UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE: To Be Assigned
`Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................................ ii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B) ............................ 1
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ..................................... 2
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 343 PATENT ............................................................. 4
`A.
`SUMMARY OF THE 343 PATENT ................................................... 4
`B.
`SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION FILE HISTORY........................... 8
`C.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................. 9
`D.
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................ 9
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE 343 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ...................... 9
`A.
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE REFERENCES AS PRIOR ART ....... 10
`B.
`SUMMARY OF INVALIDITY POSITIONS ................................... 10
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1-20 OF 343 PATENT ..................... 10
`A. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-9, 13 AND 17-19 ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER POTMESIL IN VIEW OF HORNBACKER ......................... 11
`GROUND 2: CLAIMS 10-12, 14-16 AND 20 ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER POTMESIL IN VIEW OF HORNBACKER AND
`LINDSTROM ..................................................................................... 27
`GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1, 2, 4-11 and 13-19 ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER RUTLEDGE IN VIEW OF LIGTENBERG AND
`COOPER ............................................................................................ 36
`D. GROUND 4: CLAIM 3 IS OBVIOUS OVER RUTLEDGE IN
`VIEW OF LIGTENBERG, COOPER AND HASSAN .................... 58
`GROUND 5: CLAIMS 12 AND 20 ARE OBVIOUS OVER
`RUTLEDGE IN VIEW OF LIGTENBERG, COOPER AND
`AUSTRENG ....................................................................................... 59
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 60
`
`E.
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`V.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,908,343 B2
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,908,343 B2 to Levanon et al. (“the 343 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
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`PCT Publication No. WO 99/41675 to Cecil V. Hornbacker, III
`(“Hornbacker”)
`
`An Integrated Global GIS and Visual Simulation System by P.
`Lindstrom et al., Tech. Rep. GIT-GVU-97-07, March 1997
`(“Lindstrom”).
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Pat. No. 5,682,441 to Adrianus Ligtenberg et al (“Ligtenberg”)
`
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Pat. No. 6,650,998 to Charles Wayne Rutledge et al (“Rutledge”)
`
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Pat. No. 6,118,456 to David G. Cooper (“Cooper”)
`
`Ex. 1008 WO 98/15920 to David Kelly Austreng (“Austreng”)
`
`Ex. 1009 Declaration of Prof. William R. Michalson
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Provisional Applications to which the 343 Patent claims priority
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`EP1070290 to Cecil V. Hornbacker, III
`
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Pat. No. 5,940,117 to Amer Hassan et al (“Hassan”)
`
`Ex. 1013 Numbering of Claim Elements of Challenged Claims of the 343
`Patent
`
`Ex. 1014 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. 1004
`(“Lindstrom”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,908,343 B2
`
`Ex. 1015 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.
`1004 (“Lindstrom”)
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Microsoft Corporation
`
`(“Microsoft” or “Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-
`
`20 of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2 (“the 343 Patent,” Ex. 1001), currently owned by
`
`5
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC (“Bradium” or “Patent Owner”). This Petition shows
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least
`
`one of the claims 1-20 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). As demonstrated by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence in this Petition in compliance with 35 U.S.C. §
`
`316(e), claims 1-20 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103. Petitioner
`
`10
`
`respectfully requests the Office to institute a trial for IPR and to cancel claims 1-20.
`
`This Petition is a remedial measure for correcting the issuance of invalid claims in
`
`the original examination and is necessitated by Patent Owner’s improper
`
`enforcement of the invalid claims.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST: Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(2) and 37
`
`15
`
`C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1), Petitioner Microsoft constitutes all real parties in interest for
`
`this proceeding. RELATED MATTERS: The 343 Patent and two other patents in
`
`the same family, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,139,794 and 8,924,506, are being asserted
`
`against Petitioner in an on-going patent infringement lawsuit brought by Patent
`
`20
`
`Owner in Bradium Techs. LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 1:15-cv-00031-RGA, filed in
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Jan. 9, 2015. In addition,
`
`Petitioner is pursuing IPR petitions against the asserted 794 and 506 Patents.
`
`NOTICE OF COUNSEL AND SERVICE INFORMATION: Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4) and 42.10(a), Petitioner appoints Bing Ai (Reg.
`
`5
`
`No. 43,312) as its lead counsel, Matthew Bernstein (pro hac vice), Vinay Sathe
`
`(Reg. No. 55,595) and Patrick N. McKeever (Reg. No. 66,019) as its back-up
`
`counsel. Petitioner also requests authorization to file a motion for Mr. Bernstein to
`
`appear pro hac vice. The above attorneys are all at the mailing address of Perkins
`
`Coie LLP, 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350, San Diego, CA 92130, contact
`
`10
`
`numbers of 858-720-5700 (phone) and 858-720-5799 (fax), and the following
`
`email for service and all communications:
`
`PerkinsServiceBradiumIPR@perkinscoie.com. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b),
`
`a Power of Attorney for appointing the above counsel is concurrently filed.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`This Petition complies with all statutory requirements and requirements
`
`15
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104, 42.105 and 42.15 and thus should be accorded a filing
`
`date as the date of filing of this Petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.106.
`
`Pursuant to § 42.104(a), Petitioner hereby certifies that the 343 Patent is
`
`available for IPR and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting
`
`20
`
`inter partes review challenging claims of the 343 Patent on the grounds identified
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`herein. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) and 42.22, the precise relief requested
`
`is that the Board institute an IPR trial on Claims 1-20 and cancel the claims on the
`
`grounds and evidence presented in this Petition. Claims Challenged: Claims 1-20
`
`of the 343 Patent. The Prior Art: The prior art references relied upon are 7
`
`5
`
`references listed in the Exhibit List (1) Potmesil (Ex. A of Ex. 1002), (2)
`
`Hornbacker (Ex. 1003), (3) Lindstrom (Ex. 1004 and associated Ex. 1014 and Ex.
`
`1015), (4) Ligtenberg (Ex. 1005), (5) URutledge (Ex. 1006), (6) Cooper (Ex. 1007),
`
`(7) Austreng (Ex. 1008), and (7) Hassan (Ex. 1012).Supporting Evidence Relied
`
`Upon For The Challenge: The Declaration of Prof. William R. Michalson (Ex.
`
`10
`
`1009) supporting the invalidity grounds in this Petition and other supporting
`
`evidence in the Exhibit List are filed herewith.Statutory Ground(s) Of Challenge
`
`And Legal Principles: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(2), the review of
`
`patentability of claims 1-20 of the 343 Patent requested in this Petition is governed
`
`by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 that were in effect before March 16, 2013.
`
`15
`
`Further, statutory provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 to 319 and 325 that took effect on
`
`September 16, 2012 govern this IPR. Claim Construction: The 343 Patent has not
`
`expired. In IPR, the Office shall give a claim in an unexpired patent “its broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears” to one of ordinary skill in the art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). How Claims Are
`
`20
`
`Unpatentable Under Statutory Grounds: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(4),
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`Section VI provides an explanation of how claims 1-20 are unpatentable and
`
`specifies where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or
`
`printed publications relied upon.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 343 PATENT
`The 343 Patent is entitled “Optimized Image Delivery Over Limited
`
`5
`
`Bandwidth Communication Channels” and was granted on March 15, 2011 from
`
`non-provisional App. No. 12/619,643 filed on Nov. 16, 2009. Per USPTO record,
`
`the 343 Patent is currently assigned to Bradium by an assignment dated June 17,
`
`2013. The 343 patent has one child patent, the ‘506 patent and a pending
`
`10
`
`grandchild patent application No. 14/547,148 filed on Nov. 19, 2014. There has
`
`been no post-grant proceeding on the 343 Patent. The 343 Patent is a continuation
`
`of App. No. 10/035,987, filed on Dec. 24, 2001 (Pat. No. 7,644,131) which further
`
`claims priority to six provisional applications, App. Nos. 60/258,488, 60/258,489,
`
`60/258,465, 60/258,468, 60/258,466, and 60/258,467, all filed on Dec. 27, 2000.
`
`15
`
`Based on the USPTO record, the earliest priority date of the 343 Patent is no
`
`earlier than Dec. 27, 2000.
`
`A.
`PATENT
`
`SUMMARY OF THE 343
`
`The “Background” of the 343 Patent
`
`20
`
`describes a “well recognized problem” of
`
`how to reduce the latency for transmitting full resolution images over the Internet,
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`so such images can be received on an “as needed” basis, particularly for “complex
`
`images” such as “geographic, topographic, and other highly detailed maps.” Ex.
`
`1001, 1:34-51. The 343 Patent admits that solutions already in existence included
`
`“transmitting the image in highly compressed formats that support progressive
`
`5
`
`resolution build-up of the image within the current client field of view.” Id., 1:51-
`
`61. Such “conventional” solutions, like the ones described in U.S. Pat. Nos.
`
`4,698,689 (Tzou) and 6,182,114 (Yap), however, usually “presume that client
`
`systems have an excess of computing performance, memory and storage” and are
`
`“generally unworkable for smaller, often dedicated or embedded” clients. Id., 1:51-
`
`10
`
`2:58. The 343 Patent states that the conventional solutions do not work well under
`
`“limited network bandwidth” situations. Id., 3:7-31.
`
`To address these perceived issues in the existing art, the 343 Patent purports
`
`to disclose a system capable of “optimally presenting image data on client systems
`
`with potentially limited processing performance, resources, and communications
`
`15
`
`bandwidth.” Id., 3:40-43. Specifically, the 343 Patent describes an image
`
`distribution system having a network image server and a client system, where a
`
`user can input navigational command to adjust a 3D viewing frustum for the image
`
`displayed on the client system. Id., 5:24-53. High-resolution source image data is
`
`pre-processed by the image server into a series K1-N of derivative images of
`
`20
`
`progressively lower image resolution. Id., 5:54-6:6, Fig. 2. The source image is
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`also subdivided into a regular array of 64 by 64 pixel resolution image parcels
`
`(a.k.a. image tiles), and each image parcel may be compressed to fit into a single
`
`TCP/IP packet for faster transmission. Id., 6:6-22; 7:28-46.
`
`The client system has a “parcel request” subsystem to request image parcels
`
`5
`
`from the server, a “control block” that directs the transfer of received image
`
`parcels and overlay data to a local parcel data store. Id., 6:42-62. The control block
`
`decompresses the image parcels
`
`and directs a “rendering engine” to
`
`render them. Id., 6:63-65; Fig. 3.
`
`10
`
`When the viewing point is
`
`changed in response to a user
`
`navigation command, the control block “determines the ordered priority of image
`
`parcels to be requested from the server . . . to support the progressive rendering of
`
`the displayed image.” Id., 7:17-20. Image parcel requests are then placed in a
`
`15
`
`request queue, and are to be issued by the parcel request subsystem according to
`
`each request’s assigned priority. Id., 7:20-22; 8:20-32. Although various factors
`
`may affect the priority assigned to a parcel request, e.g., the “resolution of the
`
`client display” (8:50-67) or whether the image parcel is “outside of the viewing
`
`frustum” (9:23-26), generally speaking, “image parcels with lower resolution
`
`20
`
`levels will accumulate greater priority values,” so “a complete image of at least
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`low resolution will be available for rendering” in a fast manner (10:6-14). In
`
`addition, the control parameter for calculating the priority can be set in a way that
`
`gives “higher priority for parcels covering areas near the focal point of the viewer”
`
`to make sure that image parcels are requested “based on the relative contribution of
`
`5
`
`the image parcel data to the total display quality of the image.” Id., 10:15-33.
`
`After the needed image parcels are requested and received, an algorithm is
`
`used to select the image parcels for rendering and display. Id., 8:33-38. Overlay
`
`data may also be added to the display if its image coordinates matches the current
`
`image parcel location. Id., 8:42-47.
`
`10
`
`The 343 Patent states that the disclosed technology can achieve faster image
`
`transfer by (1) dividing the 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 needed parcels/tiles in a priority order, generally
`
`lower-resolution tiles first.
`
`15
`
`As shown by this Petition, the 343 Patent is merely repetitive of the long
`
`history of prior art publications on relevant technical features that the Patent
`
`Owner attempts to claim as its own years later. See, e.g., Michalson’s Declaration
`
`in Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 32-76 in “VI. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND OF THE 343
`
`PATENT.” As shown in Section VI of this Petition, all of these features and their
`
`20
`
`combinations in claims 1-20 were known or predictable and/or obvious
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`combinations of the prior art features, and were published prior to the earliest
`
`priority date of the 343 Patent. Id., ¶¶ 92-294. Prof. Michalson opines that claims
`
`1-20 are obvious for additional grounds. Id., ¶¶ 295-471. Claims 1-20 of the 343
`
`Patent reflect the Patent Owner’s belated effort to “re-patent” subject matter that
`
`5
`
`was already in the public domain.
`
`SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION FILE HISTORY
`
`B.
`In the original examination of the 343 Patent, the Examiner relied on an
`
`incomplete record of prior art and thus did not know that the subject matter of the
`
`issued claims 1-20 was well known and published by others before its filing date
`
`10
`
`and thus was not patentable. The incomplete record of the original examination is
`
`shown by cited prior art references in this Petition and additional prior art
`
`references in Prof. Michalson’s declaration, such as Potmesil, Hornbacker,
`
`Rutledge, Ligtenberg, Lindstrom, Cooper and others. In addition, the file history
`
`contains no discussions on the prior art U.S. Patent No. 6,182,114 (Yap) listed on
`
`15
`
`the face of the 343 Patent and is mentioned in the “Background of the Invention.”.
`
`This lack of specific discussion of Yap with respect to claims 1-20 is an oversight
`
`by the Examiner because the disclosure of Yap is highly relevant and is material to
`
`the patentability of claims 1-20. Notably, Prof. Michalson opines that claims 1-20
`
`are obvious over Yap in view of additional prior art. Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 389-465.
`
`20
`
`This Petition is a remedial measure for correcting the unfortunate outcome
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`of issuing the invalid claims 1-20 in the 343 Patent due to the lack of a fuller and
`
`more complete record of relevant prior art as well as lack of adequate consideration
`
`of relevant teaching in the cited prior art in the original examination.
`
`C. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) for the 343 Patent should
`
`5
`
`have a Master of Science or equivalent degree in electrical engineering or
`
`computer science, or alternatively a Bachelor of Science or equivalent degree in
`
`electrical engineering or computer science, with at least 5 years of experience in a
`
`technical field related to geographic information system (“GIS”) or the
`
`10
`
`transmission of digital image data over a computer network. Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 27-31.
`
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`D.
`Petitioner proposes that each of claim terms be construed to have its
`
`ordinary and plain meaning in light of the specification of the 343 Patent pursuant
`
`to the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard for IPR. The proposed BRI
`
`15
`
`claim constructions are offered only to comply with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b) and
`
`42.104(b)(3) and for the sole purpose of this Petition, and thus do not necessarily
`
`reflect appropriate claim constructions to be used in litigation and other
`
`proceedings where a different claim construction standard applies.
`
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE 343 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`20
`
`Claims 1-20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) for merely reciting
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`known, predictable and/or obvious combinations of the cited prior art references.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE REFERENCES AS PRIOR ART
`
`A.
`All prior art references cited in this Petition were not on record during the
`
`original examination of the 343 Patent. Potmesil, Hornbacker, Lindstrom, Austreng,
`
`5
`
`Ligtenberg and Hassan are prior art under § 102(b). Rutledge was filed on July 28,
`
`1997 and patented on Nov. 18, 2003 and thus is prior art under at least §
`
`102(e).Cooper was filed on April 2, 1998 and patented on September 12, 2000.
`
`Cooper is prior art under at least § 102(e).
`
`SUMMARY OF INVALIDITY POSITIONS
`
`B.
`The cited prior art references in this Petition disclose systems and methods
`
`10
`
`of subdividing large images into a regular array of tiles, compressing these tiles
`
`into a series of reduced-resolution tiles, requesting image tiles of various
`
`resolutions in a priority order based on the user’s viewpoint, and rendering the
`
`received image tiles for display on a client device. Specifically, claims 1-20 are
`
`15
`
`rendered obvious by (1) Potmesil in view of Hornbacker and/or Lindstrom, and (2)
`
`Rutledge in view of Ligtenberg, Cooper, Hassan and/or Austreng.
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1-20 OF 343 PATENT
`
`The language of claims 1-20 is partitioned into claim elements that are each
`
`20
`
`identified by respective claim element numbers as defined in Ex. 1013. The claim
`
`element numbers are used to specify where each element of the claim is found in
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.
`
`A. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-9, 13 AND 17-19 ARE OBVIOUS OVER
`POTMESIL IN VIEW OF HORNBACKER
`
`Potmesil and Hornbacker disclose similar technologies for retrieving images
`
`5
`
`from networked servers using Internet web browsers and HTTP protocol and
`
`provide solutions to similar technical issues.
`
`Potmesil teaches an online system, including map servers as well as software
`
`operating on a client computer, which allows users to view geographic information
`
`over the worldwide web (WWW) using 2D or 3D map browsers. Ex. 1002,
`
`10
`
`Abstract. The system is designed for use in a wide variety of devices, such as
`
`cellular phones and heads-up displays in vehicles. Id., 1328. The system includes a
`
`“tile server” which stores images such as aerial images and elevation data in a
`
`power-of-two pyramid to allow fast access and scroll and zoom operations. Id., Fig.
`
`1, 1329-30. Potmesil teaches that the use of prefiltered power-of-two images for
`
`15
`
`texture mapping was well-known in the art, including in the OpenGL standard used
`
`for rendering in the 3D browser. Id., 1334, 1340. In the OpenGL standard, such
`
`tiles are referred to as “mip-maps,” the same term used for image tiles in the
`
`provisional applications from which the 343 Patent claims priority. Ex. 1002, 1329;
`
`Ex. 1010, 7:13-9:6, Ex. 1009, ¶ 97. The 2D and 3D geographical map browsers
`
`20
`
`implement a tile caching process which calculates the tiles needed to render the
`
`current view and tiles likely to be needed in the future, requests those tiles from the
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`server, and caches those tiles. For example, in a “flight simulator” mode, the 3D
`
`browser requests and caches tiles from the flight path ahead of the user’s simulated
`
`viewpoint. Id., 1332-33, Fig. 2. Image tiles may be compressed using a variety of
`
`formats such as JPEG or GIF. Id., 1334-35. Potmesil teaches that the geographical
`
`5
`
`system outlined in the paper may be used in a variety of applications such as
`
`traditional computers, notebook computers (NCs), Interactive TVs (ITV’s), cellular
`
`phones, and heads-up displays on car windshields. Id., 1328.
`
`Hornbacker teaches a method and a system for displaying portions of very
`
`large images (such as digital documents) retrieved over a network from a server.
`
`10
`
`The system includes a web server networked to client workstations, which use a
`
`web browser on the workstation to request image views by means of Uniform
`
`Resource Locator (URL) code using Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP). Ex.
`
`1003, 5:3-8, 5:16-25. The documents are divided into 128X128 pixel view tiles,
`
`which are further organized into a hierarchy of tiles at differing resolutions spaced
`
`15
`
`by factors of two. Id., 6:13-20, 7:11-14. The image tiles may be compressed using
`
`GIF compression with a typical compression ratio of 4:1. Id., 6:20-7:3.
`
`The combination of Potmesil and Hornbacker collectively teaches or
`
`suggests all the limitations of claims 1-9, 13, and 17-19 and renders each of claims
`
`1-9, 13, and 17-19 as a whole obvious and unpatentable. Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 102-05.
`
`20
`
`A POSITA would be motivated to combine Potmesil and Hornbacker
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`because they both address the common technical issues in visualizing large
`
`amounts of data obtained over a data network, using a client viewing device with
`
`much smaller memory than the database which stores the imagery data. Ex. 1009, ¶
`
`102. In this regard, both Potmesil and Hornbacker address similar or the same
`
`5
`
`technical problems in rendering the images on the client device from image data
`
`received over a data network (e.g. optimizing bandwidth, prioritizing use of
`
`bandwidth, determining which portions of a larger set of image data to request,
`
`etc.). Ex. 1009, ¶ 102. Potmesil specifically discloses uses of its technology in
`
`terrain visualization applications and map applications. The teachings of
`
`10
`
`Hornbacker are readily applicable to online mapping references because online
`
`maps represent a scenario in which a much larger amount of geographically
`
`organized imagery must be stored on a server than can be stored at one time on a
`
`client. The European counterpart of Hornbacker, EP1070290, specifically
`
`recognizes the relevance of teachings relating to mapping to the disclosure of
`
`15
`
`Hornbacker by citing and explaining several online mapping references, including
`
`Potmesil, in the description of the prior art. Ex. 1011, [0006], [0007]. Accordingly
`
`a POSITA would be motivated to consider the teachings of both references in
`
`designing a mapping application for viewing map data over a limited bandwidth
`
`communications channel. Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 102-04. In addition, the analyses of
`
`20
`
`Potmesil and Hornbacker in connection with claim limitations of claims 1-9, 13,
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`and 17-19 below provide additional reasons or motivations that would cause a
`
`POSITA to combine Potmesil and Hornbacker in the manner as suggested in this
`
`Petition. Detailed element-by-element analyses are provided below.
`
`Claim 1: 1.Preamble The preamble of claim 1 is taught by both Potmesil
`
`5
`
`and Hornbacker, which collectively describe systems that perform the claimed
`
`method. Potmesil teaches a client system for dynamic visualization of image data
`
`(through a terrain rendering program) which requests image data from a network
`
`containing large-scale images divided into tiles. Ex. 1002, Abstract, 1327-28, 1335.
`
`Potmesil specifically suggests that the system will be used in cellular phones. Id.,
`
`10
`
`1328. Hornbacker teaches a client system for dynamic visualization of image data
`
`(through an online image viewing program) which requests image data from a
`
`network server contain image tiles and which may be used to retrieve data over a
`
`low bandwidth communication channel such as a 28.8 kbaud modem. Ex. 1003,
`
`Abstract, 13:28-14:11. The system may be used on devices such as notebook
`
`15
`
`computers, palm-top computers, and Web television adapters. Id., 14:26-28.
`
`Hornbacker further teaches that the use of compression for image tiles, including
`
`compression at a fixed 4:1 ratio, may be used to reduce the necessary bandwidth to
`
`transmit such data. Ex. 1003, 6:20-7:1. A POSITA would recognize that the
`
`compression techniques taught by Hornbacker could advantageously be used to
`
`20
`
`implement the connection over a mobile network as suggested by Potmesil. Ex.
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`1009, ¶¶ 106-08. Claim Element 1.A:
`
`Potmesil teaches software as part of
`
`the client image visualization application that requests and caches tiles from the
`
`server. Ex. 1002, Abstract, 1327, 1328, 1329-30, 1332-33, 1334-35, Fig. 2.
`
`Hornbacker teaches that tiles within a large database may be located by requests to
`
`5
`
`a server which use URLs to identify the specific tile by characteristics such as
`
`resolution, location, view angle, etc. See, e.g. Ex. 1003, Abstract, 3:10-27, 5:16-25,
`
`6:13-19, 7:26-8:6, 8:30-9:28, 10:24-28, 12:24-13:10. A POSITA would recognize
`
`that the teachings of the two references solving similar problems in closely related
`
`fields could be considered in combination when designing a display system
`
`10
`
`addressing a similar problem. Further, a POSITA would recognize that the system
`
`for requesting tiles by URL could be advantageously utilized in the tile request
`
`process of Potmesil, which identifies tiles likely to be needed in the near future
`
`based on their geographic coordinates. Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 109-12. Both references
`
`further teach client systems that may be utilized in a limited communication
`
`15
`
`bandwidth computing device, e.g. a cell phone or personal digital assistant (PDA).
`
`Ex. 1002, 1328, Ex. 1003, 14:26-28. Claim Element 1.B: Potmesil teaches a
`
`three-dimensional terrain visualization application which renders terrain views
`
`based on user navigational commands: Ex. 1002, Abstract, 1328-29, 1332-33, Fig.
`
`2, 1340-41, Fig.8, Ex. 1009, ¶ 113. The map imagery is predetermined because it is
`
`20
`
`present on the server before the user accesses it. Ex. 1002, 1332. Tiles are
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`requested and cached based on parameters including x, y, z, level-of-detail, and
`
`time. Id. The images are prioritized by proximity to the user viewpoint; e.g., in the
`
`“flight simulator” example, the browser calculates the intersections of a view with
`
`the tile coordinate system and sorts the intersected tiles by “distance from the user.”
`
`5
`
`Id., 1332-33. See also id., 1327, 1334-35. Claim Element 1.C: Potmesil teaches
`
`that retrieved data tiles, which may include data such as elevation profiles and
`
`RGB or monochrome images, are compiled and rendered by a 2D or 3D browser
`
`which includes a tile caching process and a tile compositing process. Ex. 1002,
`
`Abstract, 1328, 1332, 1333-35, 1340. Hornbacker also teaches a system that uses
`
`10
`
`image data tiles retrieved over the internet to form an image on the browser at the
`
`client device. Ex. 1003, Abstract. Ex. 1009, ¶ 114. Claim Element 1.D: Potmesil
`
`teaches that image data is stored on the tile server in a power-of-two pyramid with
`
`images at progressively lower resolutions. The pyramid may be pre-processed
`
`(obtained by sampling data such as satellite or aerial images, terrain elevations, and
`
`15
`
`gradients or geoid corrections on a 2D grid), and it may be further processed in
`
`response to a tile request (e.g. reformatting, resampling, dithering, watermarking,
`
`and compression). Ex. 1002, Abstract, 1329-30, 1332, 1335, Fig. 1. Hornbacker
`
`also discloses that view tiles are generated at the server by an image tiling routine
`
`that divides a given image into a grid of smaller images, which are further
`
`20
`
`computed for distinct resolutions. The view tiles may either be pre-processed at the
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`server (pre-cached) or newly computed in response to a request. Ex. 1003, 3:22-27,
`
`5:3-8, 5:16-6:19, 6:20-7:25, 8:30-9:28, 10:3-10, 11:19-28, 12:21-13:10, 13:26-14:6.
`
`Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 115-16. Claim Element 1.E: Potmesil teaches a pyramid tile
`
`structure in which the high-resolution base image is an array of tiles, each
`
`5
`
`containing an array of pixel data, and the whole image database is subdivided into
`
`tiles related by powers-of-two. Ex. 1002, Fig. 1, 1329-30, 1332. Hornbacker
`
`teaches that view tiles are generated by an image tiling routine which divides a
`
`source image into an array of 128 X 128 pixel tiles at varying resolutions. Ex. 1003,
`
`6:13-19, 7:11-15, 8:30-9:28, 10:7-10. Ex. 1009, ¶ 117. Claim Element 1.F:
`
`10
`
`Potmesil and Hornbacker both teach image tiles having a fixed resolution for each
`
`tile, including a multi-resolution “pyramid” tile structure where each level includes
`
`tiles at a fixed resolution. Ex. 1002, Fig. 1, 1329-30, 1332; Ex. 1003, 6:20-7:25,
`
`8:30-9:28, 10:3-10, 11:19-28, 12:21-13:10, 13:26-14:6. Ex. 1009, ¶ 118. Claim
`
`Element 1.G: Potmesil teaches that its disclosed system may be adapted for a
`
`15
`
`range of fixed color or bit per pixel depths (e.g. 24/32 or 8 bits deep) and that tiles
`
`are of a fixed size. Ex. 1002, 1329-30,1334-35. Additionally, it was well-known in
`
`the art at the time that image formats such as JPEG, PNG, and GIF, mentioned in
`
`Potmesil and Hornbacker, typically use a fixed bit per pixel depth (e.g. 8 bits),
`
`which result in a fixed size for an image parcel of a fixed number of pixels (e.g.
`
`20
`
`128 pixels). Id., Ex. 1003, 6:20-7:3. Ex. 1009, ¶ 119. Claim Element 1.H:
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`Potmesil and Hornbacker both teach storing data in fixed-size power-of-two arrays
`
`of tiles related to predecessor images by a factor of two. Ex. 1002, Fig. 1, p. 1329-
`
`30, 1332. Ex. 1003, 6:13-7:25, 8:7-15. Ex. 1009, ¶ 120. Claim Element 1.I:
`
`Potmesil and Hornba