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 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 27 (Replacement with Corrected Cites for Ex. 1015)
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`June 23, 2016
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`2.
`
`UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST .................................................................................... II
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II.
`THE RELEVANT FIELD OF ART INCLUDES GEOGRAPHIC
`INFORMATION SYSTEMS ......................................................................... 1
`III. A POSITA WOULD HAVE COMBINED THE PRIOR ART
`REFERENCES IN THE PETITION .............................................................. 2
`A.
`Combining 3D visualization techniques with 2D geographic
`imagery was well-known in the art of GIS .......................................... 2
`B. A POSITA would have combined Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and
`Cooper because accessing map tiles according to a 3D
`viewpoint is an obvious and straightforward application of
`Cooper .................................................................................................. 5
`1.
`A POSITA would recognize that Cooper’s priority
`algorithm would improve either 2D or 3D visualization
`of map data ................................................................................. 5
`A POSITA would use the prioritization of Cooper to
`optimize retrieval and display of the multi-resolution map
`tiles of Rutledge and Ligtenberg ................................................ 9
`C. A POSITA would have applied the Cooper priority queue to
`Rutledge and Ligtenberg .................................................................... 14
`D. A POSITA would have combined Rutledge, Ligtenberg,
`Cooper and Migdal ............................................................................. 15
`IV. CLAIM 1 IS OBVIOUS OVER RUTLEDGE, LIGTENBERG, AND
`COOPER ....................................................................................................... 19
`A.
`The combination of Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Cooper teaches
`retrieving the map tiles of Rutledge and Ligtenberg according
`to the priority-based algorithm of Cooper .......................................... 19
`The combination of Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Cooper teaches
`the determination of priority based on a predetermined
`resolution ............................................................................................ 20
`CLAIM 2 IS OBVIOUS OVER RUTLEDGE, LIGTENBERG,
`COOPER, AND MIGDAL ........................................................................... 22
`
`B.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`A.
`
`The combination teaches retrieving image parcels in a priority
`order .................................................................................................... 22
`The combination teaches progressive regional resolution
`enhancement ....................................................................................... 22
`The combination of Rutledge, Ligtenberg, Cooper, and Migdal
`discloses “wherein said step of rendering limits the selective
`rendering of said image parcels to image parcels having
`associated resolutions less than a predetermined level.” ................... 25
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 26
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,139,794 B2 to Levanon et al. (“the 794 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002 Declaration of Judea d’Arnaud, attaching the article Maps Alive:
`Viewing Geospatial Information on the WWW, Michael Potmesil,
`Computer Networks and ISDN Systems Vol. 29, issues 8-13, pp.
`1327-1342 (“Potmesil”) as Exhibit A.
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`PCT Publication No. WO 1999/041675 by Cecil V. Hornbacker, III
`(“Hornbacker”)
`
`Ex. 1004 U.S. Pat. No. 5,682,441 to Adrianus Ligtenberg et al. (“Ligtenberg”)
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Pat. No. 6,650,998 to Charles Wayne Rutledge et al.
`
`
`(“Rutledge”)
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Pat. No. 6,118,456 to David G. Cooper (“Cooper”)
`
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Pat. No. 5,760,783 to Migdal et al. (“Migdal”)
`
`Ex. 1008 Declaration of Prof. William R. Michalson
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Six Provisional Applications from which the 794 Patent claims
`priorities.
`
`EP1070290 to Cecil V. Hornbacker, III from a European national
`application based on PCT Publication No. WO 1999/041675 (Ex.
`1003)
`
`An Integrated Global GIS and Visual Simulation System by P.
`Lindstrom et al., Tech. Rep. GIT-GVU-97-07, March 1997
`(“Lindstrom”)
`
`Ex. 1012 Declaration of Dr. Peter Lindstrom (including Exhibits A, B and C)
`regarding the publication of the 1997 article entitled “An Integrated
`Global GIS and Visual Simulation System” which is Ex. 1011
`(“Lindstrom”)
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
` Ex. 1013 Declaration of Mr. Charles Randall Carpenter (including Exhibits A,
`B, C and D) regarding the publication of 1997 article entitled “An
`Integrated Global GIS and Visual Simulation System” which is Ex.
`1011 (“Lindstrom”)
`
`Ex. 1014 Affidavit of Matthew C. Bernstein in Support of Petitioner Microsoft
`Corporation's Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission Under 37 C.F.R.
`§42.10(c)
`
`Ex. 1015 Declaration of Prof. William R. Michalson in Support of Petitioner’s
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board instituted this IPR based on a finding of reasonable likelihood
`
`that Petitioner Microsoft would prevail in showing the obviousness of claim 1 over
`
`Rutledge (Ex. 1005), Ligtenberg (Ex. 1004) and Cooper (Ex. 1006), and of claim 2
`
`over Rutledge, Ligtenberg, Cooper and Migdal (Ex. 1007). Patent Owner
`
`Bradium’s Response (“Response,” Paper 24) and accompanying Bajaj Declaration
`
`(Ex. 2001) do not rebut Microsoft’s showing of unpatentability.
`
`The Response raises several arguments that lack support in, and often
`
`contradict, the record evidence. The Response assumes that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (POSITA) would never have considered teachings regarding the
`
`organization of 2D map imagery in combination with teachings relating to the 3D
`
`presentation of graphics data. Paper 24 at 4-17; Ex. 2001, ¶¶77-106. The evidence
`
`of record demonstrate that such combinations were well-known to a POSITA long
`
`before the 794 Patent’s priority date.
`
`For the reasons explained in the Petition, this Reply, and Petitioner’s
`
`supporting declarations, including the Reply Declaration of Dr. Michalson (Ex.
`
`1015), claims 1 and 2 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`II. THE RELEVANT FIELD OF ART INCLUDES GEOGRAPHIC
`INFORMATION SYSTEMS
`
`Bradium’s Response assumes a flawed and incomplete definition of a
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`POSITA. Ex. 2001, ¶¶20-23. The 794 Patent emphasizes that its techniques
`
`address issues arising in complex images “such as geographic, topographic, and
`
`other highly detailed maps” (Ex. 1001, 1:32-47; see also 5:54-62; 8:36-49 and
`
`11:13:20) and explicitly describes use of geographic information systems (GIS).
`
`(Id. 6:27-41). Therefore, Dr. Michalson explained that a POSITA would require
`
`some knowledge and experience with GIS. Ex. 1008, ¶¶ 29, 31-32.
`
`Bradium’s and Dr. Bajaj’s definitions of a POSITA ignore the 794 Patent’s
`
`teachings about the relevance of GIS. While Dr. Michalson has extensive GIS
`
`experience (Ex. 1008, ¶¶ 12-19 and Appendix A), there is no suggestion in the
`
`record that Dr. Bajaj personally has any GIS experience. Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 6-13,
`
`Appendix A. Dr. Michalson explains that even a person without GIS experience
`
`would consider the knowledge in the art of GIS highly relevant to the problem
`
`presented by the 794 Patent and not ignore it entirely as Dr. Bajaj does. Ex. 1015,
`
`¶¶ 11-25.
`
`III. A POSITA WOULD HAVE COMBINED THE PRIOR ART
`REFERENCES IN THE PETITION
`A. Combining 3D visualization techniques with 2D geographic
`imagery was well-known in the art of GIS
`
`Bradium’s arguments against the instituted prior art combinations rely on the
`
`faulty assumption that “the 2D image data described by Rutledge and Ligtenberg is
`
`fundamentally different than the 3D object data described by Cooper.” Response at
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`1. Bradium’s assumption, repeated throughout the Response, is that a POSITA
`
`would only consider Rutledge and Ligtenberg in the context of a 2D display. Such
`
`arguments ignore the reality that a POSITA would have been aware of the
`
`widespread knowledge in the GIS field that 3D perspective views could be used to
`
`realistically visualize geographic imagery. Prior art references must be read in
`
`context, taking into account the general knowledge possessed by a POSITA at the
`
`time of the claimed invention. In Re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1259-
`
`62 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As the Petition notes, Migdal explicitly teaches using 3D
`
`image rendering techniques to display perspective views of 2D geographic source
`
`image data such as aerial textures, and satellite imagery. Paper 2 at 54:19-55:10,
`
`Ex. 1007 at 2:45-51, 2:65-3:3, 5:66-6:5. Fig. 1B of Migdal shows how 2D
`
`polygons representing ground regions are viewed from a 3D perspective, while the
`
`accompanying text at 2:11-28 explains the need to display higher resolution for
`
`foreground regions rather than background regions:
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Michalson’s 2015 Declaration explains how the use of 3D visualization
`
`techniques to provide a perspective view (a.k.a. a “synthetic view”) of terrain
`
`images such as maps or aerial or satellite photography was well-known in the art.
`
`Ex. 1008, ¶¶ 44, 66-68, 74-76. Such synthetic views use 3D visualization
`
`techniques to view 2D source data, e.g. tiles representing aerial or satellite images.
`
`Ex. 1015, ¶¶ 46-48. Numerous other examples of known prior art utilizing 2D tiles
`
`to create 3D image views existed and were cited in the Petition and Michalson’s
`
`2015 Declaration, but ignored by Bradium. See, e.g. Ex. 1008, ¶¶ 99-100, citing
`
`Ex. 1002 at 1329-33; Ex. 1008, ¶¶ 281, 286, citing Ex. 1008 App. E at 15-19, e.g.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`Fig. 3; Ex. 1008, ¶357, 359, 365 citing Ex. 1008 App. R.1 Because such a
`
`combination of techniques was well-known prior to the alleged invention in the
`
`794 Patent, the use of 3D visualization techniques such as those described in
`
`Cooper and Migdal to view map tile images such as those described by Rutledge
`
`and Midgal are taught by the prior art and thus are not “hindsight” as Bradium
`
`asserts.
`
`B. A POSITA would have combined Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and
`Cooper because accessing map tiles according to a 3D viewpoint is
`an obvious and straightforward application of Cooper
`1.
`
`A POSITA would recognize that Cooper’s priority
`algorithm would improve either 2D or 3D visualization of
`map data
`
`Dr. Michalson explains that to a POSITA there is no “fundamental
`
`difference” between 3D and 2D imagery that would preclude utilizing the
`
`viewpoint and priority features of Cooper with the geographic image tiles of
`
`
`1 Petitioner cites these references to “document the knowledge that skilled artisans
`
`would bring to bear in reading the prior art” and rebut Bradium’s argument that a
`
`POSITA would not combine 2D GIS and 3D visualization techniques.
`
`Genzyme Therapeutic Products Ltd. P'ship v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., No. 2015-
`
`1720, 2016 WL 3254734, *6 (Fed. Cir. 2016); quoting Ariosa Diagnostics v.
`
`Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`Rutledge and Ligtenberg, as Bradium argues. Ex. 1015, ¶¶ 111-17. The system
`
`described in Cooper would not become inoperative simply because the vertices of
`
`adjacent polygons were located in the same plane, or even if all polygons in the
`
`viewing area were located in the same plane. Ex. 1015, ¶¶ 118-21. Indeed, the
`
`exemplary images shown in Figs. 3A and 3B of Cooper depict several horizontal
`
`surfaces (such as the floor and the tops of chairs and the table) viewed from the
`
`perspective of the simulated viewpoint. Ex. 1006, Figs. 3A, 3B; Ex. 1015, ¶ 119:
`
`
`
`A scenario in which the objects displayed by Cooper are simply polygons
`
`containing the map image tiles of Rutledge and Ligtenberg is actually a very
`
`simple, easily implemented example of the teachings of Cooper. Ex. 1015, ¶ 121.
`
`As the Petition explained, Ligtenberg explicitly teaches the need and
`
`techniques to optimize I/O bandwidth use by selectively retrieving and rendering
`
`images at a desired resolution, while Cooper further teaches using prioritization
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`algorithms to identify the most needed visual data items for a particular viewpoint.
`
`Paper 2 at 42-45. Therefore, a POSITA would recognize that Cooper, in a related
`
`field, provides an efficient solution to a well-known need in the art for efficient 3D
`
`viewpoint visualization of map data, by prioritizing the resolution at which map
`
`data is retrieved and displayed. Paper 2 at 47-48, 50-52, 54-57. Migdal further
`
`proves that a POSITA would use a 3D visualization system to retrieve 2D texture
`
`tiles, including map imagery (e.g. satellite images and aerial photographs). Paper 2
`
`at 53-54.
`
`Because Cooper teaches efficiently prioritizing the retrieval of objects
`
`displayed at varying resolutions when viewed from a specified viewpoint, the
`
`specified advantages of Cooper are equally applicable when retrieving map image
`
`tiles to operate as (e.g.) a flight simulator as they are retrieving any other object in
`
`a 3D scene. Ex. 1015, ¶ 122. A POSITA would therefore recognize that Rutledge,
`
`Ligtenberg, and Cooper address a related problem of limited network bandwidth
`
`when downloading imagery data. Paper 2 at 41-44; also 45-43; Ex. 1008, ¶¶ 173-
`
`200. Viewed in this context, Bradium’s central argument that “the concepts of
`
`ranking the importance of 3D polygonal objects cannot be directly applied to 2D
`
`image-based graphics” (Response at 4) is wrong.
`
`Bradium’s arguments on this issue all fail in light of the context of the
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`claimed technology and the teachings in the prior art. Cooper teaches using a 3D
`
`viewpoint to retrieve and display graphic objects and that the objects closest to the
`
`viewpoint “assume greater degrees of visual importance” (Response at 6-7)
`
`regardless of whether they are map tiles or they are simulated objects. Therefore,
`
`Cooper’s teaching to prioritize retrieval of graphic objects to reduce visual latency
`
`in a realistic-looking browser is relevant. Paper 2 at 42-43; Ex. 1015, ¶ 122.
`
`Cooper’s teaching to optimize bandwidth usage by prioritizing downloading
`
`of graphic objects that contribute most to the visual value of a scene applies
`
`whether the scene is viewed from an angle or from directly above, in which case
`
`the position of the view approximates a 2D view with a given position and zoom
`
`level. Ex. 1015, ¶ 123-24. Notably, the teaching in the 794 Patent itself refutes
`
`Bradium’s argument and expressly acknowledges that it was known in the art. For
`
`example, the 794 Patent admits that U.S. Pat. No. 6,182,114 to Yap et al. teaches
`
`prioritizing retrieval of image data closest to a focus point or foveal region to
`
`“progressively build[] image resolution” starting with the image blocks
`
`contributing most to the visual quality of the scene. Ex. 1001, 2:19-35. While the
`
`specification of the 794 Patent states that such admitted prior art would not
`
`function with limited client processing power or limited network bandwidth (Ex.
`
`1001, 2:36-55, 3:4-28), claims 1 and 2 lack these limitations.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`A POSITA would use the prioritization of Cooper to
`optimize retrieval and display of the multi-resolution map
`tiles of Rutledge and Ligtenberg
`
`2.
`
`Bradium’s arguments relating to specific implementation details of Cooper
`
`also fail both legally and factually. Ex. 1015, ¶¶ 125-39. First, Bradium’s
`
`arguments rely on an incorrect legal standard because they are premised on
`
`whether a POSITA would be able to actually and physically combine the full
`
`systems described in the references, not whether the claimed subject matter of the
`
`claims as a whole would be obvious in view of the specific teachings cited in the
`
`Petition. “It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on
`
`teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution
`
`of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Rather, the test
`
`is “whether a person of ordinary skill in the art, possessed with the understandings
`
`and knowledge reflected in the prior art, and motivated by the general problem
`
`facing the inventor, would have been led to make the combination recited in the
`
`claims.” Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 990
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2006). Only Petitioner and its expert analyzed the references under the
`
`correct standard.
`
`In addition, Bradium’s arguments directed to collateral features or specific
`
`implementation details of Cooper are wrong. For example, Bradium argues that a
`
`POSITA would not combine Cooper with Rutledge or Ligtenberg because Cooper
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`is directed to an “I/O bandwidth limited system” while Ligtenberg and Rutledge
`
`describe a “simpler computational environment” without “constraints on data
`
`transfer” (Response at 5-6) because the tiles are “always viewed at [sic]
`
`perpendicularly to the image plane.” This argument ignores the well-known
`
`background in the art that 2D tiles such as those described in Rutledge and
`
`Ligtenberg can be used in 3D environments. Because using the visualization
`
`system of Cooper to visualize aerial or satellite imagery from a simulated
`
`viewpoint does “mimic a real-world scene,” the assumption of “frame continuity”
`
`(Response at 4-5) which is enabled (but not required) by the system of Cooper is
`
`satisfied. Ex. 1015, ¶ 126.
`
`Bradium repeatedly attempts to distinguish the objects of Cooper from the
`
`tiles of Rutledge and Ligtenberg with several variations of the argument that the
`
`objects of Cooper are visually distinct while the tiles of Rutledge and Ligtenberg
`
`form a single coherent view. Response at 7-17. This purported distinction is
`
`nonsensical- the separate tiles at varying resolutions of Ligtenberg and Rutledge
`
`combine to form what appears to a user as a coherent image, just as the objects of
`
`Cooper combine from the user viewpoint to form a coherent scene. Ex. 1015, ¶
`
`128. A POSITA would recognize that the distinction vanishes when the viewpoint-
`
`dependent priority algorithm is applied to retrieve map tiles at varying levels of
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`detail as the data objects of Cooper. Id.
`
`Likewise, a POSITA would not consider the “bounding box” of Cooper to
`
`be an impediment to combining the asserted references. Cooper’s “bounding box”
`
`is simply an expedient implementation detail (unrelated to the claims of the 794
`
`Patent and not relied on in the Petition or by Dr. Michalson) which helps the
`
`prioritization algorithm compare objects with different levels of detail. Ex. 1015, ¶
`
`129. A POSITA would recognize the benefit of utilizing Cooper’s prioritization
`
`algorithm to conserve bandwidth by first requesting the map tiles contributing most
`
`to the scene regardless of whether bounding boxes were used. Id., ¶ 129. A
`
`POSITA would also recognize that a “bounding box” could easily define the same
`
`area as a map tile. Id. Therefore, a POSITA would combine the teachings of
`
`Cooper, Rutledge or Ligtenberg, whether or not such a POSITA chose to use the
`
`“bounding box” described by Cooper. Id.
`
`Bradium also argued that the individual values within Cooper’s assessment
`
`function would be inapplicable to retrieve 2D map tile data (Response at 24-30).
`
`This argument fails for several reasons.
`
`First, Bradium again relies on the faulty premise that a POSITA would not
`
`consider 2D map data tiles applicable to 3D views, as discussed above. Second, it
`
`would not be necessary for a POSITA to use each value from the assessment
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`function described in Cooper for the combination to practice the claims. Cooper
`
`teaches that the weights of individual values may be specified as necessary to the
`
`application and may be zero if a particular value is not used. Ex. 1006 at 9:38-41,
`
`9:53-64; Ex. 1015, ¶ 130. As Dr. Michalson explains, a POSITA would recognize
`
`that the values described for the assessment function in Cooper are applicable to
`
`the combination described in the Petition:
`
`Screen Area: The Response (at 25) confuses the area of the source tile with
`
`the area of the tile as displayed on the screen. When map tiles are viewed from a
`
`non-orthogonal perspective, as in a flight simulator or virtual reality (see, e.g. Ex.
`
`1006 at 1:12-15) tiles may occupy more screen area based on their proximity to the
`
`simulated viewpoint and the perspective at which they are viewed, which may be
`
`calculated by the same method described in Cooper. Ex. 1006, 8:7-19; Ex. 1015, ¶¶
`
`131-32.
`
`Distance: The Response (at 25-26) relies on the false assumption that 2D
`
`tiles cannot be viewed from a 3D perspective. However, Cooper’s distance
`
`parameter is equally applicable if the objects to be retrieved are map tiles viewed
`
`from a 3D perspective. Ex. 1015, ¶ 133.
`
`Focal Point and Movement: The Response (at 26-29) relies on the incorrect
`
`assumption that 2D tiles cannot be viewed from a 3D perspective. However, when
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`a user is navigating through a virtual environment- such as a flight simulator- the
`
`assumptions that the user will naturally focus on imagery appearing in the direction
`
`of movement, as well as imagery moving toward the user, apply to tiles as well as
`
`more complex polygons. Ex. 1015, ¶¶ 134-37. Indeed, the focal point and
`
`movement values also apply in a 2D environment when an image is panned, based
`
`on the rationale that a user is more likely to be looking at imagery in the direction
`
`of motion. The 794 Patent admits that the prior art taught prioritizing a foveation
`
`point or foveal area based on the direction of panning and thus contradicts the
`
`Response and Bajaj Declaration. Ex. 1001, 2:19-35; Ex. 1015, ¶ 135.
`
`Frames Ignored is relevant to virtual environments using 2D source data.
`
`The Response (at 29-30) incorrectly assumes that this feature could only refer to a
`
`particular tile having received or not received “its data;” however, a POSITA
`
`would recognize that the rationale in Cooper for using this value (Ex. 1006, 9:44-
`
`50) also applies when the tiles in a particular region have only been downloaded at
`
`very low resolution and have not received updated tiles at higher resolution for a
`
`long time. Ex. 1015, ¶ 139.
`
`Finally, the Message value simply provides an optional application-specific
`
`way to make subjective adjustments to the value of certain imagery, which would
`
`be just as applicable to the combination of Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Cooper. Ex.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`1006, 9:35-41, Ex. 1015, ¶ 138.
`
`C. A POSITA would have applied the Cooper priority queue to
`Rutledge and Ligtenberg
`
`Pages 30-37 of Bradium’s Response largely repeat its rejected arguments
`
`from the Preliminary Response claiming that the Petition failed to provide reasons
`
`to combine Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Cooper, without attempting to explain why
`
`the Board’s reasoning in its Institution Decision was incorrect. Paper 15 at 15-20,
`
`23-25. Bradium’s arguments in this section largely revert back to its flawed core
`
`assertion that a POSITA would not have considered 2D tiles and 3D virtual
`
`environments relevant to each other, which is refuted at length in §§III.A and III.B
`
`above. Response at 30-34, 36-37. Bradium also argues that “[n]either Rutledge nor
`
`Ligtenberg states or even implies that their tiles were prone to the visual latency
`
`complications that eroded the visual richness of the more complex images of
`
`Cooper.” Response at 35. Yet it is well-established that the motivation to combine
`
`“need not be found in the references sought to be combined, but may be found in
`
`any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or
`
`the nature of the problem itself.” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland
`
`KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Where “a technique
`
`has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR
`
`Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Here, as the Petition and Dr.
`
`Michalson explained, in view of the well-known desire in the art to visualize
`
`images such as large-scale photorealistic maps in a visually intuitive manner, a
`
`POSITA would have combined Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Cooper to benefit from
`
`features such as Ligtenberg’s reduced I/O and CPU utilization, Cooper’s efficient
`
`use of network bandwidth, and Cooper’s realistic looking experience browsing a
`
`virtual environment with reduced visual latency. Paper 2 at 43-45; Ex. 1008, ¶¶ 66-
`
`68, 72-75, 193-200.
`
`D. A POSITA would have combined Rutledge, Ligtenberg, Cooper
`and Migdal
`
`Bradium’s arguments that a POSITA would not have combined Rutledge,
`
`Ligtenberg, Cooper and Migdal fail at least because Bradium fails to address the
`
`combination as a whole and only attacks subsets of the combination (Response at
`
`37-38 on Migdal with Rutledge or Ligtenberg and 39-40 on Migdal with Cooper).
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Personalized Media Communications, LLC, IPR2014-01533,
`
`2016 WL 932881, at *8 (PTAB Mar. 8, 2016), citing In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800
`
`F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by
`
`attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of
`
`a combination of references”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`Bradium also fails to respond to the Petition and Dr. Michalson’s explanation why
`
`a POSITA would have combined the four references. Paper 2 at 53-60; Ex. 1008,
`
`¶¶ 246-77. For example, Migdal teaches the use of 2D “mip-maps” based on data
`
`such as large-scale satellite and aerial imagery, which further shows why a
`
`POSITA would have readily understood the applicability of 2D imagery at varying
`
`levels of detail to 3D visualization techniques (such as that described in Cooper),
`
`and teaches techniques for further reducing memory and processor requirements of
`
`a user device for rendering map and image data. Paper 2 at 53-60; Paper 15 at 25-
`
`26.
`
`Bradium’s arguments regarding the alleged incompatibility of individual
`
`pairs of references within the combination also fail. Bradium argues that Migdal is
`
`incompatible with the “2D tile-based” approach of Rutledge and Ligtenberg.
`
`Response at 37-38, Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 107-14. Yet Migdal itself is based on 2D tiles,
`
`including both the “mip-maps” in the underlying data set and the “clip-map”
`
`selected for a particular view, with the preferred embodiment of these tiles
`
`described as large-scale photographic satellite or aerial terrain images. Ex. 1007,
`
`1:45-2:28, 5:44-59, 8:21-43 (describing mip-map and clip-map composition), 2:45-
`
`51, 8:65-9:17; Ex. 1015, ¶¶ 145-51. Bradium argues that the preferred embodiment
`
`of Migdal which expands the “clip-map” one pixel row at a time would be
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`incompatible with Rutledge or Ligtenberg. However, a POSITA would understand
`
`that any real-time rendering system allowing smooth motion would likely update
`
`the pixels displayed on the screen one row at a time, but this rendering step does
`
`not preclude retrieving full source tiles from the underlying mip-map according to
`
`a prioritization algorithm. Ex. 1015, ¶ 152. Bradium’s argument that Migdal is
`
`incompatible with Ligtenberg because of compression is incorrect both because (1)
`
`as Bradium admits, compression is not required for Ligtenberg to operate
`
`(Response at 38 and Ex. 2001, ¶ 113, citing Ex. 1004 Fig. 2, 6:11-13), and is not
`
`required by claim 2 of the 794 Patent, and (2) it was well-known before the 794
`
`Patent to use compressed textures in conjunction with three-dimensional rendering
`
`technologies, using conventional techniques which would not have presented a
`
`significant obstacle to a POSITA. Ex. 1015, ¶¶ 26-31, 84, 153. Furthermore,
`
`Bradium asserts that Migdal has “high computational and I/O requirements” that
`
`are somehow incompatible with Cooper. Response at 37-40, Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 122-24.
`
`These conclusory assertions fail because beyond vague statements about one
`
`system having a “high” computation and bandwidth load and the other being
`
`“limited,” they do not provide any actual evidence that Migdal’s 3D rendering
`
`method and Cooper’s 3D object retrieval and rendering method could not be
`
`integrated on the same system. In fact, Migdal specifically points out that its
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01432
`Patent No. 7,139,794 B2
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 27
`
`
`techniques are not limited to an exemplary high-end system described therein, and
`
`that a POSITA could implement the invention in alternative environments. Ex.
`
`1007, 7:22-30; Ex. 1015, ¶¶ 155-57. Indeed, even in a system with high processing
`
`power and bandwidth, a POSITA would still desire to optimize the use of such
`
`power and bandwidth in order to maximize the performance of the system.
`
`Cooper’s teachings of a prioritized data retrieval algorithm to efficiently retrieve
`
`data are applicable in a “system with a large amount of bandwidth. Ex. 1015, ¶¶
`
`155-57. Notably, claim 2 of the 794 Patent itself does not impose any limitations
`
`on the computational power or bandwidth of the device practicing the claimed
`
`method.
`
`Bradium also argues that Cooper “has a client memory management
`
`problem that would cause the system to stall” (Response at 40-41). This
`
`characterization of Cooper has no bearing on the prior art combination at issue.
`
`B