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. 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`LEGAL125909003.3
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,924,506 B2
`
`I hereby declare that all the statements made in this Declaration are of my
`
`own kno~lc;dge and true; that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and that such willful false
`
`statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issued
`
`thereon.
`·/
`
`I declare under the penalty of perjury that all statements made in this
`
`Declaration are true and correct.
`
`Executed _June 2nd_ 2015 in_ Douglas
`
`MA
`
`William R. Michalson
`
`LEGAL 125909003.3
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................... iv
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .......................................................................... 3
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE .................................................... 4
`A.
`Education and Work Experience .......................................................... 4
`B.
`Compensation ....................................................................................... 8
`C.
`Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon ..................................... 8
`IV. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................... 9
`A.
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 9
`B.
`Anticipation .......................................................................................... 9
`C.
`Obviousness ........................................................................................ 10
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 10
`V.
`VI. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND OF THE 506 PATENT ....................... 12
`A. Data Communications Over the Internet ............................................ 13
`B.
`Data Communications in Wireless Mobile Systems .......................... 15
`C.
`Image Tiles and Image Pyramids ....................................................... 17
`D.
`Compression of Image Tiles .............................................................. 21
`E.
`Progressive Image Resolution Enhancement ..................................... 22
`F.
`Three-Dimensional Graphics ............................................................. 24
`1.
`Overview of 3D Computer Graphics principles ...................... 24
`2.
`Texture ..................................................................................... 30
`G. Mip-Maps ........................................................................................... 34
`H.
`Progressive Meshes ............................................................................ 40
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE 506 PATENT ........................................................... 41
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PRIOR ART AND SUMMARY OF
`OPINIONS .................................................................................................... 46
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 47
`X. UNPATENTABILITY OF THE 506 PATENT CLAIMS ........................... 48
`
`-i-
`
`LEGAL125909003.3
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`A. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-21 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) AS BEING OBVIOUS OVER POTMESIL,
`HORNBACKER, and Lindstrom ....................................................... 48
`1.
`Overview of Potmesil, Hornbacker, and Lindstrom ................ 50
`2. Motivation to Combine Potmesil, Hornbacker, and
`Lindstrom. ................................................................................ 58
`Claim 1 is Rendered Obvious by Potmesil, and
`Hornbacker, and Lindstrom ..................................................... 61
`Claims 2-7 are Rendered Obvious by Potmesil,
`Hornbacker, and Lindstrom ..................................................... 73
`Claim 8 is Rendered Obvious by Potmesil, Hornbacker,
`and Lindstrom .......................................................................... 81
`Claims 9-14 are Rendered Obvious by Potmesil,
`Hornbacker, and Lindstrom ..................................................... 92
`Claim 15 is Rendered Obvious Over Potmesil,
`Hornbacker, and Lindstrom ..................................................... 94
`Claims 16-21 are rendered obvious over Potmesil,
`Hornbacker, and Lindstrom ................................................... 100
`GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 AND 19-21 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) AS BEING
`OBVIOUS OVER LIGTENBERG IN VIEW OF RUTLEDGE
`AND COOPER ................................................................................. 102
`1.
`Claim 1 is Rendered Obvious by Ligtenberg in view of
`Rutledge and Cooper .............................................................. 102
`Claims 2, 3 and 5-7 are Rendered Obvious by Rutledge
`in view of Ligtenberg and Cooper ......................................... 117
`Claim 8 is Rendered Obvious by Rutledge in view of
`Ligtenberg and Cooper .......................................................... 121
`Claims 9, 10 and 12-14 are Rendered Obvious by
`Rutledge in view of Ligtenberg and Cooper .......................... 128
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`LEGAL125909003.3
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 15 is Rendered Obvious by Rutledge in view of
`Ligtenberg and Cooper .......................................................... 130
`Claims 16-17, 19-21 are rendered obvious by Rutledge in
`view of Ligtenberg and Cooper ............................................. 135
`GROUND 3: CLAIMS 4, 11 AND 18 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) AS BEING OBVIOUS OVER
`RUTLEDGE IN VIEW OF LIGTENBERG, COOPER AND
`HASSAN .......................................................................................... 137
`XI. OTHER PERTINENT GROUNDS OF PRIOR ART ................................ 138
`A.
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) AS BEING OBVIOUS OVER
`FULLER IN VIEW OF HORNBACKER ....................................... 139
`1.
`Claims 1-21 Are Rendered Obvious by Fuller and
`Hornbacker ............................................................................. 141
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) AS BEING OBVIOUS OVER
`YAP IN VIEW OF RABINOVICH ................................................. 166
`1.
`The 506 Patent Fails To Distinguish Over Yap ..................... 167
`2.
`Claims 1 to 21 are Rendered Obvious by Yap and
`Rabinovich ............................................................................. 172
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) AS BEING OBVIOUS OVER
`FULLER IN VIEW OF YAP ........................................................... 191
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) AS BEING OBVIOUS OVER
`POTMESIL IN VIEW OF HORNBACKER AND COOPER ........ 192
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL125909003.3
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`
`
`Appendix A
`
`Appendix B
`
`Appendix C
`
`Appendix D
`
`Appendix E
`
`Appendix F
`
`Appendix G
`
`Appendix H
`
`Appendix I
`
`Appendix J
`
`Appendix K
`
`Appendix L
`
`Appendix M
`
`Appendix N
`
`LIST OF APPENDICES
`
`Curriculum Vitae of William R. Michalson
`Excerpt of Hanan Samet, The Design and Analysis of Spatial
`Data Structures, University of Maryland (1989)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,263,136 (DeAguiar et al)
`
`U.S. Patent 4,972,319 (Delorme)
`B. Fuller and I. Richer, The MAGIC Project: From Vision to
`Reality, IEEE Network May/June 1996, pp. 15-25
`International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee
`(“CCITT”) Recommendation T.81, September 1992
`Ken Cabeen & Peter Gent, Image Compression and the
`Discrete Cosine Transform
`M. Antonini, Image Coding Using Wavelet Transform , IEEE
`Transactions on Image Processing, Vol. 1, No. 2, April 1992.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,321,520 (Inga et al)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,182,114 (Yap et al.)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,179,638 (Dawson et al)
`Lance Williams, Pyramidal Parametrics, Computer Graphics,
`vol. 17, no. 3, July 1983
`
`OpenGL Standard Version 1.1, March 1997, available:
`https://www.opengl.org/documentation/specs/version1.1/glspec
`1.1/node84.html#SECTION00681100000000000000
`H. Hoppe, Progressive Meshes, SIGGRAPH ’96: Proceedings
`of the 23rd annual conference on computer graphics and
`interactive techniques, pp. 99-108
`
`Appendix O
`
`U.S. Patent 5,798,770 (Baldwin)
`
`Appendix P
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,987,256 (Wu et al)
`
`
`LEGAL125909003.3
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`
`Appendix R
`
`Appendix S
`
`Appendix T
`
`Appendix U
`
`Appendix V
`
`Appendix W
`
`Appendix X
`
`Appendix Y
`
`Appendix Z
`
`Appendix AA
`
`Boris Rabinovich & Craig Gotsman, Visualization of Large
`Terrains in Resource-Limited Computing Environments (1997)
`User Datagram Protocol (UDP) (Windows CE 5.0, Microsoft,
`Available: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
`us/library/ms885773.aspx [Accessed April 28, 2015]
`
`OpenGL Standard Version 1.2.1, April 1999, available:
`https://www.opengl.org/documentation/specs/version1.2/opengl
`1.2.1.pdf
`
`Claim chart illustrating teachings of Potmesil (Ex. 1002) and
`Hornbacker (Ex. 1003) pertinent to elements of Challenged
`Claims
`
`Claim chart illustrating teachings of Rutledge (Ex. 1006),
`Ligtenberg (Ex. 1005), and Cooper (Ex. 1007) pertinent to
`elements of Challenged Claims
`
`Claim chart illustrating teachings of Rutledge (Ex. 1006),
`Ligtenberg (Ex. 1005), Cooper (Ex. 1007), and Hassan (Ex.
`1008) pertinent to elements of Challenged Claims
`
`George H. Forman and John Zahorjan, “The challenges of
`mobile computing,” Computer vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 38, 47 (April
`1994)
`K. Brown and S. Singh, A Network Architecture for Mobile
`Computing, INFOCOM ’96, Fifteenth Annual Joint Conference
`of the IEEE Computer Societies, Networking the Next
`Generation, Proceedings IEEE vol. 3, pp. 1388-139
`
`Kreller, B. et al “UMTS: a middleware architecture and mobile
`API approach,” Personal Communications, IEEE, vol. 5, no. 2,
`pp. 32-38 (April 1998)
`
`Hansen, J. et al, “Real-time synthetic vision cockpit display for
`general aviation,” AeroSense ’99, International Society for
`Optics and Photonics, 1999
`
`Appendix BB
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,760,783 to Migdal et al (“Migdal”)
`
`
`LEGAL125909003.3
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`
`Appendix CC
`
`Appendix DD
`
`Appendix EE
`
`Claim chart illustrating teachings of Fuller (App. E) and
`Hornbacker (Ex. 1003) pertinent to elements of Challenged
`Claims
`
`Claim chart illustrating teachings of Yap (App. J) and
`Rabinovich (App. R) pertinent to elements of Challenged
`Claims
`Theresa-Marie Rhyne, A Commentary on GeoVRML: A Tool
`for 3D Representation of GeoReferenced Data on the Web,
`International Journal of Geographic Information Sciences, issue
`4 of volume 13, 1999
`
`
`LEGAL125909003.3
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,924,506 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is William R. Michalson. I am a faculty member at
`
`Worcester Polytechnic Institute. I have been engaged by Microsoft Corporation
`
`(“Microsoft”) to investigate and opine on certain issues relating to U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,924,506 B2 (the “506 Patent”) entitled “System and methods for network image
`
`delivery with dynamic viewing frustum optimized for limited bandwidth
`
`communication channels” in Microsoft’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of the
`
`506 Patent (“Microsoft IPR Petition”) which requests the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (“PTAB”) to review and cancel all claims of the 506 Patent—claims 1-21
`
`(“Challenged Claims”). I have also been engaged by Microsoft to investigate and
`
`opine on certain issues relating to two other patents that are related to the 506
`
`Patent—U.S. Patent Nos. 7,908,343 B2 and 7,139,794 B2—in additional petitions
`
`for inter partes review by Microsoft. I understand that Bradium Technologies
`
`LLC (“Bradium”) is asserting all three patents against Microsoft in an on-going
`
`patent infringement lawsuit, No. 1:15-cv-00031-RGA, filed in the U.S. District
`
`Court for the District of Delaware on January 9, 2015.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that the 506 Patent was assigned from the inventors Isaac
`
`Levanon and Yoni Lavi to Inovo Limited on April 3, 2011, and assigned from
`
`Inovo Limited to Bradium on June 17, 2013. Bradium is therefore referred to as
`
`the “Patent Owner” in this declaration.
`
`
`LEGAL125909003.3
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,924,506 B2
`
`3.
`
`In this declaration, I will first discuss the technology background
`
`
`
`related to the 506 Patent and then provide my analyses and opinions on claims 1-
`
`21 of the 506 Patent. The discussion of the technology background includes an
`
`overview of that technology as it was known before October 1999, which I
`
`understand as the earliest invention date of the 506 Patent claimed by the inventors
`
`in their inventor declarations submitted to the USPTO during the original
`
`prosecution of the 506 Patent’s grand-parent patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,644,131.
`
`This overview provides some of the bases for my opinions with respect to the 506
`
`Patent.
`
`4.
`
`This declaration is based on the information currently available to me.
`
`To the extent that additional information becomes available, I reserve the right to
`
`continue my investigation and study, which may include a review of documents
`
`and information that may be produced, as well as testimony from depositions that
`
`may not yet be taken.
`
`5.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied on information and evidence
`
`identified in this declaration, including the 506 Patent, the prosecution history of
`
`the 506 Patent, and prior art references listed as Exhibits to the Microsoft IPR
`
`Petition and listed as appendices of this declaration.
`
`
`LEGAL125909003.3
`
`2
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`
`II.
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,924,506 B2
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`6.
`
`Claims 1-21 of the 506 Patent relate to system and method for
`
`dynamic visualization of image data transferred through a communications
`
`channel. For the reasons explained below, none of the features described in Claims
`
`1-21 of the 506 Patent were novel as of October 1999, nor does the 506 Patent
`
`teach a novel and non-obvious way of combining these known features.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1-21 of the 506 Patent relate to well-known technologies in
`
`the computer industry such as multi-resolution hierarchical maps, image
`
`compression, packetized data transmission, and three-dimensional (3D) graphics
`
`rendering. No element of Claims 1-21 is novel, and Claims 1-21 do not bring these
`
`elements together in a way that brings any benefit beyond what a person of
`
`ordinary skill in art would expect from the known functions of the individual
`
`components. Claims 1-21 describe techniques that were well-known in the field,
`
`and combine them in ways that would have been readily apparent to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art with predictable results.
`
`8.
`
`It is my opinion that each of Claims 1-21 is invalid under the
`
`patentability standard of 35 U.S.C. § 103 as I understand it and as explained to me
`
`by Microsoft’s counsel. Within this declaration I discuss specific grounds of
`
`invalidity of Claims 1-21; however, my opinion that Claims 1-21 are invalid under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 is not limited to these specific grounds, and indeed, it is my
`
`
`LEGAL125909003.3
`
`3
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`
`opinion that Claims 1-21 would have been invalid in light of the general
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,924,506 B2
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention.
`
`9.
`
`For purposes of my analyses in this declaration only, I provide my
`
`proposed construction of certain terms in Claims 1-21 in detail in a later part of this
`
`declaration.
`
`10. The subsequent sections of this declaration will first provide my
`
`qualifications and experience and then describe details of my analyses and
`
`observations.
`
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`A. Education and Work Experience
`11.
`I received a Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering in 1989 and a
`
`Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering in 1985 from the Worcester
`
`Polytechnic Institute. I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Syracuse University in 1981.
`
`12.
`
`I have more than twenty years of experience in the fields of electrical
`
`engineering, computer systems, navigation systems, and communications systems.
`
`My experience includes the design, implementation and use of geographic
`
`information systems (“GIS”), as well as the design, implementation and use of
`
`navigation systems relying on GPS and other positioning system technologies. I
`
`
`LEGAL125909003.3
`
`4
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`
`also have extensive experience in computer communication and data processing
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,924,506 B2
`
`systems as well as systems for the efficient transmission of digital images and
`
`other data. Additionally, I have experience in the design and implementation of
`
`hardware and software systems used to render image data for display.
`
`13.
`
`I have published 16 papers in technical journals and 97 papers in
`
`technical conferences. I hold eight U.S. patents in the fields of handheld GPS
`
`(Global Positioning System), portable geolocation devices, and communication
`
`networks. I have also authored one book chapter relating to optical interconnect
`
`networks for massively parallel computers. I became a Senior Member of the
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in 2003.
`
`14. My experience spans from product designs and R&D in industry,
`
`teaching, research and development in an educational and research institution to
`
`technology consulting to industry. I was an engineer at Raytheon Company for ten
`
`years from 1981 to 1991. During this period, I worked on projects related to
`
`computer display hardware for various applications, including air traffic control
`
`applications.
`
`15. After leaving Raytheon Company, I joined the Worcester Polytechnic
`
`Institute and became a full-time faculty member there in 1991. My research at WPI
`
`focuses on navigation systems and related technologies. I am the director of WPI’s
`
`Center for Advanced Integrated Radio Navigation.
`5
`
`
`LEGAL125909003.3
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,924,506 B2
`
`16. My research projects at WPI cover various technologies and include
`
`
`
`(1) a system using tracking and communications technologies to track shipping
`
`containers, (2) an automotive based system that combined GPS and map data in an
`
`automotive environment, (3) a remote hazard detection system using GPS and
`
`radio communications, and (4) a differential GPS system that combined GPS and
`
`radio technologies to determine the precise path of vehicles operating off-road
`
`during forest operations.
`
`17.
`
`I have worked as a consultant in the navigation and communication
`
`systems fields, e.g., in the context of space shuttle docking operations, transfer of
`
`traffic information to GPS devices, combinations of GPS and cellular
`
`communications for tracking purposes, and map-based handheld tracking devices.
`
`18.
`
`I am familiar with numerous GIS and mapping products that existed
`
`in the market since the late 1980s, including systems and software developed by
`
`Etak, Microsoft, DeLorme, and others. In the conduct of my research and other
`
`work, I have routinely used commercially available GIS and mapping products and
`
`have developed mapping and visualization software for specialized applications.
`
`Additionally, I have used and incorporated database systems such as Microsoft
`
`Access, Borland Paradox, Oracle, SQL and others in my research and have
`
`incorporated database systems into other hardware and software systems for use in
`
`storing and retrieving GIS-related data.
`
`
`LEGAL125909003.3
`
`6
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,924,506 B2
`
`19.
`
`I have done extensive research work in communications and
`
`
`
`networking system design, and have worked with all of the digital, analog and
`
`software components needed to build communications and navigation systems. My
`
`work with communications and networking protocols began in the mid-1980s with
`
`TCP/IP over packet radio. I have used these and other communications and
`
`networking protocols extensively in conducting my research. In addition, my work
`
`on GPS and navigation systems involved implementing low-latency
`
`communications to support differential techniques that allow a GPS receiver to
`
`provide more accurate positioning information.
`
`20.
`
`I have extensive experience with the development and maintenance of
`
`server computers, including the installation and maintenance of web servers and
`
`file servers, as well as the design, development, test, and maintenance of web
`
`based applications. These applications typically employ C/C++, Java, JavaScript,
`
`PHP, HTML, MySQL, and etc. I am also experienced with server-client systems
`
`where the client computer exchanges navigation and/or geographical information
`
`with server computer through a wired and/or wireless network.
`
`21. My curriculum vitae, which provides a detailed summary of my
`
`education, work experience, publication, teaching history, and etc. is attached to
`
`this declaration as Appendix A.
`
`
`LEGAL125909003.3
`
`7
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,924,506 B2
`
`B. Compensation
`22.
`I am being compensated for the services I am providing in this and
`
`other Microsoft IPR petitions. The compensation is not contingent upon my
`
`performance, the outcome of this inter partes review or any other proceedings, or
`
`any issues involved in or related to this inter partes review or any other
`
`proceedings.
`
`C. Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon
`23. The documents on which I rely for the opinions expressed in this
`
`declaration are documents and materials identified in this declaration, including the
`
`506 Patent, patents related to the 506 Patent, the prosecution history for the 506
`
`Patent and other patents related to the 506 Patent, the prior art references and
`
`information discussed in this declaration, including the references attached as
`
`exhibits of the IPR Petition for the 506 Patent: Maps Alive: Viewing Geospatial
`
`Information on the WWW, Michael Potmesil, Computer Networks and ISDN
`
`Systems Vol. 29, issues 8-13, pp. 1327-1342 (“Potmesil”) (Ex. 1002), WO
`
`99/41675 to Cecil V. Hornbacker, III (“Hornbacker”) (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. 1004), U.S. Pat. No. 6,650,998 to
`
`Charles Wayne Rutledge et al (“Rutledge”) (Ex. 1006), U.S. Pat. No. 5,682,441 to
`
`Adrianus Ligtenberg et al (“Ligtenberg”) (Ex. 1005), U.S. Pat. No. 6,118,456 to
`
`
`LEGAL125909003.3
`
`8
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`
`David G. Cooper (“Cooper”) (Ex. 1007), and U.S. Pat. No. 5,940,117 to Amer
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,924,506 B2
`
`Hassan et al (“Hassan”)(Ex. 1008) and any other references specifically identified
`
`in this declaration, in their entirety, even if only portions of these documents are
`
`discussed here in an exemplary fashion.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Claim Construction
`24. Microsoft’s counsel has advised that, when construing claim terms of
`
`an unexpired patent, a claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.”
`
`B. Anticipation
`25. Microsoft’s counsel has advised that in order for a patent claim to be
`
`valid, the claimed invention must be novel. Microsoft’s counsel has further
`
`advised that if each and every element of a claim is disclosed in a single prior art
`
`reference, then the claimed invention is anticipated, and the invention is not
`
`patentable according to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 effective before March 16, 2013.
`
`In order for an invention in a claim to be anticipated, all of the elements and
`
`limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior reference, arranged as in
`
`the claim. A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
`
`claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
`
`
`LEGAL125909003.3
`
`9
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`
`reference. In order for a reference to inherently disclose a claim limitation, that
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,924,506 B2
`
`claim limitation must necessarily be present in the reference.
`
`C. Obviousness
`26. Microsoft’s counsel has also advised me that obviousness under pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective before March 16, 2013 is a basis for invalidity. I
`
`understand that where a prior art reference does not disclose all of the limitations
`
`of a given patent claim, that patent claim is invalid if the differences between the
`
`claimed subject matter and the prior art reference are such that the claimed subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the relevant art. Obviousness can be based on a
`
`single prior art reference or a combination of references that either expressly or
`
`inherently disclose all limitations of the claimed invention. In an obviousness
`
`analysis, it is not necessary to find precise teachings in the prior art directed to the
`
`specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`27.
`I understand from Microsoft’s counsel that the claims and
`
`specification of a patent must be read and construed through the eyes of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the priority date of the claims. I have also
`
`been advised that to determine the appropriate level of a person having ordinary
`
`
`LEGAL125909003.3
`
`10
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`
`skill in the art, the following factors may be considered: (a) the types of problems
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,924,506 B2
`
`encountered by those working in the field and prior art solutions thereto; (b) the
`
`sophistication of the technology in question, and the rapidity with which
`
`innovations occur in the field; (c) the educational level of active workers in the
`
`field; and (d) the educational level of the inventor.
`
`28. The “Background” section of the 506 Patent describes a “well
`
`recognized problem” of how to reduce the latency for transmitting full resolution
`
`images over the Internet on an “as needed” basis, particularly for “complex
`
`images” such as “geographic, topographic, and other highly detailed maps.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:29-46.
`
`29. To solve this problem and to address some perceived issues in the
`
`existing art, the 506 Patent discloses a system capable of “optimally presenting
`
`image data on client systems with potentially limited processing performance,
`
`resources, and communications bandwidth.” Id. at 3:46-49. The 506 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
`
`parcels/tiles needed for a particular viewpoint in a priority order, generally lower-
`
`resolution tiles first.
`
`
`LEGAL125909003.3
`
`11
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,924,506 B2
`
`30.
`
`In light of the disclosed technology of the 506 Patent, a person of
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art for the 506 Patent would need education or work
`
`experience in computer network communications. Because a “common
`
`application” of the 506 Patent is to transmit “geographic, topographic, and other
`
`highly detailed maps,” (id. at 1:41-43), a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`require some knowledge and experience with geographic information systems
`
`(“GIS”).
`
`31. Based on the above considerations and factors, it is my opinion that a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art should 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 transmission of image data over a computer
`
`network. This description is approximate and additional educational experience
`
`could make up for less work experience and vice versa.
`
`VI. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND OF THE 506 PATENT
`32.
`It is my opinion that the 506 Patent recites an obvious and predictable
`
`combination of elements that were well-known in the art at the time the 506 Patent
`
`was filed and at the time of alleged invention. In this section of my declaration, I
`
`provide an overview of some general principles that were understood in the art at
`
`
`LEGAL125909003.3
`
`12
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`
`the time of filing of the 506 Patent, and therefore would be within the knowledge
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,924,506 B2
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art. I use certain references (including both
`
`patents and non-patent literature) to illustrate the background knowledge of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, but the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time regarding the claimed features would not have been limited to
`
`these specific references.
`
`A. Data Communications Over the Internet
`33. The predominant computer networking technology and set of
`
`communications protocols used for most online communications today and prior to
`
`the filing of the application for the 506 Patent is known as the Internet Protocol
`
`(IP) suite called TCP/IP, after its two main component protocols: the Transmission
`
`Control Protocol and the Internet Protocol. The 506 Patent teaches at 8:12-32 that
`
`its preferred embodiment uses TCP/IP to send data packets. In this declaration I do
`
`not provide a detailed description of all characteristics of the very well-known
`
`TCP/IP protocols, but focus on a few specific aspects of TCP/IP that are pertinent
`
`to the claims at issue in the 506 Patent. TCP/IP transmits data between computers
`
`in a network using data packets, which are formatted units of data carried by the
`
`network as suitably s