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 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`RESPONSE
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`I hereby declare that all the statements made in this Declaration are of my
`
`
`
`own knowledge and true; that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and that such willful false
`
`statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issued
`
`thereon.
`
`I declare under the penalty of perjury that all statements made in this
`
`Declaration are true and correct.
`
`
`
`Executed 23 June 2016 in Douglas, MA.
`
`
`
`
`//William R Michalson/
`
`William R. Michalson
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................... iv
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .......................................................................... 2
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE .................................................... 3
`A.
`Compensation ....................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon ..................................... 3
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 3
`V.
`RESPONSE TO DR. BAJAJ’S SUMMARY OF THE
`BACKGROUND IN THE ART ..................................................................... 7
`A. Dr. Bajaj Ignores Relevant Art, Particularly in the GIS Field ............. 7
`B.
`Dr. Bajaj’s Discussion of the Technology Background is Overly
`Narrow .................................................................................................. 7
`Compression and Dynamic Display of Image Data in a
`Networked Environment Were Well-Known in the Art .................... 10
`D. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Have Recognized
`the Applicability of 2D Texture Tiles to 3D Image Rendering ......... 14
`1.
`Dr. Bajaj’s Discussion of “2D” Map Data is Incomplete ........ 14
`2.
`Dr. Bajaj’s Discussion of “3D” Scene Rendering is
`Incomplete ................................................................................ 16
`Techniques for Visualizing 2D Data in 3D Were Well-
`Known in the Art ...................................................................... 19
`Dr. Bajaj’s Hypothetical Rendering Pipeline Does Not
`Show That a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would
`Not Combine 2D and 3D rendering techniques ....................... 22
`VI. Response to Dr. Bajaj’s characterization of the prior art references ............ 31
`A.
`Rutledge (Bajaj ¶¶ 64-66) .................................................................. 31
`
`C.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`Ligtenberg (Bajaj ¶ 67) ...................................................................... 36
`B.
`Cooper (Bajaj ¶¶ 68-72) ..................................................................... 39
`C.
`D. Migdal (Bajaj ¶¶ 73-75) ..................................................................... 44
`VII. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have Combined the Prior
`Art References Discussed in the Petition ..................................................... 48
`A.
`The Combination of 3D Visualization Techniques with 2D
`Geographic Imagery was Well-Known in the art of GIS ................... 48
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have combined
`Cooper, Ligtenberg, and Rutledge ..................................................... 52
`1.
`3D Visualization Techniques can Utilize 2D Map Tiles ......... 52
`2.
`Patent Owner’s “Fundamental Difference” Arguments
`are Misguided and Incorrect .................................................... 56
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Use
`Cooper’s Priority Algorithm to Prioritize the Retrieval of
`Map Tiles Such as Those Taught by Rutledge and
`Ligtenberg ................................................................................ 61
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Have Combined
`Rutledge, Ligtenberg, Cooper, and Migdal ........................................ 70
`1.
`The Hypothetical Combination of Migdal with Rutledge
`or Ligtenberg ............................................................................ 71
`The Hypothetical Combination of Cooper with Midgal .......... 76
`2.
`VIII. Claim 1 is obvious over Rutledge and Ligtenberg in view of Cooper ......... 79
`A. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Combine Rutledge,
`Ligtenberg, and Cooper. ..................................................................... 79
`The Combination of Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Cooper Teaches
`Requesting Image Parcels According to a Priority Order .................. 80
`
`B.
`
`3.
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`C.
`
`The Combination of Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Cooper Teaches
`an Assigned Priority Based on the Predetermined Resolution of
`an Image Display ................................................................................ 81
`IX. Claim 2 is obvious over Rutledge, Ligtenberg, Cooper, and Migdal ........... 86
`A.
`The combination of Rutledge, Ligtenberg, Cooper, and Migdal
`teaches retrieving image parcels in a priority order ........................... 86
`The combination of Rutledge, Ligtenberg, Cooper, and Migdal
`teaches a priority order that is determined to provide a
`progressive regional resolution enhancement .................................... 87
`Limiting selective rendering of image parcels to those having
`less than a resolution of a predetermined level would be
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art over the
`combination of Rutledge, Ligtenberg, Cooper, and Migdal .............. 90
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 91
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`X.
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`LIST OF APPENDICES
`
`
`
`Appendix EE
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,161,886 (“DeJong”)
`
`Appendix FF
`
`
`
`The Virtual Reality Modeling Language ISO/IEC 14772-
`1:1997
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is William R. Michalson. I am a professor of electrical and
`
`computer engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts.
`
`2.
`
`I have been engaged by Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) to
`
`5
`
`investigate and opine on certain issues relating to U.S. Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`
`(the “794 Patent”) entitled “System and methods for network image delivery with
`
`dynamic viewing frustum optimized for limited bandwidth communication
`
`channels” in Microsoft’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of the 794 Patent
`
`(“Microsoft IPR Petition”) which requests the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`10
`
`(“PTAB”) to review and cancel all claims of the 794 Patent—claims 1 and 2
`
`(“Challenged Claims”). I have also been engaged by Microsoft to investigate and
`
`opine on certain issues relating to two other patents that are related to the 794
`
`Patent— U.S. Patent Nos. 7,908,343 B2 and 8,924,506 B2 in additional petitions
`
`for inter partes review by Microsoft. I understand that Bradium Technologies
`
`15
`
`LLC (“Bradium”) is asserting all three patents against Microsoft in an on-going
`
`patent infringement lawsuit, No. 1:15-cv-00031-RGA, filed in the U.S. District
`
`Court for the District of Delaware on January 9, 2015.
`
`3.
`
`I previously submitted my Declaration of Prof. William R. Michalson
`
`in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,139,794 B2 on
`
`1
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`
`June 2, 2015. (“2015 Declaration,” Ex. 1008). I incorporate that declaration and
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`supporting appendices by reference.
`
`4.
`
`This declaration is based on the information currently available to me.
`
`To the extent that additional information becomes available, I reserve the right to
`
`5
`
`continue my investigation and study, which may include a review of documents
`
`and information that may be produced, as well as testimony from depositions that
`
`may not yet be taken.
`
`5.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied on information and evidence
`
`identified in my previous declaration, as well as my review of Patent Owner’s
`
`10
`
`Response (“Response,” Paper 24) and the declaration from Dr. Chandrajit Bajaj
`
`(Ex. 2001) both dated March 23, 2016.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`6.
`
`It is my opinion that, as discussed in the 2015 Declaration, each of
`
`Claims 1 and 2 is invalid under the patentability standard of 35 U.S.C. §103 as I
`
`15
`
`understand them and as explained to me by Microsoft’s counsel.
`
`7. Within this declaration, I rebut the analysis of the Patent Owner and
`
`Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Chandrajit Bajaj. As detailed below, both Patent Owner
`
`and Dr. Bajaj ignore pertinent background, mischaracterize the applied references,
`
`and contain other serious flaws in their analysis.
`
`2
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`8. My background and experience are fully outlined in my 2015
`
`Declaration. I include those paragraphs herein by reference.
`
`A. Compensation
`9.
`
`I am being compensated for the services I am providing in this and
`
`other Microsoft IPR petitions. The compensation is not contingent upon my
`
`performance, the outcome of this inter partes review or any other proceedings, or
`
`any issues involved in or related to this inter partes review or any other
`
`proceedings.
`
`B. Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon
`10.
`
`In addition to the documents cited in my 2015 Declaration, I also rely
`
`on the Patent Owner’s Response (“Response,” Paper 24) and the declaration from
`
`Dr. Chandrajit Bajaj (Ex. 2001) both dated March 23, 2016. Additionally, as
`
`background information regarding the state of the knowledge in the art, I have also
`
`5
`
`10
`
`15
`
`considered the additional appendices cited in this Declaration, including US Patent
`
`No. 5,161,886 (“DeJong”) (App. EE) and the VRML97 Specification (App. FF).
`
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`11.
`In my 2015 Declaration I provided a definition for a person of
`
`20
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). As described therein, I came to this
`
`definition based on the following factors: (a) the types of problems encountered by
`
`3
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`
`those working in the field and prior art solutions thereto; (b) the sophistication of
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`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.
`
`5
`
`12. The “Background of the Invention” section of the 794 Patent
`
`describes a “well recognized problem” of how to reduce the latency for
`
`transmitting full resolution images over the Internet on an “as needed” basis,
`
`particularly for “complex images” such as “geographic, topographic, and other
`
`highly detailed maps.” Ex. 1001 at 1:32-47.
`
`10
`
`13. To solve this problem and to address some perceived issues in the
`
`existing art, the 794 Patent discloses a system capable of “optimally presenting
`
`image data on client systems with potentially limited processing performance,
`
`resources, and communications bandwidth.” Id. at 3:38-42. The 794 Patent states
`
`that the disclosed technology can achieve faster image transfer by (1) dividing the
`
`15
`
`source image into parcels/tiles, (2) processing the parcels/tiles into a series of
`
`progressively lower resolution parcels/tiles, and (3) requesting and transmitting the
`
`parcels/tiles needed for a particular viewpoint in a priority order, generally lower-
`
`resolution tiles first.
`
`14. As discussed in my 2015 Declaration, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`20
`
`art for the 794 Patent would need education or work experience in computer
`
`4
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`
`network communications due to the ‘794 Patent’s focus on transmitting images in
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`systems with “potentially limited processing performance, resources, and
`
`communications bandwidth.”
`
`15. Further, because a “common application” of the 794 Patent is to
`
`5
`
`transmit “geographic, topographic, and other highly detailed maps,” (id. at 1:35-
`
`37), a person of ordinary skill in the art would also require some knowledge and
`
`experience with geographic information systems (“GIS”).
`
`16. The definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art offered by Dr.
`
`Bajaj does not require any knowledge or experience with GIS systems, and thus
`
`10
`
`does not properly account for the level of education and experience of persons
`
`working in the field or the types of problems encountered in the field. A person
`
`familiar with GIS systems during the relevant time period would have understood
`
`that a large amount was known about GIS systems as well as the display and
`
`visualization of GIS data. Such a person would understand that the growth
`
`15
`
`experienced in personal navigation devices and the display of maps in vehicles at
`
`that time would be directly relevant to the display and manipulation of map
`
`information on personal computing devices, including but not limited to systems
`
`with limited processing resources and display resolution. Even if a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art was not a person personally familiar with GIS systems, as
`
`20
`
`Dr. Bajaj assumes, a person of ordinary skill in the art considering the problems
`
`5
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`
`allegedly solved by the 794 Patent would nevertheless consider art in the GIS field
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`to be highly relevant to the issues addressed by the 794 Patent and would therefore
`
`consider the full scope of knowledge within the GIS field at the time.
`
`17. This difference in the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`5
`
`is important since a person familiar with GIS systems at the time would also
`
`realize that there is significant overlap between 2D and 3D image display
`
`techniques. For example, DeJong describes a system that describes an automotive
`
`application in which a 2D map is drawn in perspective view such that the user’s
`
`viewpoint changes as the location of the vehicle changes. “To achieve this, the
`
`10
`
`invention is characterized in that the topographic information includes coordinates
`
`of points in a part of a substantially two-dimensionally represented surface of the
`
`earth, on which the vehicle is capable of travelling, the part of the map being
`
`displayed, under the influence of the coordinate transformation, in a central
`
`projection from an apparent point of view which is situated outside the vehicle and
`
`15
`
`above the relevant part of the surface of the earth. Thus, the user obtains a better
`
`and more readily recognizable impression of the surroundings, i.e. a “bird’s eye
`
`view” as it were.” (DeJong (App. EE) at 1:46-57, Fig 4A, Fig. 4B).
`
`18. Therefore, based on the above considerations and factors, it remains
`
`my opinion that a person having ordinary skill in the art should have a Master of
`
`20
`
`Science or equivalent degree in electrical engineering or computer science, or
`
`6
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`
`alternatively a Bachelor of Science or equivalent degree in electrical engineering or
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`computer science, with at least 5 years of experience in a technical field related to
`
`geographic information system (“GIS”) or the transmission of image data over a
`
`computer network. As before, this description is approximate and additional
`
`5
`
`educational experience could make up for less work experience and vice versa.
`
`V. RESPONSE TO DR. BAJAJ’S SUMMARY OF THE BACKGROUND
`IN THE ART
`A. Dr. Bajaj Ignores Relevant Art, Particularly in the GIS Field
`19.
`
`In my 2015 Declaration I provided an overview of the technology
`
`10
`
`background of the ‘794 patent in ¶¶ 33-77. I note that neither Patent Owner nor Dr.
`
`Bajaj rebutted any element of the technology background provided in my 2015
`
`Declaration.
`
`20. Dr. Bajaj provides a discussion of the background of the state of the
`
`art in his declaration (Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 42-62). However, Dr. Bajaj’s discussion of the
`
`15
`
`background art is overly narrow and ignores much of the relevant art.
`
`B. Dr. Bajaj’s Discussion of the Technology Background is Overly
`Narrow
`21. Much of the discussion provided by Dr. Bajaj appears to focus not on
`
`describing the technology background relevant to the state of the art relevant to the
`
`20
`
`‘794 Patent, but rather focuses on developing a foundation for an ill-conceived
`
`notion that 2D image processing and 3D image processing are completely
`
`7
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`
`incompatible with each other. I disagree, particularly as 2D and 3D techniques are
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`applied to solving the problem posed by the ‘794 Patent. According to the ‘794
`
`specification “The present invention is related to network based, image distribution
`
`systems and, in particular, to a system and methods for efficiently selecting and
`
`5
`
`distributing image parcels through a narrowband or otherwise limited bandwidth
`
`communications channel to support presentation of high-resolution images subject
`
`to dynamic viewing frustums.” (Ex. 1001, 1:24-29).
`
`22.
`
` As an initial matter, I note that Dr. Bajaj bases his discussion of the
`
`difficulties associated with the dynamic display of image data over a network on
`
`10
`
`the paper “Feature Based Volumetric Video Compression for Interactive Playback”
`
`which he co-authored with two of his students and includes as Appendix B to his
`
`declaration. While this paper describes work allegedly performed by Dr. Bajaj and
`
`his students, the paper focuses on the very narrow problem of transferring
`
`extremely large images (for example 247MB/frame) at video rates for scientific
`
`15
`
`visualization of 3D images.
`
`23. While systems, such as the one described in the cited paper, have
`
`application in fields such as scientific visualization, these systems are characterized
`
`as being of extremely high performance, often involving not only custom software,
`
`but highly specialized computer hardware as well. While such an example does, in
`
`20
`
`fact, represent a small portion of the art of 2D and 3D image processing, it
`
`8
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`
`represents only a portion of the art. This leads to one of the major flaws in Dr.
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Bajaj’s analysis – a bias towards the hardware and software of high-performance
`
`image manipulation systems to the exclusion of the many lower performance,
`
`resource constrained systems known in the art.
`
`5
`
`24. Many applications, including GIS applications, vehicular systems,
`
`flight simulation systems and the like don’t need to manipulate huge volumes of
`
`data (for example 247MB/frame) to function, nor do they need to operate at video
`
`rates. These systems only need to transfer image data. A person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would understand that the necessary hardware and software to manipulate
`
`10
`
`an image is critically tied to the type (and volume) of data being manipulated and
`
`to the requirements of the application. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand, as I demonstrated in my 2015 Declaration and further describe herein,
`
`that there is no single architecture for 2D or 3D image manipulation.
`
`25. By adopting the bias towards high-performance 3D image
`
`15
`
`manipulation, Dr. Bajaj has needlessly focused on certain aspects of image
`
`manipulation systems to the exclusion of others. In my opinion, this bias has led to
`
`an improper narrowing of the knowledge base of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, and thus has led to making improper assertions about what a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would, or wouldn’t consider. It is my understanding that a person of
`
`20
`
`ordinary skill in the art is properly interpreted as a hypothetical person who is
`
`9
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`
`aware of all of the relevant art. It is that understanding that I apply in the
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`following analysis.
`
`C. Compression and Dynamic Display of Image Data in a Networked
`Environment Were Well-Known in the Art
`26. With reference to Appendix B of his declaration, Dr. Bajaj provides a
`
`5
`
`discussion of the state of image compression in a networked environment. I note
`
`as an initial matter that neither compression nor a networked environment are
`
`required elements of claim 2 of the 794 Patent, so Dr. Bajaj’s discussion is only
`
`relevant (if at all) to claim 1. However, Dr. Bajaj is also incorrect. As I discussed
`
`10
`
`in my 2015 Declaration, image compression was a well-known technique for
`
`image storage and transfer. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 45-48. Dr. Bajaj makes no rebuttal to this
`
`discussion. Rather, Dr. Bajaj focuses on issues related to his paper related to
`
`video-rate visualization of large data sets, “Feature Based Volumetric Video
`
`Compression for Interactive Playback” provided as Appendix B to his Declaration.
`
`15
`
`27.
`
` In discussing the need for compression for the video-rate
`
`visualization of large data sets, Dr. Bajaj explains that “[m]y 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.” (Ex. 2001
`
`20
`
`at ¶ 45). Using his “sophisticated wavelet-based compression scheme” Dr. Bajaj
`
`10
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`
`discovered that “[s]uch compression schemes, however, were lossy, meaning that
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`image data was lost due to compression,” and that “wavelet-based compression
`
`required the client system to decode wavelet coefficients, which could be
`
`computationally intensive.” (Id.) Dr. Bajaj summarizes by noting that “when the
`
`5
`
`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.)
`
`28.
`
`In my opinion Dr. Bajaj has only provided an overview of his
`
`experience developing and using “sophisticated wavelet-based compression
`
`scheme” for the video-rate visualization of large data sets. He has not provided an
`
`10
`
`overview of the art as it would be known to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In
`
`particular, Dr. Bajaj completely ignores the GIS art that would be known to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`29. By making the underlying assumption of video-rate visualization of
`
`large data sets, and based on his own “sophisticated wavelet-based compression
`
`15
`
`scheme” Dr. Bajaj has laid an apparent foundation for declaring that wavelet-based
`
`compression is both lossy and computationally intensive.
`
`30.
`
`In contrast, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`depending on the application, a lossy compression algorithm may still result in
`
`image data that is perfectly acceptable to a user. As an example, consider the
`
`20
`
`highly popular JPEG compression technique (Ex. 1008 at ¶ 46).
`
`11
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`31. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would also understand
`
`
`
`that whether or not a particular approach to compression is too “computationally
`
`intensive,” depends on the computational resources available and the size of the
`
`data set being compressed. An algorithm that is unacceptable for large datasets,
`
`5
`
`such as those in the paper relied on by Dr. Bajaj, may well be perfectly acceptable
`
`when applied to a smaller dataset or a smaller subset of a large dataset (such as
`
`viewing a specified region of a set of map imagery), or with a more powerful
`
`underlying system to perform the computation.
`
`32.
`
`Indeed, the assumption underlying the data sets in Dr. Bajaj’s
`
`10
`
`Appendix B is that the values in the images are floating point values. “For
`
`example, the size of an oceanographic temperature change data set tested in this
`
`paper is 237MB/frame (2160 x 960 x 30 float type) 115 frames, and the gas
`
`dynamics data set is 64MB/frame (256 x 256 x 256 float type) 144 frames.” (Ex.
`
`2001 Appendix B at 89). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`15
`
`that mathematical operations involving floating point values generally incurs
`
`significantly more hardware and/or software overhead than mathematical
`
`operations involving integer operations.
`
`33. Further, upon reading the specification of the ‘794 patent, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would note that the specification assumes integer values,
`
`20
`
`for example pixels specified in terms of 16-bit numbers, not floating point values.
`
`12
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`
`“The source image data 32, corresponding to the series image K0, is also
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`subdivided into a regular array such that each resulting image parcel of the array
`
`has a 64 by 64 pixel resolution where the image data has a color or bit per pixel
`
`depth of 16 bits, which represents a data parcel size of 8K bytes.” (Ex. 1001 at
`
`5
`
`6:6-11).
`
`34. For these reasons, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that the background provided by Dr. Bajaj, while possibly interesting,
`
`is biased towards a specific application of particular techniques and does not
`
`constitute a background of all the relevant art. Further, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`10
`
`the art would realize that the claims of the ‘794 Patent that are at issue do not
`
`actually claim any limitations on the bandwidth or processing power of the client
`
`device. Claim 2 does not require a networked environment, only a
`
`“communications channel.” While claim 1 requires a network communications
`
`channel, it does not specify any bandwidth requirements for such a
`
`15
`
`communications channel. Therefore, Dr. Bajaj’s discussions throughout his
`
`declaration which appear to assume that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`not consider certain reference combinations because of limitations on computation
`
`power or bandwidth, are incorrect, and in view of claims 1 and 2, there is no basis
`
`for dismissing any approach for image manipulation on the basis of computational
`
`20
`
`complexity.
`
`13
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`D. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Have Recognized the
`Applicability of 2D Texture Tiles to 3D Image Rendering
`1.
`
`Dr. Bajaj’s Discussion of “2D” Map Data is Incomplete
`
`35.
`
`In paragraphs 46-50 of his declaration Dr. Bajaj partially describes the
`
`5
`
`process of rendering a 2D image. Despite the title of the section implying that he
`
`will provide technology background related to 2D image display, in the context of
`
`the references Rutledge and Ligtenberg, Dr. Bajaj makes no mention of the
`
`Rutledge or Ligtenberg references in this section. To the extent that Dr. Bajaj is
`
`implying that the teachings of Rutledge or Ligtenberg are limited to the discussion
`
`10
`
`found in paragraphs 46-50 of his declaration, I disagree.
`
`36. For example, Dr. Bajaj explains that “[a] digital raster graphic format
`
`is, generally speaking, a set of 2D pixels (having x, y coordinates) of different
`
`colors.” (Ex. 2001 at ¶48). Dr. Bajaj doesn’t explain that this is true for all raster
`
`images when displayed on a screen or printed on paper regardless of whether the
`
`15
`
`source data is represented in 2D (x and y) or 3D (x, y and z) format.
`
`37. Referring to Fig. 1 of his declaration, Dr. Bajaj explains that Fig.1
`
`depicts “a composite image display is a 2D, “flat” image, like a snapshot, and at a
`
`certain display resolution.” (Ex. 2001 at Fig. 1; ¶47). However, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that, when placed properly in the context
`
`20
`
`of Rutledge and Ligtenberg, Fig.1 shows one of several possible renderings of the
`
`14
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`
`underlying data. Other renderings when placed properly in the context of Rutledge
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`and Ligtenberg would include inter alia the ability zoom in or out, effectively
`
`changing both the height above ground from the user’s point of view (effectively a
`
`change in the z dimension) and the amount of detail shown in the image
`
`5
`
`(resolution).
`
`38. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`inherently when viewing an image such as the map of Dr. Bajaj’s Fig. 1 that there
`
`is an implied height above ground that is related to the scale of the map. For
`
`example, as the user zooms in, the map fills more of the screen and the visible
`
`10
`
`resolution of the map increases. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that this zooming in/out on a map is a change in viewing frustum – as
`
`the user zooms out, the viewing frustum moves away from the image; as the user
`
`zooms in, the viewing frustum moves towards the image.
`
`39. Similarly, when panning, the image moves horizontally and/or
`
`15
`
`vertically across the screen. Again, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that panning is also a change in viewing frustum – for example, as the
`
`user pans East, the viewing frustum moves East.
`
`40. Thus, it is my opinion that Dr. Bajaj has not presented an overview of
`
`composite image rendering in the context of the references Rutledge and
`
`20
`
`Ligtenberg. Rather, he has provided a brief overview of 2D rendering that ignores
`
`15
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1015
`
`

`
`
`the richness of the teachings the Rutledge and Ligtenberg references when viewed
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art in their proper context.
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Bajaj’s Discussion of “3D” Scene Rendering is
`Incomplete
`
`5
`
`41.
`
`In paragraphs 51-55 of his declaration, Dr. Bajaj partially describes
`
`the process of rendering a 3D image. As before, despite the title of the section
`
`implying that h