledge and Ligtenberg is fundamentally different than the 3D
`
`object data described by Cooper.
`
`This difference is important for both claims 1 and 2. For one, both claims
`
`recite “image parcels” but the Board’s claim construction of the term “image
`
`parcel” clarifies that the 3D objects described by Cooper cannot be “image
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`parcels.” Petitioners, in a classic case of hindsight in order to try to fill voids in
`
`their invalidity attack, seek to apply Cooper to add the concept of prioritization,
`
`which in Cooper is done in an entirely different way and in an entirely different
`
`environment, to “image parcels” (though Cooper does not have “image parcels”).
`
`As detailed below, however, a POSITA would have known that the prioritization
`
`in Cooper could not have been applied to the 2D image data systems in Rutledge
`
`and Ligtenberg.
`
`The main feature of Cooper on which Petitioners rely is a priority queue that
`
`ranks the visible 3D objects in a scene based on their “importance” to the scene,
`
`some objects being ranked higher than others based on a variety of factors. But
`
`this ranking of objects in a scene relative to one another is irrelevant to the 2D
`
`systems in Rutledge and Ligtenberg, in which data within a scene is not ranked
`
`relative to other data in the scene. Specifically, the ranking results of Cooper
`
`would not be useful if applied to a flat plane of 2D tiles as is described by Rutledge
`
`and Ligtenberg.
`
`The fundamental difference between the 2D image approach of Rutledge
`
`and Ligtenberg, on one hand, and the 3D object approach described by Cooper, on
`
`the other hand, emerges in other ways, too. Cooper explains that this 3D relative
`
`object prioritization feature requires “frame coherence,” i.e., an assumption that the
`
`user’s viewpoint changes slowly over time in a way that mimics how objects
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`behave in the real (3D) world. This assumption, on which Cooper is explicitly
`
`based, does not apply to the flat 2D map system of Rutledge and Ligtenberg, which
`
`is designed specifically to allow the user to arbitrarily jump, using zoom or pan
`
`commands, to entirely new parts of the map at will.
`
`Further, as to claim 2, Petitioners reach for yet a fourth reference, Migdal, to
`
`pluck the concept of texture mapping to add it to the three other references. A
`
`POSITA, however, would have known that, in addition to the above fundamental
`
`problems with the reference combination, Migdal is incompatible with Cooper.
`
`Cooper, because it addresses a complex 3D scene environment, describes a system
`
`that limits data I/O (input-output) and computation operations so that the 3D scene
`
`can be displayed without lagging. The method described by Migdal, on the other
`
`hand, in order to minimize the amount of image data held in memory, makes ample
`
`use of I/O bandwidth and requires many calculations to determine, pixel-by-pixel,
`
`exactly what image data needs be in memory. A POSITA would not have any
`
`reason to combine Rutledge, Ligtenberg, Cooper, and Migdal in the manner
`
`described in the Petition or arrive at the invention claimed in claim 2 of the ’794
`
`patent.
`
`For these and other reasons as set forth below, the Board should deny the
`
`Petition, and confirm the patentability of claims 1 and 2 of the ’794 patent.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`II. A POSITA WOULD NOT HAVE MODIFIED RUTLEDGE OR
`LIGTENBERG IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COOPER PRIORITY
`QUEUE
`
`A. A POSITA Would Understand that 2D Image-Based Methods Such as
`Rutledge and Ligtenberg Are Fundamentally Different from 3D
`Polygon-Based Methods Such as Described by Cooper
`
`A POSITA would not combine Cooper with Rutledge or Ligtenberg because
`
`a POSITA would understand that Rutledge and Ligtenberg address 2D image-
`
`based digital graphics image synthesis, while Cooper addresses 3D polygon-based
`
`shaded digital graphics image synthesis. (Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 77–106.) Therefore, a
`
`POSITA would have understood that the concepts of ranking the importance of 3D
`
`polygonal objects cannot be directly applied to 2D image-based graphics. (Ex.
`
`2001 ¶¶ 77–80.)
`
`For example, 3D scene display as is described in Cooper relies on the fact
`
`that the scene doesn’t change very much from frame to frame as the user views the
`
`scene over time. This assumption makes sense in a 3D scene view that is designed
`
`to mimic a real-world scene, in which one does not jump from place to place but
`
`instead moves smoothly through space. This assumption is the “frame continuity”
`
`assumption. (Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 102–06.) However, this assumption does not make
`
`sense in the context of a 2D image-based graphics system such as Rutledge and
`
`Ligtenberg. These 2D systems are programmed so that a user can select a button
`
`to pan to a new x-y location on the map or image, or to zoom in or out from the flat
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`2D image. (CITE). When a user zooms in or out, an entirely new set of tiles is
`
`displayed. (CITE). A pan (up or down, left or right), will also expose a set of
`
`entirely new tiles, and push old tiles out of view. There is no description in
`
`Rutledge and Ligtenberg that the display of new tiles is gradually increased in
`
`resolution over time—instead, these 2D systems simply display the entire set of
`
`new tiles at once.
`
`Another difference between Cooper and Rutledge / Ligtenberg is the
`
`complexity of the 3D scene display of Cooper as compared to the simplicity of
`
`Rutledge and Ligtenberg. Given the complexity of the 3D scene that is described
`
`by Cooper, which is composed of multiple 3D polygonal objects, Cooper is
`
`addressed towards an I/O bandwidth limited and computation limited system. (Ex.
`
`2001 ¶ 83.) There is not enough processing power to handle all of the 3D object
`
`calculations required, and not enough bandwidth to download all of the 3D object
`
`data. This is the situation to which the 3D object prioritization of Cooper is
`
`directed. By contrast, Rutledge describes a system in which new 2D image tiles
`
`are simply displayed as needed, without any indication of an I/O bandwidth
`
`limitation or a computation time limitation. Importantly, because the 2D image
`
`tiles of Rutledge / Ligtenberg are always viewed at perpendicularly to the image
`
`plane (straight down, no angles), the tiles can be, and are, pre-calculated in
`
`advance of the user viewing the tiles. Ex. 1004, Ligtenberg 6:7–11; Ex. 2001 ¶¶
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`66–67. In Ligtenberg and Rutledge, only a single composited image, either in
`
`total or partially, is displayed, namely the input image that is converted through a
`
`decomposition process into a format that divides the image into tiles. Ex. 2001 ¶¶
`
`64, 67. This is a much simpler computational environment which does not result
`
`in constraints based on data transfer or the ability of the system to perform
`
`calculations, and therefore there is no need for the complex 3D polygonal object
`
`prioritization.
`
`That is, Cooper attempts to cure a particular aspect of the visual latency
`
`problem in a 3D scene that does not arise in Rutledge or Ligtenberg. A passage
`
`from Cooper at 2:33–53 states as follows:
`
`[T]he visual latency of important objects in a scene affects the overall
`
`visual richness of the scene more than the visual latency of less
`
`important objects. Put another way, reducing latency for important
`
`objects causes the overall visual richness of the scene to appear to
`
`improve quicker than just elevating their level of detail over less
`
`important objects.
`
`For a system to exhibit this particular problem, it would have to not only display
`
`multiple graphic objects in a scene, but do so in such a way that some assume
`
`greater degrees of visual importance than others. (see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 68–69.) For
`
`instance, in Cooper, those 3D polygonal objects that are closer to the simulated
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`observer in scene 40 are, all other things equal, more visually important than those
`
`farther away. Ex. 1006, Cooper 9:13–20. Since neither Rutledge nor Ligtenberg
`
`have multiple objects in a single scene (in the sense that Cooper displays multiple
`
`polygonal objects in a single scene 40), there is no point in either of them to
`
`“reduc[e] latency for important objects . . . .” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 86–101; see Orthopedic
`
`Equip., 702 F.2d at 1013; Kinetic Techs., IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 at 14–16.
`
`Therefore, based on these fundamental differences between the 3D scene
`
`display described by Cooper and the 2D image display described by Rutledge or
`
`Ligtenberg, a POSITA would not have combined these references in the manner
`
`relied upon by Petitioner.
`
`B. A POSITA would Not Combine the 3D Polygonal Object
`Prioritization of Cooper with the Single Composited Image Display
`Systems of Rutledge and Ligtenberg
`
`A POSTIA would understand that the 3D object prioritization of Cooper is
`
`inapplicable to the single composited image display systems described in Rutledge
`
`and Lindenberg. (Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 86–101.) Cooper is being grafted by Petitioner onto
`
`Rutledge simply for its teaching of prioritizing simultaneously displayed 3D
`
`polygonal objects, even though Rutledge does not teach the display of multiple 3D
`
`polygonal objects, and even though Cooper is not pertinent to a 2D map display
`
`system like Rutledge, the grafting of Cooper onto Rutledge is nothing more than a
`
`classic case of hindsight. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`3d 1342, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“On the basis of this evidence, hindsight provides
`
`the only discernable reason to combine the prior art references.”).
`
`A POSITA would understand that Cooper is thus relevant only to a viewing
`
`system that displays more than one 3D polygonal object. (Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 86–101.)
`
`Cooper is directed to a 3D viewing system that provides a user, through the
`
`viewpoint of a simulated observer in 3D environment 42, the ability to virtually
`
`navigate through a scene 40. (Ex. 1006, Cooper 1:7–10, 1:13–19, 1:26–29,
`
`Fig. 3A; Ex. 2001 ¶ 68.) As the user navigates through environment 42, polygonal
`
`objects visually enter the scene 40 while others leave the scene. (Ex. 1006, Cooper
`
`1:23–31.) For instance, in a 3D model of a house, as the user moves through each
`
`room, new polygons of furniture enter into scene as others are visually left behind.
`
`(Ex. 1006, Cooper 1:23–25.) Each object is a tessellated model consisting of
`
`thousands of polygons that represent such real-world objects as chairs or tables.
`
`(Ex. 1006, Cooper 1:30–33, 5:38–42, Fig. 3A.)
`
`Since the polygon data needed to fully render the 3D polygonal objects in
`
`scene 40 at client 12 must be downloaded from server 10 (Ex. 1006, Cooper 4:9–
`
`18), object assessment function 22 of client 12 ranks the 3D polygonal objects,
`
`which are representations of shapes in 3D (x-y-z) space, such as a chair or table,
`
`appearing in a scene, relative to one another according to their visual importance in
`
`scene 40 in order to render them on the display in the order of their visual
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`importance and downloads their polygon data in accordance with this ranking.
`
`(Ex. 1006, Cooper 3:9–13, 6:16–20; Ex. 2001 ¶ 68.) In this way, 3D polygonal
`
`objects that contribute most to the visual richness of scene 40 will have their
`
`polygons downloaded for rendering at client 12 before those of less significant
`
`objects. (Ex. 1006, Cooper 4:61–5:8, 6:27–32, 7:1–11; Ex. 2001 ¶ 82.) The
`
`ranking allows client 12 to “more completely render those objects that contribute
`
`most to the scene . . .” and “results in a visual perception that the richness of the
`
`scene is improving rapidly in response to such changes in viewpoint.” (Ex. 1006,
`
`Cooper 7:6–11.)
`
`Thus, Cooper prioritizes the downloading of some 3D polygonal objects in
`
`scene 40 to ensure that the more visually important objects are fully rendered
`
`before the less important ones. (Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 83–84) If a display environment is
`
`directed to 2D image tiles that are stitched together into a single image, then there
`
`is no point to apply to it a 3D polygonal object prioritization scheme like that of
`
`Cooper, which can only rank a multiplicity of simultaneously displayed 3D
`
`polygonal objects relative to one another. (Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 86–101.)
`
`A POSITA would not learn from Cooper how to prioritize the selection of
`
`such tiles because Rutledge and Ligtenberg are directed to 2D image or map
`
`display systems, because the object assessment function of Cooper is meaningful
`
`only in a “3D virtual environment” in which multiple 3D tessellated polygonal
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`objects are simultaneously visible in such an environment. Ex. 1006, Cooper
`
`3:65–67, 5:26–37, Fig. 3A; Ex. 2001 ¶ 82. In both Rutledge and Ligtenberg, a
`
`plurality of image tiles are arrayed together in a single plane to fill a single overall
`
`image. Ex. 1005, Rutledge 5:14–23; Ex. 1004, Ligtenberg 2:30–36. Although
`
`Rutledge permits a user to zoom toward or away from a displayed map, this feature
`
`does not make the Rutledge system a “3D virtual environment” in the sense meant
`
`by Cooper. Unlike Cooper, which locates within the viewing volume of 3D scene
`
`40 different objects at different depths relative to a simulated observer’s viewpoint,
`
`Ex. 1006, Cooper 3:42–54; 4:38–47, all the tiles that make up a displayed map in
`
`Rutledge are arrayed in a common plane, that is, the display environment where
`
`the tiles are located is two-dimensional. Ex. 1005, Rutledge 5:14–23. The image
`
`of Ligtenberg is also two-dimensional because its constituent tiles are combined in
`
`a “rectangular array,” i.e., a 2D display environment. Ex. 1004, Ligtenberg 2:30–
`
`36. Therefore, because tiles of Rutledge and Ligtenberg are always displayed in a
`
`2D planar array, the ability to move in or away from this planar array in Rutledge
`
`and Ligtenberg does not make the Rutledge or Ligtenberg systems three-
`
`dimensional in the Cooper sense.
`
`In Rutledge, terminal 110 displays, either completely or partially, only a
`
`single map from database 145 at a single resolution selected by a user through the
`
`“zoom” functionality of Rutledge. Ex. 1005, Rutledge 2:38–41, 4:19–22, 5:10–13,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`5:24–27. Even though the zoom level in Rutledge represents a height from which
`
`the simulated user views the map, the map display of Rutledge is two-dimensional
`
`because at any selected zoom level or “height” the tiles are coplanar with one
`
`another at the selected height, unlike in Cooper, where different 3D polygonal
`
`objects can occupy different locations at different depths in the 3D viewing volume
`
`of scene 42. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 90–91 ; Ex. 1005, Rutledge 7:48–62, 8:7–19, Figs. 3, 4D.
`
`Although “various maps with different scales may be stored in map database 145”
`
`remotely from terminal 110, Ex. 1005, Rutledge 5:19–20, at any particular time
`
`terminal 110 displays only a single composited image map of a user-selected scale.
`
`Ex. 1005, Rutledge 7:48–62, 8:7–19; see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 94, 98. Even though
`
`terminal 110 of Rutledge can zoom in and display different portions single
`
`composited image map at a selected resolution level from database 145, the
`
`different portions (e.g., town, county, state, country) are not separate “objects” that
`
`are ranked in relation to one another.
`
`In Rutledge, each map, whichever view is selected, is displayed as a
`
`collection of 2D map tiles, Ex. 1005, Rutledge Fig. 4A, 5:14–23); nevertheless,
`
`each tile is not an object in the sense meant by Cooper. (Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 64–66.) In
`
`Cooper, each 3D polygonal object is a single mesh (that is, a set of vertices)
`
`composed of polygons to represent in scene 40 a form that is logically and visually
`
`distinct from other objects in scene 40. Ex. 1006, Cooper 1:29–34, Fig. 3A.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Unlike a 3D polygonal object in Cooper, a map tile in Rutledge is not a
`
`visually independent form or shape displayed at terminal 110. (see Ex. 2001 ¶
`
`134.) Instead, each map tile is an image element that visually coheres with other
`
`tiles in an array that collectively forms a single image, namely, a zoom layer of a
`
`map at a selected resolution level. Ex. 1005, Rutledge 2:38–41, 5:23–53; Ex. 2001
`
`¶ 89. In Cooper, for example, a 3D polygonal object for a chair represents the
`
`shape of a chair, which is visually distinct and independent of a 3D polygonal
`
`object for a table, in the sense that removing one 3D polygonal object from scene
`
`40 would not alter the appearance of the other 3D polygonal object. In contrast, in
`
`Rutledge, tiles are not distinct from one another in the same sense that such
`
`polygonal objects in Cooper are distinct because such tiles are displayed only as
`
`individual visual elements of a larger whole, namely, the map image displayed at
`
`terminal 110.
`
`In fact, a POSITA would not look to Cooper when considering the system
`
`described in Rutledge. Ex. 2001¶¶ 76–106; see Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702
`
`F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (That two prior disclosures could not be
`
`combined “because skilled persons in the art felt that there was some technological
`
`incompatibility that prevented their combination . . . is telling on the issue of
`
`nonobviousness.”); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`(stating that the inquiry into whether a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`combine references begins with defining the scope of analogous art, an action
`
`meant to guard against impermissible use of hindsight); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,
`
`659–60 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (rejecting the combination of two references when the
`
`second reference was non-analogous to the invention, such that a POSITA would
`
`not reasonably have expected to consider it, and reversing the Board’s obviousness
`
`determination); Hopkins Mfg. Corp. v. Cequent Performance Prods., Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00613, Paper 9 at 15 (P.T.A.B. August 7, 2015) (Petitioner failed to
`
`identify “a persuasive fact-based reason that would have prompted a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed
`
`new invention does.”) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
`
`(2007)); Kinetic Techs. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc., IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 at 14–
`
`16 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 23, 2014) (rejecting Petitioner’s obviousness ground in light of
`
`Petitioner’s bare assertions that the cited references employed the same types of
`
`systems without a sufficient fact-based explanation of how one system was
`
`combinable with the other). Indeed, by failing to identify a particular problem
`
`arising specifically in the 2D image tile context of Rutledge and Ligtenberg that
`
`Cooper would have been solved through its 3D polygonal object prioritization
`
`technique, the Petition “collaps[es] the obviousness analysis into a hindsight-
`
`guided combination of elements.” Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Ltd. v. Rea, 726
`
`F. 3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Although Petitioner cites to the reference in Rutledge, “Polygons (a set of
`
`filled polygons, drawn in order,” at Ex. 1005, 6:33–34, Paper 2 at 6–7, without
`
`further explanation, a POSITA would not understand this passing reference to
`
`polygons to relate Rutledge to the 3D polygonal objects of Cooper. Rutledge is
`
`referring to simple, flat 2D polygon, see Ex. 1005, Rutledge Ex. 2A at 210, not the
`
`complex 3D polygonal vertices data of Cooper.
`
`Petitioner’s asserted reasons for the reference combination are unpersuasive.
`
`For example, the Petition also states at page 44 that the “three references all teach
`
`incrementally sending visual data from server to client—e.g., map tiles of Rutledge
`
`that are sent based on a zoom layer, tile blocks of Ligtenberg are sent based on a
`
`layer of given resolution, and objects in a scene of Cooper that are incrementally
`
`sent as polygons of the object.” (Paper 2 (Petition) at p. 44.) That each reference
`
`teaches the transmission of data in one form or another from server to client does
`
`not overcome the inapplicability of the 3D multi-object prioritization of Cooper to
`
`a single composited image display system like that in Rutledge and Ligtenberg.
`
`Since the tiles of Rutledge and Ligtenberg are individual image elements that are
`
`consolidated in an array to collectively represent a single composited image, they
`
`are not comparable to an object in Cooper, which is visually independent of any
`
`other object and is sufficient by themselves to represent an object form.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`The Petition also argues at page 44 that “[e]ach reference also discloses that
`
`visual data elements are made available from server in multiple resolutions that can
`
`progressively provide a higher-resolution image to the observer.” (Paper 2
`
`(Petition) at p. 44.) But the use of the umbrella term “visual data element” merely
`
`establishes a false equivalency between the way resolution works for the 3D
`
`polygonal objects of Cooper, on the one hand, and the tiles of Rutledge and
`
`Ligtenberg, on the other. As explained before in Section II.A, Cooper prioritizes
`
`3D polygonal objects so that the more important ones can be rendered at a higher
`
`resolution before the less important ones. Ex. 1006, Cooper 7:6–11.
`
`Even though Rutledge and Ligtenberg teach systems that are capable of
`
`displaying an image at different resolutions, they teach that the displayed image is
`
`displayed at only a single resolution at any one time. In Rutledge, the map is
`
`displayed at the single resolution selected by the user through the interactive menu
`
`of the zoom function. Ex. 1005, Rutledge 7:48–62, 8:20–49, Fig. 4D. In
`
`Ligtenberg, an input image can be reconstructed and displayed at only a single
`
`desired resolution at a time. Ex. 1004, Ligtenberg 8:60–9:5. Since neither
`
`simultaneously displays multiple 3D “objects” in the sense meant by Cooper,
`
`which is the only sort of display environment that is relevant to Cooper, a POSITA
`
`would not have modified the Rutledge-Ligtenberg combination to incorporate the
`
`3D inter-object Cooper prioritization technique. See Orthopedic Equip., 702 F.2d
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`at 1013; Hopkins Mfg., IPR2015-00613, Paper 9 at 15; Kinetic Techs., IPR2014-
`
`00529, Paper 8 at 14–16.
`
`The Michalson Declaration, on which the Petition relies to establish the
`
`relevance of Cooper to Rutledge and Ligtenberg, is equally unpersuasive. See
`
`Ex. 1008, Michalson Decl. ¶¶ 195–200. In ¶ 196, the Declaration states “Cooper
`
`addresses a similar issue as Rutledge and Ligtenberg in that Cooper discloses
`
`techniques by which the available network bandwidth can be efficiently used to
`
`request, receive and render only portions of a visual image that are best needed for
`
`rendering a user-requested image.” Ex. 1008, Michalson Decl. ¶ 196. The
`
`“portions” that the Declaration refers to are the 3D objects (that are comprised of
`
`polygons) of Cooper, which are prioritized according to visual importance for the
`
`purpose of downloading from server 10 polygon data in most-to-least important
`
`order of the objects. Ex. 1006, Cooper 6:11–24. In Rutledge and Ligtenberg, the
`
`display is not composed of multiple objects, since all of the map or image tiles that
`
`compose a visual image that represents a single composited 2D image (single map
`
`in Rutledge and single input image in Ligtenberg). Because Cooper teaches the
`
`simultaneous display of multiple 3D polygonal objects of separate identity and of
`
`variable contribution to the visual richness of a scene, rendering at a higher level of
`
`polygonal detail the most visually important polygonal object first would make
`
`efficient use of a limited bandwidth data pipe 14, but in Rutledge and Ligtenberg at
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`any particular time all the tiles in an image are displayed at a common resolution,
`
`based on user selection. Ex. 1005, Rutledge 7:48–62, Fig. 4D; Ex. 1004,
`
`Ligtenberg 8:60–66. For example, in Rutledge, using the interactive menu shown
`
`in Figure 4D, a user will select a desired resolution (“zoom layer”), and in response
`
`to this command, database handler 195 retrieves the tiles corresponding to the
`
`selected zoom layer and displays them. Ex. 1005, Rutledge 8:37–49, Fig. 5.
`
`Therefore, whatever benefits in bandwidth preservation are attributable to varying
`
`the amount of polygonal object detail at which a particular object is displayed
`
`according to visual importance in Cooper are not realizable in a display
`
`environment like those of Rutledge and Ligtenberg, where a single map or image
`
`object (and not multiple map or images) is displayed according to a single desired
`
`resolution at any one time. See Kinetic Techs., IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 at 14–16
`
`(Expert declaration “does not explain how the teachings of the specific references
`
`could be combined, which combination(s) of elements in specific references would
`
`yield a predictable result, or how any specific combination would operate or read
`
`on the asserted claims.”)
`
`C.
`
`The Tiles in Rutledge or Ligtenberg Would Be Incapable of Being
`Prioritized by the Object Assessment Function of Cooper
`
`A POSITA would understand that the attempt to combine apply the 3D
`
`object assessment function of Cooper to the 2D image tiles of Rutledge or
`
`Ligtenberg would not be successful.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`1.
`
`The Bounding Box Primitives that Are Essential for the Object
`Assessment Function of Cooper Are Absent in Rutledge and
`Ligtenberg
`
`Another reason that POSITA would not have applied the Cooper object
`
`assessment function 22 to rank the tiles of the Rutledge-Ligtenberg combination is
`
`that the combination would not be possible. The prioritization of 3D objects that is
`
`described in Cooper is based on bounding boxes (outlines of shapes) that are not
`
`present in, and would make no sense to include in, Rutledge or Ligtenberg.
`
`The 3D object prioritization of Cooper is based on bounding box primitives
`
`(outlines of the shap