Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 15
`Date Entered: December 23, 2015.
`
`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
`____________
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 15
`Date Entered: December 23, 2015.
`
`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
`____________
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition, Paper 2 (“Pet.”),
`to institute an inter partes review of claims 1 and 2 (the “challenged
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,139,794 B2 (“the ’794 Patent”). 35 U.S.C.
`§ 311. Bradium Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a
`Preliminary Response, Paper 12 (“Prelim. Resp.”), contending that the
`Petition should be denied as to all challenged claims. We have jurisdiction
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter
`partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the
`Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would
`prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`Having considered that arguments and the associated evidence
`presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, for the reasons
`described below, we institute an inter partes review of all the challenged
`claims based on the grounds identified with specificity in the analysis that
`follows.
`
`REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`Petitioner states that Microsoft Corporation constitutes all the real
`parties in interest in this proceeding. Pet. 2.
`
`PENDING LITIGATION
`The Petition states that the ’794 Patent and two related patents, U.S.
`Patent Nos. 7,908,343 B2 and 8,924,506 B2, which are also the subject of
`petitions for inter partes review,1 have been asserted against Petitioner in
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 7,908,343 B2 is the subject of IPR2015-01434. U.S.
`Patent No. 8,924,506 B2 is the subject of IPR2015-01435.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`Bradium Techs. LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 1:15-cv-00031-RGA in the District
`of Delaware.
`
`THE ’794 PATENT (EXHIBIT 1001)
`The ’794 Patent concerns reducing latency in 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, col. 1, ll. 32–47. According to the ’794 Patent,
`conventional approaches, such as progressive resolution build-up of the
`image in the current field of view, presume that client systems have an
`excess of computing performance and memory storage that is not available
`in smaller devices, such as embedded clients, or in limited bandwidth
`circumstances. Id. at col. 1, ll. 48–58, col. 3, ll. 4–29. The ’794 Patent
`describes an image distribution system having a network image server and a
`client system, in which a client can input a navigational command to adjust a
`3D viewing frustum for the image displayed on the client system. Id. at
`col. 5, ll. 23–53. The ’794 Patent describes achieving dynamic visualization
`of image data provided through a communications channel by a client
`system including a parcel request system and a parcel rendering system. Id.
`at col. 3, ll. 42–47. Figure 2 of the ’794 Patent shown below illustrates the
`preparation of an image parcel and overlay data set that are to be stored by
`and served from a network server system in accordance with a preferred
`embodiment. Id. at col. 4, ll. 54–56.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 shows image parcel and overlay data stored on a server.
`As shown in Figure 2, high resolution image data is pre-processed by
`the image server into a series K1-N derivative images of progressively lower
`image resolution. Id. at col. 5, l. 54–col. 6, l. 6. The source image is also
`subdivided into a regular array of 64 by 64 pixel resolution image parcels, or
`image tiles, and each image parcel may be compressed to fit into a single
`TCP/IP packet for faster transmission. Id. at col. 6, ll. 6–22, col. 7, ll. 30–
`49.
`
`Figure 3 of the ’749 Patent shown below is a block diagram of the
`operation of the parcel request and parcel processing subsystem.
`
`
`Figure 3 is a block diagram of a client system image presentation system.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`When the viewing point is changed in response to a navigation
`command, the control block determines the ordered priority of image parcels
`to be requested from the server to support progressive rendering of the
`image. Id. at col. 7, ll. 19–22. Image parcel requests are placed in a queue
`and issued by the parcel request subsystem based on priority. Id. at col. 7,
`ll. 22–24, col. 8, ll. 24–36. The priority is determined based on a number of
`factors, including: whether the image parcel is outside the viewing frustum,
`id. at col. 9, ll. 26–29; the resolution of the client display (to avoid
`downloading and processing image parcels that cannot provide any
`perceptible improvement in the displayed image), id. at col. 8, l. 54–col. 9,
`l. 4; the relative contribution of the parcel to total display quality of the
`image (e.g., assigning higher priority to parcels near the focal point of the
`viewer), id. at col. 10, ll. 20–38; and completeness of the image (e.g.,
`assigning high priority to lower resolution parcels to assure a complete
`image of at least low resolution will be available for fast rendering), id. at
`col. 10, ll. 11–19.
`The ’794 Patent states that its disclosed technology can achieve faster
`image transfer by (1) dividing the source image into parcels/tiles (id. at
`col. 6, ll. 1–16), (2) processing the parcels/tiles into a series of progressively
`lower resolution parcels/tiles (id.), and (3) requesting and transmitting the
`parcels/tiles needed for a particular viewpoint in a priority order, generally
`lower-resolution tiles first. Id. at col. 3, l. 38–col. 4, l. 42.
`After the image parcels are requested and received, an algorithm is
`applied to select image parcels for rendering and display and overlay data,
`e.g., street names and landmarks, may be added. Id. at col. 8, ll. 37–51.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLAIMS OF THE ’749 PATENT
`The ’749 Patent has two claims. Claim 1 is drawn to a system:
`1. A client system for dynamic visualization of image
`data provided through a network communications
`channel, said client system comprising:
`a parcel request subsystem, including a parcel request
`queue, operative to request discrete image data parcels
`in a priority order and to store received image data
`parcels in a parcel data store, said parcel request
`subsystem being responsive to an image parcel
`request of assigned priority to place said image parcel
`request in said parcel request queue ordered in
`correspondence with said assigned priority;
`an parcel rendering subsystem coupled to said parcel data
`store to selectively retrieve and render received image
`data parcels to a display memory, said parcel
`rendering system providing said parcel request
`subsystem with said image parcel request of said
`assigned priority;
`wherein said parcel rendering subsystem determines said
`assigned priority based on a determined optimal
`image resolution level;
`wherein said display memory is coupled to an image
`display of predetermined resolution and wherein said
`determined optimal image resolution level is based on
`said predetermined resolution;
`the
`wherein said assigned priority further reflects
`proximity of the image parcel referenced by said
`image parcel request to a predetermined focal point;
`wherein said discrete image data parcels are of a first
`fixed size as received by said parcel request
`subsystem and of a second fixed size as rendered by
`said parcel rendering subsystem; and
`wherein said discrete image data parcels each includes a
`fixed-size array of pixel data.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`Claim 2 is drawn to a method:
`2. A method of supporting dynamic visualization of
`image data transferred through a communications
`channel, said method comprising the steps of:
`determining, in response to user navigational commands,
`a viewpoint orientation with respect to an image
`displayed within a three-dimensional space;
`requesting, in a priority order, image parcels renderable
`as corresponding regions of said image, each said
`image parcel having an associated resolution, wherein
`said priority order
`is determined
`to provide a
`progressive regional resolution enhancement of said
`image as each said image parcel is rendered;
`receiving a plurality of image parcels through said
`communications channel;
`rendering said plurality of image parcels to provide said
`image;
`wherein said step of receiving includes the step of storing
`said plurality of image parcels in an image store and
`wherein said step of rendering provides for the
`selective rendering of said plurality of image parcels
`having the highest associated resolutions to the
`corresponding regions of said image;
`wherein said step of rendering limits the selective
`rendering of said image parcels to image parcels
`having
`associated
`resolutions
`less
`than
`a
`predetermined level;
`wherein said step of rendering selectively renders said
`plurality of image parcels as the unique textures for
`the corresponding regions of said image; and
`wherein said priority order is re-evaluated in response to
`a change in said viewpoint orientation.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Potmesil
`
`Ex. 1002, Ex. A
`(“Ex. 1002A”)
`
`Lindstrom
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`ART CITED IN PETITIONER’S CHALLENGES
`Petitioner cites the following references in its challenges to patentability:
`Reference
`Designation
`Exhibit No.
`Michael Potmesil, Maps
`Alive: Viewing Geospatial
`Information on the WWW,
`Computer Networks and
`ISDN Systems, Vol. 29, No.
`7, pp. 1327–1342, Aug.
`1997
`Peter Lindstrom et al.,
`An Integrated Global GIS
`and Visual Simulation
`System, Graphics,
`Visualization & Usability
`Center, Georgia Institute of
`Technology, undated2
`PCT Publication No. WO
`1999/041675, Network
`Image View Server Using
`Efficient Client-Server,
`Tiling And Caching
`Architecture, Cecil V.
`Hornbacker, III, published
`Aug. 19, 1999
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,650,998 B1
`issued Nov. 18, 2003
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,682,441
`issued Oct. 28, 1997
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,118,456
`issued Sept. 12, 2000
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,760,783
`issued June 2, 1998
`
`Hornbacker
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Rutledge
`
`Ligtenberg
`
`Cooper
`
`Migdal
`
`
`
`
`2 Petitioner asserts this document was published in March, 1997. Pet. 14
`(citing Declaration of Dr. Peter Lindstrom, Ex. 1012 (“Lindstrom Dec.” and
`Declaration of Charles Randall Carpenter, Ex. 1013 (“Carpenter Decl.”)).
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`CHALLENGES ASSERTED IN PETITION
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Statutory Basis
`
`1 and 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Challenge
`Obvious over the
`combination of
`Potmesil, Lindstrom,
`and Hornbacker
`Obvious over the
`combination of
`Rutledge, Ligtenberg,
`and Cooper
`Obvious over the
`combination of
`Rutledge, Ligtenberg,
`Cooper, and Migdal
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their “broadest reasonable construction in light of
`the specification of the patent” in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC., 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015) (“Congress implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly
`adopted by PTO regulation.”). Applying that standard, we interpret the
`claim terms according to their ordinary and customary meaning in the
`context of the patent’s written description. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner
`proposes that any of the terms be construed to have any meaning other than
`their ordinary meaning, as used in the specification. See Pet. 12–13
`(identifying how certain terms in the claims are used in accordance with
`their ordinary meaning in the specification).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`Although neither party has proposed any specific terms for
`construction, we are persuaded that the term “image parcel” requires
`construction. The ’794 Patent describes source image data as being
`subdivided into a regular array, such that each resulting “image parcel” of
`the array has a pixel resolution, e.g., 64 by 64 pixel resolution where the
`image has a color or bit per pixel depth of 16 bits, which represents a data
`parcel size of 8 K bytes. Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 4–16. Any image parcel can be
`located by specifying X, Y, and KD, where X and Y are the image array
`coordinates and D is the image set resolution index. Id. at col. 6, ll. 23–26.
`Thus, we construe “image parcel” to be an element of an image array, with
`the image parcel being specified by the X and Y position in the image array
`coordinates and an image set resolution index.
`We agree that no other specific claim constructions are required and
`we accord the claim terms their ordinary meaning as used in the ’749 Patent
`specification.
`
`REFERENCES ARGUED AS NOT APPLICABLE PRIOR ART
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that
`Potmesil (Ex. 1002A) and Lindstrom (Ex. 1011) constitute applicable prior
`art references. Prelim. Resp. 3–12. Although Patent Owner acknowledges
`that Petitioner has provided declarations supporting its position that the
`references are qualifying prior art, Patent Owner argues that conclusory
`statements in the Petition do not satisfy the requirement to provide full
`statement of the reasons, as required by 37 C.F.R. 42.22(a)(2). Id. at 4, 9.
`We address each of the references separately.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`
`Potmesil
`Petitioner submits Potmesil as Exhibit A to the Declaration of
`Judea d’Arnaud. Ex. 1002 (“d’Arnaud Decl.”). For purposes of this
`Decision, we reference Potmesil as Ex. 1002A. As the Resource Sharing
`Supervisor of the Geisel Library at the University of California, where she
`has been employed for nearly 17 years, Ms. d’Arnaud testifies concerning
`the library’s normal procedures for the date when the library receives a
`periodical, including the placement of a sticker on or near the date of receipt
`on the periodical. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 1–4. Having compared Ex. 1002A to the
`physical copy at the library, Ms. d’Arnaud further testifies that Ex1002A is a
`true and accurate electronic facsimile reproduction of the Library’s physical
`copy, including the cover sticker attached to the journal by the Library
`indicating receipt on November 6, 1997. Ex. 1002 ¶ 5. Ms. d’Arnaud’s
`declaration is dated May 12, 2014. Based on Ms. d’Arnaud’s statement that
`she has been employed at the library for “nearly 17 years,” it is unclear if
`Ms. d’Arnaud was employed at the library on November 6, 1997.3
`Ms. d’Arnaud’s declaration does not state whether her testimony is based on
`actual knowledge of the procedures in place on November 6, 1997, and does
`not describe steps she may have taken to ascertain the procedures in place at
`that time. In addition, Ms. d’Arnaud’s testimony that “someone with
`knowledge that the Library received the periodical” would have made the
`sticker indicates that Ms. d’Arnaud does not testify from personal
`knowledge of the sticker’s creation.
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has not shown in the Petition
`that Potmesil was publicly accessible prior to the critical date. Prelim. Resp.
`
`
`3 17 years prior to May 12, 2014, would be May 12, 1997.
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`4, 9. Patent Owner contends that the library sticker Ms. d’Arnaud relies
`upon is unauthenticated hearsay and that Petitioner has not shown that a
`hearsay exception applies. Id. at 10 (citing Apple Inc. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt.,
`Inc., IPR2015-00369, Paper 14 at 6–7 (PTAB Aug 12, 2015) (library stamp
`was hearsay and Petitioner failed to establish that hearsay exception
`applied)). Patent Owner notes numerous evidentiary deficiencies in
`Ms. d’Arnaud’s testimony, including the lack of evidence that she
`investigated the applicable circulation procedures from 1997 or has personal
`knowledge of such procedures. Id. at 10–11. Patent Owner also argues that
`the Petition and Potmesil contain insufficient information to authenticate
`Potmesil and the library sticker because one of the library stickers is
`partially obscured, the back cover page is missing, and the Petition’s
`reference to Potmesil as issues 8–13 is inconsistent with the purported cover
`page, which lists the issue as issue 7. Id. at 10.
`Notwithstanding any deficiencies in Ms. d’Arnaud’s testimony, as a
`periodical, “Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, The International
`Journal of Computer and Telecommunications Networking” (“the Journal”)
`is self-authenticating. Fed. R. Evid. 902(6). The relationship between
`Theme Issue FORTE 95, which lists articles beginning on pages 731 through
`861, and the Contents of Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 29 (1997)
`vii-xi, is not clear. The Contents lists articles beginning at page 865 (after
`an editorial and credits) through page 1531, including Potmesil, which
`begins at page 1327. Nevertheless, Patent Owner does not challenge
`Ms. d’Arnaud’s testimony that she has compared the electronic copy
`Petitioner provides of Potmesil, which bears a copyright notice stating the
`article was published by Elsevier Science B.V. in 1997, with the article
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`originally published in the Journal and they are the same. In view of the
`circumstances, including the self-authenticating nature of the Journal and the
`copyright notice indicating Potmesil was published by a reputable scientific
`journal publisher in 1997, for purposes of this Decision, we are persuaded
`that Potmesil can be applied in Petitioner’s challenge.
`Lindstrom
`Petitioner supports its contention that Lindstrom was published and
`accessible to the public with the declarations of author Peter Lindstrom (Ex.
`1012) and Charles Randall Carpenter (Ex. 1013), who, as manager of the
`Georgia Tech’s Graphics, Visualization and Usability (GVU) Center worked
`with Dr. Lindstrom in handling the publication, Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 3, 6. Unlike
`Potmesil, however, there is no evidence that technical reports published by
`the GVU Center qualify as self-authenticating periodicals under
`Fed. R. Evid. 902(6). Dr. Lindstrom and Mr. Carpenter testify that
`Lindstrom could be located by the general public through a search of the
`online Georgia Tech catalog and through an Internet or web search engine.
`Ex. 1012 ¶ 4; Ex. 1013 ¶ 6. Both declarants also testify that they checked
`the GVU FTP site in 1997 and observed that Lindstrom was in fact available
`for download in a location accessible to the public. Id.
`As Patent Owner notes, the declarations submitted by Dr. Lindstrom
`and Mr. Carpenter attest only to their verification that Lindstrom appeared
`on the GVU website and file transfer protocol (FTP) site. Viewed in the
`most favorable light, the declarations and the “wayback machine” evidence
`attached as Ex. D to Mr. Carpenter’s Declaration, indicate only that the
`Lindstrom was on the website. Neither declarant provides any evidence
`concerning how Lindstrom was catalogued or classified or how Lindstrom
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`could be located by interested persons using reasonable diligence. In re
`Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1314–16 (Fed. Cir. 2009). For example, although a
`list of keywords appears in Georgia Tech internal e-mails attached as
`Exhibits B and C to the Lindstrom and Carpenter Declarations, neither
`declaration nor the Petition describes how the list of the keywords could be
`used or identifies any other indexing that would lead a person exercising
`reasonable diligence to Lindstrom. Thus, we are not persuaded that
`Petitioner has demonstrated that Lindstrom is prior art that may be applied in
`Petitioner’s challenge.
`
`ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER’S PRIOR ART CHALLENGES
`In view of our determination that Petitioner has not demonstrated that
`Lindstrom is applicable prior art, we decline to institute a trial on
`Petitioner’s challenges that claims 1 and 2 are obvious over the combination
`of Potmesil, Lindstrom, and Hornbacker.
`We turn our attention to Petitioner’s remaining challenges.
`Petitioner’s challenges are all based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The
`question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness.
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1 as Obvious over the Combination of Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and
`Cooper
`Preamble: a client system for dynamic visualization of image data
`provided through a network communication channel
`Rutledge discloses a zoom layer system in which a user can display
`maps at various scales, each zoom layer corresponding to a predetermined
`scale, with the maps being stored in a map database and geographical
`regions available for display being categorized into tiles and zoom layers.
`Ex. 1005, col. 5, ll. 14–23, 50–53, col. 6, ll. 37–50, Fig. 3.
`Cooper discloses a method of assessing objects in a 3D graphical
`scene in which the most important objects in the scene from the viewer’s
`perspective are identified and reassessed for each scan of the scene, queued
`in priority order and sent to the server at a rate determined by available
`bandwidth. Ex. 1006, Abstract. Only data requests that can be responded to
`within the next update cycle are sent, in order to reduce latency. Id.
`Ligtenberg discloses decomposing an image into a number of images
`at various resolutions, subdividing at least some of these images into
`rectangular arrays (tiles) and storing a block (tile block) representing each of
`the tiles, along with an index that specifies the respective locations of the tile
`blocks. Ex. 1004, col. 2, ll. 31–38. Any desired portion of the image file
`can be retrieved and reconstructed at a desired one of the resolutions that
`characterize the reduced images generated during the decomposition
`process. Id. at col 3, ll. 17–26.
`Petitioner argues that Rutledge discloses a user terminal that,
`corresponding to the user’s viewpoint, downloads maps as image tiles stored
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`in a map database via a communication network. Pet. 45. According to
`Petitioner, the visualization is dynamic because a user can pan, zoom, and
`navigate through the image. Id. Petitioner cites Ligtenberg as disclosing a
`storage format and technique in which image data stored as tiles of multiple
`resolutions is sent from a server to a client for selective display. Id.
`Petitioner cites Cooper as disclosing a technique for retrieving image object
`data from a server using priorities based on an observer’s viewpoint and
`rendering the image on a user device. Id. at 45–46. Petitioner contends that
`a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that the map and image
`browsing technique of Rutledge would benefit from the file format of
`Ligtenberg and that the combined technique of Rutledge and Ligtenberg
`would benefit from Cooper’s data requests based on prioritization. Id. at 43.
`Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`combine these references because each of the references teaches
`incrementally sending data at multiple resolutions, based on the observer’s
`viewpoint, from a server to a client, i.e., (1) Rutledge teaches incrementally
`sending visual data from a server as map tiles based on a zoom layer,
`(2) Ligtenberg teaches sending tile blocks based on a layer of given
`resolution, and (3) Cooper teaches incrementally sending polygons
`representing the object in a priority based scheme. Id. at 43–44.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to consider that Cooper
`pertains to the prioritization of objects already in client memory, as opposed
`to objects or tiles that have yet to be received. Prelim. Resp. 45. Patent
`Owner contends that in Cooper, prioritization is limited to those objects that
`are visible on a 3-D scene of a client display system, but only partially have
`downloaded to the client and require the rest of their data to be received
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`from the server in order to be more accurately rendered on the scene. Id.
`Thus, according to Patent Owner, the “importance value” used in Cooper to
`establish priority can be determined for those objects with at least some of
`their data accessible at the client, but an object that has none of its data
`present in the client cannot have its importance value calculated. Id. at 46.
`Patent Owner contends that, for this reason, a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have understood that Cooper’s prioritization technique could be
`applied only to those objects whose data is accessible at the client and would
`not see this technique as compatible with requesting tiles, as in Rutledge or
`Ligtenberg, where the tiles have not yet been received. Id.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument based on Cooper,
`because Cooper discloses that object data is accessed for each object within
`a scene. In particular, Cooper discloses that a scene is rendered one object at
`a time each frame cycle, and that, to render a scene each frame, the display
`device accesses data from an object data table for each object within the
`scene. Ex. 1006, col. 5, ll. 57–65. Cooper’s streaming function, which
`determines the amount of available bandwidth, sends only as many data
`requests as can be expected to be filled by the server until the next frame
`update. Id. at col. 10, ll. 48–49; col. 11, ll. 9–12. In the case of the first
`frame for a scene, all the bandwidth is allocated to sending object data
`request messages. Id. at col. 10, ll. 65–67. In the next update cycle, objects
`that have no data deficit are dropped from the priority queue, “and objects
`remaining in the scene whose data was not requested will be re-prioritized
`by [the] object assessment function.” Id. at col. 11, ll. 15–19. Thus, in
`contrast to Patent Owner’s contention, Cooper discloses how to deal with
`objects that have not yet been received.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`In addition, when the scene updates, the first step in Cooper’s process
`is to identify the objects in the scene. Ex. 1006, col. 6, ll. 34–36; Fig. 4.
`Cooper discloses that to be accurately rendered, the object’s entire collection
`of polygons (i.e., object data) must have been transmitted from the server.
`Id. at col. 5, ll. 57–67. If the object needs more data than it currently has
`stored in the object data table, additional data must be transmitted from the
`server. Id. at col. 6, ll. 1–4. Recognizing that such data transfers consume
`bandwidth, to use bandwidth effectively Cooper discloses an object
`assessment function for visible objects in a scene that require more data (i.e.,
`have a data deficit) and a streaming function that sends data requests to the
`server for those objects, starting with the most important objects as queued
`in a priority queue by the object assessment function. Id. at col. 6, ll. 11–20.
`Data requests stop when it has been determined that the requested data
`exceeds the amount of data that can be returned before the next update cycle.
`Id. at col. 6, ll. 21–24. When a scene updates, for example when a user
`commanded viewpoint changes, all objects then queued to receive data are
`reprioritized, and objects that are no longer visible are removed from the
`queue, so that the most important objects for the current viewpoint are most
`accurately rendered. Id. at col. 6, l. 27–col. 7, l. 11; Fig. 4.
`We now address the specific limitations of claim 1.
`Element 1A: a parcel request subsystem, including a parcel request
`queue, operative to request discreet image data parcels in a priority order;
`Element 1C: said parcel request subsystem being responsive to an
`image parcel request of assigned priority to place said image parcel request
`in said parcel request queue ordered in correspondence with said assigned
`priority
`As discussed above, Petitioner cites Rutledge and Ligtenberg as
`disclosing map tiles stored as tiles of multiple resolutions. Pet. 45.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`Petitioner contends that Cooper discloses an object assessment function at a
`client that maintains a list of visible objects in a priority queue in accordance
`with an instantaneous viewpoint of a hypothetical viewer and a streaming
`function that manages the request and receipt of object data from a server by
`making requests in accordance with the contents of the priority queue,
`starting with the most important objects. Id. at 46–47 (citing Ex. 1006,
`Abstract, col. 4, ll. 61–62, col. 5, ll. 2–6, 16–19, col. 7, ll. 6–11).
`Acknowledging that Cooper discloses the object assessment function, Patent
`Owner argues that Petitioner fails to explain why a list of visible objects in a
`queue matches requests for image data parcels in a parcel request queue as
`claimed. Prelim. Resp. 47. Patent Owner further contends that Petitioner
`has not established that Cooper’s streaming function employs a “parcel
`request queue,” or that the streaming function requests object data “in a
`priority order.” Id. at 48. Petitioner notes that Cooper discloses the
`streaming function sends requests to the server starting with the most
`important object first. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1006, col. 4, ll. 48–60, col. 6,
`ll. 27–32, col. 7, ll. 16–44, col. 9, l. 65–col. 10, l. 2). As discussed above,
`Cooper’s object assessment function establishes the importance of visible
`objects and sets up a priority queue for objects that require additional data,
`and the steaming function works through the list of objects in the priority
`queue to fill up the available bandwidth with requests to the server the data
`that they require. Ex. 1006, col. 11, ll. 6–8. Cooper also discloses
`continuing to request data if there is a deficit. Id. at col. 11, ll. 15–21. For
`example, in the portions of Cooper cited by Petitioner, Cooper discloses that
`some objects may be rendered with a high resolution while others may have
`only their primitives transmitted and requests for data are prioritized so as to
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`more completely render those objects that contribute most to the scene. Id.
`at col. 7, ll. 6–8, 15–18. Thus, we are persuaded, for purposes of this
`Decision, that Cooper suggests a priority based image parcel queue.
`Element 1B: to store image data parcels in a parcel data store
`Petitioner cites Ligtenberg as disclosing that the client device
`downloads image portions and stores them in memory and Cooper as
`disclosing storing the received visual object at the client device. Pet. 47.
`Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s statement that it would have been
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill that the memory of Cooper or
`Ligtenberg can be combined with Rutledge’s disclosure of storing the image
`data received by Rutledge. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`argument that storing the image data, w
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
