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
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________
`
`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
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-
`EXAMINATION
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Scheduling Order dated December 30, 2015 (Paper
`
`17), Patent Owner Bradium Technologies LLC (“Bradium”) respectfully submits
`
`this Motion for Observations on Cross-Examination of Dr. William Michalson,
`
`who was deposed on August 5, 2016.
`
`1.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 10, line 12 to page 11, line 14, Dr.
`
`Michalson testified that Dr. Bajaj refers to GIS within a chapter authored by Dr.
`
`Bajaj within Exhibit 2002, which are page proofs for a book edited by Dr. Bajaj.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 27) at Page 2. The
`
`testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s argument that Dr. Bajaj does not have
`
`geographic information systems (GIS) experience.
`
`2.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 11, line 22 to page 12, line 16, Dr.
`
`Michalson testified that Exhibit 2002, page proofs for a book edited by Dr. Bajaj,
`
`includes a figure with an image of the earth with caption “Pressure distribution
`
`around the earth globe.” This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s Reply (Paper
`
`27) at Page 2. The testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s argument that Dr. Bajaj
`
`does not have geographic information systems (GIS) experience.
`
`3.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 14, line 9 to page 15, line 14, Dr. Michalson
`
`testified that Exhibit 2003, an article with Dr. Bajaj as first listed author, refers to
`
`graphical information systems (GIS), and that Dr. Michalson had not previously
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`reviewed the article. This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 27) at
`
`Page 2. The testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s argument that Dr. Bajaj does not
`
`have geographic information systems (GIS) experience.
`
`4.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 27, lines 14 to 17, Dr. Michalson testifies
`
`that he agrees that GIS is a multidisciplinary area of study. This testimony is
`
`relevant to Exhibit 1015, paragraph 15. This testimony is relevant to Dr.
`
`Michalson’s requirement that a POSA have knowledge and experience with GIS.
`
`5.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 25, line 15 to page 27, line 2, Dr. Michalson
`
`testifies that Exhibit 2005 states that the background of those involved in the
`
`development of GIS includes persons with computer science background. This
`
`testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 27) at Page 2. The testimony is
`
`relevant to Petitioner’s argument that Dr. Bajaj does not have geographic
`
`information systems (GIS) experience.
`
`6.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 27, lines 3 to 13, Dr. Michalson testifies that
`
`Exhibit 2005 states that the essence of GIS is its multidisciplinary character. This
`
`testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 27) at Page 2. The testimony is
`
`relevant to Petitioner’s argument that Dr. Bajaj does not have geographic
`
`information systems (GIS) experience.
`
`7.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 21, lines 3 to 22, Dr. Michalson testifies that
`
`Exhibit 2005 is a reference that he cited in Exhibit 2004, his prior expert report.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`This testimony is relevant to Exhibit 2011, on page 26, lines 3 to 13. This
`
`testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s testimony regarding Exhibit 2005.
`
`8.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 24, lines 1 to 10, Dr. Michalson testifies that
`
`Exhibit 2005 was not provided to him by Microsoft. This testimony is relevant to
`
`Exhibit 2011, on page 26, lines 3 to 13. The testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s
`
`argument that Dr. Bajaj does not have geographic information systems (GIS)
`
`experience.
`
`9.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 35, line 17 to page 36, line 3, Dr. Michalson
`
`testifies that in his prior declaration, Exhibit 2006, he states that a POSA is a
`
`hypothetical person to whom an expert in the relevant field could assign a routine
`
`task with reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully carried out.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Exhibit 1015, paragraph 15. This testimony is
`
`relevant to Dr. Michalson’s requirement that a POSA have knowledge and
`
`experience with GIS.
`
`10.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 34, line 24 to page 35 line 7, Dr. Michalson
`
`testifies that Exhibit 2006 is an excerpt of a declaration that he submitted in
`
`November 2015. This testimony is relevant to Exhibit 2011 at page 35, line 17 to
`
`page 36, line 3. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s testimony regarding
`
`Exhibit 2006.
`
`11.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 17, lines 18 to 24, Dr. Michalson testifies
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`that Exhibit 2004 states that computer-based GIS have been used since at least the
`
`late 1960s. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s Declaration (Exhibit
`
`1008) at ¶¶ 104–05. The testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s and Petitioner’s
`
`argument that a POSA would have been motivated to combine the asserted
`
`references as of October 1999 because the reference address similar technology
`
`problems and are applicable to mapping-related applications.
`
`12.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 16, lines 6 to 20, Dr. Michalson testified that
`
`Exhibit 2004 is an expert report authored by Dr. Michalson that includes his
`
`signature. This testimony is relevant to Exhibit 2011, on page 17, lines 18 to 24.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s testimony regarding Exhibit 2004.
`
`13.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 19, lines 7 to page 20, line 6, Dr. Michalson
`
`testifies that Exhibit 2004 states that by the mid 1980’s it was known that there
`
`were many ways that GIS data could be stored, and that the manner in which data
`
`are stored impacts the time and computer resources required to effectively use the
`
`data. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s Declaration (Exhibit 1008) at
`
`¶¶ 104–05. The testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s and Petitioner’s argument
`
`that a POSA would have been motivated to combine the asserted references as of
`
`October 1999 because the reference address similar technology problems and are
`
`applicable to mapping-related applications.
`
`14.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 31, lines 8 to 15, Dr. Michalson testifies that
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2005 states that GIS had become widely accepted as of the late 1980’s in
`
`North America. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s Declaration (Exhibit
`
`1008) at ¶¶ 104–05. The testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s and Petitioner’s
`
`argument that a POSA would have been motivated to combine the asserted
`
`references as of October 1999 because the reference address similar technology
`
`problems and are applicable to mapping-related applications.
`
`15.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 25, lines 15 to 20, Dr. Michalson testifies
`
`that Exhibit 2005 states that specialist GIS conferences took place from 1974
`
`onwards. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s Declaration (Exhibit 1008)
`
`at ¶¶ 104–05. The testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s and Petitioner’s
`
`argument that a POSA would have been motivated as of October 1999 to combine
`
`the asserted references because the reference address similar technology problems
`
`and are applicable to mapping-related applications.
`
`16.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 28, lines 8 to 15, Dr. Michalson testifies that
`
`Exhibit 2005 states that the progression of GIS development includes a mixture of
`
`failures, setbacks and diversions, in addition to successes. This testimony is
`
`relevant to Dr. Michalson’s Declaration (Exhibit 1008) at ¶¶ 104–05. The
`
`testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s and Petitioner’s argument that a POSA
`
`would have been motivated to combine the asserted references because the
`
`reference address similar technology problems and are applicable to mapping-
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`related applications.
`
`17.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 28, line 23 to page 29, line 7, Dr. Michalson
`
`testifies that Exhibit 2005 states that the number of failures in the field of GIS have
`
`been numerous. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s Declaration (Exhibit
`
`1008) at ¶¶ 104–05. The testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s and Petitioner’s
`
`argument that a POSA would have been motivated to combine the asserted
`
`references because the reference address similar technology problems and are
`
`applicable to mapping-related applications.
`
`18.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 29, line 19 to page 30, line 16, Dr.
`
`Michalson testifies that Exhibit 2005, states that desire for greater speed or
`
`efficiency was a known motivation for development of GIS as of 1991 (the
`
`publication date of Exhibit 2005). This testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s
`
`Declaration (Exhibit 1008) at ¶¶ 120, 195. The testimony is relevant to Dr.
`
`Michalson’s argument that a POSA would have been motivated to combine the
`
`asserted references in 1999 in order to enhance speed and efficiency.
`
`19.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 37, line 23 to page 38, line 23, Dr.
`
`Michalson testifies that the preferred progressive mesh (PM) technique of Cooper
`
`is to deliver a base mesh, M0, following by a sequence of mesh modification
`
`records, each of which is delivered in a specific sequence, M1, M2, M3, etc., all the
`
`way up to the end of the sequence. This testimony is relevant to Exhibit 1015 at
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`¶¶ 183–84. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s argument that “the
`
`prioritization of Cooper results in data updates within an object” and that “the
`
`features of Cooper…to utilize the priority queue in order to retrieve successive
`
`data updates within the same object (i.e., progressive regional resolution
`
`enhancement).”
`
`20.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 42, line 11 to page 43, line 6, Dr. Michalson
`
`testified that the Hoppe article, Appendix N to Exhibit 1008, describes that a
`
`conventional progressive mesh technique whereby a course base mesh, M0, is
`
`combined with detail records in sequence, M1, M2, M3, up to N number of detail
`
`records, to build up the fully-detailed mesh. This testimony is relevant to Exhibit
`
`1015 at ¶¶ 183–84. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s argument that
`
`“the prioritization of Cooper results in data updates within an object” and that “the
`
`features of Cooper…to utilize the priority queue in order to retrieve successive
`
`data updates within the same object (i.e., progressive regional resolution
`
`enhancement).”
`
`21.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 43, line 17 to page 44, line 6, Dr. Michalson
`
`testified that the Hoppe article describes that cycle-preserving PM (progressive
`
`mesh) also is encoded as a base mesh and a sequence of mesh modification
`
`records. This testimony is relevant to Exhibit 1015 at ¶¶ 183–84. This testimony
`
`is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s argument that “the prioritization of Cooper results in
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`data updates within an object” and that “the features of Cooper…to utilize the
`
`priority queue in order to retrieve successive data updates within the same object
`
`(i.e., progressive regional resolution enhancement).”
`
`22.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 49, lines 9 to 16 Dr. Michalson testifies that
`
`the Hoppe article, Appendix N to Exhibit 1008, lists five bullet points. This
`
`testimony is relevant to Exhibit 2011, on page 53, lines 9 to 18. This testimony is
`
`relevant to Dr. Michalson’s testimony regarding the five bullet points of the Hoppe
`
`article.
`
`23.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 52, lines 5 to 9, Dr. Michalson testifies that
`
`the five bullet points listed in the Hoppe article, Appendix N to Exhibit 1008, refer
`
`to practical problems with a highly-detailed geometric model. This testimony is
`
`relevant to Exhibit 2011, on page 53, lines 9 to 18. This testimony is relevant to
`
`Dr. Michalson’s testimony regarding the five bullet points of the Hoppe article.
`
`24.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 53, lines 9 to 18, Dr. Michalson testified that
`
`one bullet point of the Hoppe article refers to additional transmission time that
`
`would be required to transmit successive LOD (level of detail) approximations.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Exhibit 1015 ¶ 184. This testimony is relevant to Dr.
`
`Michalson’s argument that “it would be obvious to apply this teaching of Cooper
`
`to retrieve tiles of progressively increasing resolution form the same portion of a
`
`scene.”
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`25.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 53, line 19 to page 54, line 3, Dr. Michalson
`
`testified that one bullet point of the Hoppe article refers to perceptible “popping”
`
`as one of the practical problems with instantaneous switching between LOD
`
`meshes. This testimony is relevant to Exhibit 1015 ¶ 184. This testimony is
`
`relevant to Dr. Michalson’s argument that “it would be obvious to apply this
`
`teaching of Cooper to retrieve tiles of progressively increasing resolution form the
`
`same portion of a scene.”
`
`26.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 54 line 24 to page 55, line 10, Dr. Michalson
`
`testified that Migdal states that in a preferred implementation high-end computer
`
`graphics work station is used. This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s Reply
`
`(Paper 27) at pages 17–18. This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s argument that
`
`the assertion that Migdal has a high computation and bandwidth load is
`
`“conclusory” and “vague”.
`
`27.
`
` In Exhibit 2011, on page 70, line 9 to page 71, line 19, Dr. Michalson
`
`testifies that Migdal describes Figure 1B as a conventional example of polygon
`
`perspective to which MIP mapping can be applied, and that Migdal also explains
`
`that conventional MIP mapping has a significant drawback in the amount of
`
`memory used. This testimony is relevant to Exhibit 1015 ¶¶ 115–17. The
`
`testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s argument that a Figure 1B of Migdal
`
`would motivate a POSA to combine the asserted references.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`28.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 68, line 3 to page 69, line 9, Dr. Michalson
`
`testified that the background rectangle in figure 1B is a larger area than the
`
`polygons in the foreground area. This testimony is relevant to Exhibit 1015 ¶¶
`
`115–17. The testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s argument that a Figure 1B
`
`of Migdal would motivate a POSA to combine the asserted references.
`
`29.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 63, line 17 to page 64, line 9, Dr. Michalson
`
`testifies that he does not know if Migdal describes how the background rectangle
`
`of Figure 1B of Migdal is constructed. This testimony is relevant to Exhibit 1015
`
`¶¶ 115–17. The testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s argument that a Figure
`
`1B of Migdal would motivate a POSA to combine the asserted references.
`
`30.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 65 line 18 to page 66, line 7, Dr. Michalson
`
`testifies that he does not know if Migdal addresses what the background rectangle
`
`of Figure 1B consists of or is composed of. This testimony is relevant to Exhibit
`
`1015 ¶¶ 115–17. The testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s argument that a
`
`Figure 1B of Migdal would motivate a POSA to combine the asserted references.
`
`31.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 62, line 18 to page 63, line 2, Dr. Michalson
`
`testified that the paragraph of Migdal that mentions Figure 1B does not include the
`
`word “tile.” This testimony is relevant to Exhibit 1015 ¶¶ 115–17. The testimony
`
`is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s argument that a Figure 1B of Migdal would motivate
`
`a POSA to combine the asserted references.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`32.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 74, line 5 to page 75, line 11, Dr. Michalson
`
`testifies that Figure 4B of Rutledge shows the jump feature of the view menu of
`
`Figure 4A, and that the jump feature lists locations in alphabetical order. This
`
`testimony is relevant to Exhibit 1015 ¶ 152. The testimony is relevant to Dr.
`
`Michalson’s argument that Rutledge would require panning with “incremental,
`
`ongoing calculation, as each time the eyepoint advances one pixel width, a new
`
`texel row is loaded from mass storage.”
`
`33.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 78, line 10 to page 79, line 13, Dr.
`
`Michalson testifies that Figure 4C of Rutledge represents the move command, and
`
`that Figure 4C includes radio buttons to select “miles” or “kilometers.” This
`
`testimony is relevant to Exhibit 1015 ¶ 152. The testimony is relevant to Dr.
`
`Michalson’s argument that Rutledge would require panning with “incremental,
`
`ongoing calculation, as each time the eyepoint advances one pixel width, a new
`
`texel row is loaded from mass storage.”
`
`34.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 79, line 24 to page 80, line 23, Dr.
`
`Michalson testifies that “an interpretation” of the square boxes next to the “N”,
`
`“S”, “E”, “W” arrows of Figure 4C of Rutledge would be entry boxes for typing a
`
`numeric entry. This testimony is relevant to Exhibit 1015 ¶ 152. The testimony is
`
`relevant to Dr. Michalson’s argument that Rutledge would require panning with
`
`“incremental, ongoing calculation, as each time the eyepoint advances one pixel
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`width, a new texel row is loaded from mass storage.”
`
`35.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 80, line 24 to page 81, line 3, Dr. Michalson
`
`testifies that Figure 4C of Rutledge shows a “move” button bolded at the bottom
`
`right of the figure. This testimony is relevant to Exhibit 1015 ¶ 152. The
`
`testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s argument that Rutledge would require
`
`panning with “incremental, ongoing calculation, as each time the eyepoint
`
`advances one pixel width, a new texel row is loaded from mass storage.”
`
`36.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 82, lines 4 to 13, Dr. Michalson testifies that
`
`Ligtenberg refers to an active file format that is constructed to eliminate redundant
`
`information, with the trade-off being the need to reconstruct the image at any given
`
`resolution. This testimony is relevant to Exhibit 1008 ¶ 190. The testimony is
`
`relevant to Dr. Michalson’s argument that Ligtenberg allows “independent access
`
`to image tiles” and lends itself to “bandwidth-efficient image fetching”.
`
`37.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 91, line 8 to page 92, line 6, Dr. Michalson
`
`testifies that Ligtenberg discloses an iterative process for reconstructing an image
`
`at Figure 4 and column 11 starting at line 31, and further that every layer of the file
`
`format consists of four subimages (LL, LH, HL, LL) although “typically, the LL
`
`image is not present because it can be reconstructed from the previous layer.” This
`
`testimony is relevant to Exhibit 1008 ¶ 190. The testimony is relevant to Dr.
`
`Michalson’s argument that Ligtenberg allows “independent access to image tiles”
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`and lends itself to “bandwidth-efficient image fetching”.
`
`38.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 83, lines 4 to 19, Dr. Michalson testifies that
`
`Ligtenberg states that, because the user is generally unaware of tile boundaries, a
`
`smaller tile size will reduce the amount of unwanted image portions that are
`
`“reconstructed”. This testimony is relevant to Exhibit 1008 ¶ 190. The testimony
`
`is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s argument that Ligtenberg lends itself to “bandwidth-
`
`efficient image fetching”.
`
`39.
`
`In Exhibit 2011, on page 95, lines 12 to 22, Dr. Michalson testifies
`
`that, the code comment in Appendix A of Ligtenberg refers to a way of accessing
`
`an image via accessing four subimages (LL, LH, HL, and HH) and then
`
`reconstructing the image from these four subimages. This testimony is relevant to
`
`Exhibit 1008 ¶ 190. The testimony is relevant to Dr. Michalson’s argument that
`
`Ligtenberg allows “independent access to image tiles” and lends itself to
`
`“bandwidth-efficient image fetching”.
`
`
`Dated: August 15, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Chris Coulson/
`Chris Coulson (Reg. No. 32,098)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`Fax: (212) 425-5288
`CCoulson@kenyon.com
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on August 15,
`
`2016, the foregoing Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on Cross-
`
`Examination were served via electronic mail upon the following counsel of record
`
`for the Petitioner:
`
`Bing Ai (Reg. No. 43,312)
`Matthew Bernstein (pro hac vice)
`Vinay Sathe (Reg. No. 55,595)
`Patrick McKeever (Reg. No. 66,019)
`PerkinsServiceBradiumIPR@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Chris Coulson/
`Chris Coulson
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`Fax: (212) 425-5288
`CCoulson@kenyon.com
`
`1
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
