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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`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
`A. GROUND FOR STANDING ............................................................... 3
`B.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ............................................... 3
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 506 PATENT ............................................................. 5
`A.
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE 506 PATENT ......................................... 5
`B.
`SUMMARY OF THE 506 PATENT ................................................... 6
`C.
`SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION FILE HISTORY .................. 9
`D.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................... 10
`E.
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................... 11
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE 506 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .................... 11
`A.
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE REFERENCES AS PRIOR ART ....... 11
`B.
`SUMMARY OF INVALIDITY POSITIONS ................................... 12
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1-21 OF 506 PATENT ..................... 12
`A. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-21 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) OVER POTMESIL, HORNBACKER,
`AND LINDSTROM ........................................................................... 13
`B. 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 RUTLEDGE IN VIEW OF LIGTENBERG
`AND COOPER ................................................................................... 34
`C. 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 ............................................................................................ 58
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 59
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,924,506 B2 to Levanon et al. (“the 506 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 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 U.S. Pat. No. 5,940,117 to Amer Hassan et al (“Hassan”)
`
`Ex. 1009 Declaration of Prof. William R. Michalson
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Provisional Applications to which the 506 Patent claims priority
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`EP1070290 to Cecil V. Hornbacker, III
`
`Ex. 1012 Numbering of Claim Elements of Challenged Claims of the 506
`Patent
`
`Ex. 1013 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 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`Ex. 1014 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. 8,924,506 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-
`
`21 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,506 B2 (“the 506 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 1-21 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 1-21 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103. Thus,
`
`10
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests the Office to institute a trial for inter partes review
`
`and to cancel claims 1-21. 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 506 Patent and two other patents in the same
`
`family, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,139,794 and 7,908,343, are being asserted against
`
`20
`
`Petitioner in an on-going patent infringement lawsuit in Bradium Techs. LLC v.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,506 B2
`
`Microsoft Corp., 1:15-cv-00031-RGA, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
`
`District of Delaware on Jan. 9, 2015. In addition, Petitioner is pursuing petitions
`
`for inter partes review of the 794 and 343 patents asserted in the above litigation.
`
`NOTICE OF COUNSEL AND SERVICE INFORMATION: Pursuant to 37
`
`5
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4) and 42.10(a), Petitioner appoints Bing Ai (Reg.
`
`No. 43,312) as its lead counsel, Matthew Bernstein (pro hac vice), Vinay Sathe
`
`(Reg. No. 55,595) and Patrick 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, as Mr. Bernstein is an experienced patent litigation attorney,
`
`10
`
`is lead counsel for Petitioner in the district court litigation, and has an established
`
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner intends to
`
`file such a motion once authorization is granted. The above attorneys are all at the
`
`mailing address of Perkins Coie LLP, 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350, San
`
`Diego, CA 92130, contact numbers of 858-720-5700 (phone) and 858-720-5799
`
`15
`
`(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 executed by
`
`Microsoft for appointing the above designated counsel is concurrently filed.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`This Petition complies with all statutory requirements and requirements
`
`20
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,506 B2
`
`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.
`
`A. GROUND FOR STANDING
`Pursuant to § 42.104(a), Petitioner hereby certifies that the 506 Patent is
`
`5
`
`available for IPR and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting
`
`inter partes review challenging claims of the 506 Patent on the grounds identified
`
`herein. Specifically, Petitioner has the standing, or meets all requirements, to file
`
`this Petition under 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(a)(1), 315(b), 315(e)(1) and 325(e)(1); and 37
`
`C.F.R. §§42.73(d)(1), 42.101 and 42.102.
`
`10
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`B.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) and 42.22, the precise relief requested by
`
`Petitioner is that the Board institute an IPR trial on Claims 1-21 and cancel the
`
`claims because they are invalid on the grounds and evidence presented in this
`
`Petition.
`
`15
`
`Claims Challenged: Claims 1-21 of the 506 Patent.
`
`The Prior Art: The prior art references relied upon are 7 references listed in
`
`the Exhibit List: (1) 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); (2) PCT Publication No. WO 1999/041675 by
`
`20
`
`Cecil V. Hornbacker, III (“Hornbacker”) (Ex. 1003); (3) An Integrated Global GIS
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,506 B2
`
`and Visual Simulation System by P. Lindstrom et al., Tech. Rep. GIT-GVU-97-07,
`
`March 1997 (“Lindstrom”) (Ex. 1004 and associated Ex. 1013 and Ex. 1014), (4)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,650,998 to Charles Wayne Rutledge et al (“Rutledge”) (Ex. 1006);
`
`(5) U.S. Pat. No. 5,682,441 to Adrianus Ligtenberg et al (“Ligtenberg”) (Ex. 1005);
`
`5
`
`(6) U.S. Pat. No. 6,118,456 to David G. Cooper (“Cooper”) (Ex. 1007), and (7)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,940,117 to Hassan et al (“Hassan”) (Ex 1008).
`
`Supporting Evidence Relied Upon For The Challenge: The Declaration of
`
`Prof. William R. Michalson (Ex. 1009) supporting the invalidity grounds in this
`
`Petition and other supporting evidence in the Exhibit List are filed herewith.
`
`10
`
`Statutory Ground(s) Of Challenge And Legal Principles: Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(2), the review of patentability of claims 1-21 requested in this
`
`Petition is governed by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 that were in effect
`
`before March 16, 2013. Further, statutory provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 to 319
`
`and 325 that took effect on September 16, 2012 govern this IPR.
`
`15
`
`Claim Construction: The 506 Patent has not expired. In IPR, a claim in an
`
`unexpired patent shall be given by the Patent Office “its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation 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). SAP v. Versata, CBM2012-
`
`00001, Final Written Decision at 10 (PTAB June 11, 2013), Paper No. 70; In re
`
`20
`
`Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, No. 2014-1301 at 11-19 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015).
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,506 B2
`
`How Claims Are Unpatentable Under Statutory Grounds: Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(4), Section VI provides an explanation of how claims 1-21 of
`
`the 506 Patent are unpatentable and specifies where each element of the claim is
`
`found in the prior art of patents or printed publications relied upon.
`
`5
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 506 PATENT
`The 506 Patent is entitled “Optimized Image Delivery Over Limited
`
`Bandwidth Communication Channels” and was granted on December 30, 2014
`
`from non-provisional App. No. 13/027,929 filed on February 15, 2011. Per
`
`USPTO record, the 506 Patent was originally assigned by the inventors to Inovo
`
`10
`
`Ltd. On June 17, 2013, Inovo assigned the 506 Patent to Bradium. The 506 Patent
`
`has a pending child patent application No. 14/547,148 filed on Nov. 19, 2014 and
`
`has not been subject to a post-grant proceeding before the Office.
`
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE 506 PATENT
`
`A.
`The App. No. 13/027,929 is a continuation-in-part of App. No. 12/619,643,
`
`15
`
`filed on Nov. 16, 2009 and now Pat. No. 7,908,343. The 12/619,643 App. is a
`
`continuation of App. No. 10/035,987, filed on Dec. 24, 2001 and now Pat. No.
`
`7,644,131. The 10/035,987 application 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. No other priority claims
`
`20
`
`were made. Based on the USPTO record, the earliest priority date of the 506 Patent
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,506 B2
`
`is no earlier than Dec. 27, 2000.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE 506 PATENT
`
`B.
`The “Background” of the 506 Patent describes a “well recognized problem”
`
`of how to reduce the latency for transmitting full resolution images over the
`
`5
`
`Internet, 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 at 1:41-59. The 506 Patent admits that solutions already in
`
`existence included “transmitting the image in highly compressed formats that
`
`support progressive resolution build-up of the image within the current client field
`
`10
`
`of view.” Id. at 1:59-65. 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. at 1:59-3:12. According to the 506 Patent, the conventional solutions do not
`
`15
`
`work well under “very limited network bandwidth” situations. Id. at 3:12-25.
`
`To address these perceived issues in the existing art, the 506 Patent purports
`
`to disclose 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.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,506 B2
`
`Specifically, the 506 Patent describes an image distribution system having a
`
`network image server and a client
`
`system, where a client can input
`
`navigational command to adjust a
`
`5
`
`3D viewing frustum for the image
`
`displayed on the client system. Id. at
`
`5:30-59. High-resolution source image data is pre-processed by the image server
`
`into a series K1-N of derivative images of progressively lower image resolution. Id.
`
`at 6:7-22, Fig. 2. The source image is also subdivided into a regular array of 64 by
`
`10
`
`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. at
`
`6:12-28; 8:14-32.
`
`The client system has a “parcel request” subsystem to request image parcels
`
`from the server, a “control block” that directs the transfer of received image
`
`15
`
`parcels and overlay data to a
`
`local parcel data store. Id. at
`
`7:10-32. The control block
`
`also decompresses the image
`
`parcels and directs a
`
`20
`
`“rendering engine” to render them. Id. at 7:34-36; Fig. 3.
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,506 B2
`
`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. at 7:59-62. Image parcel requests are then placed in a request queue,
`
`5
`
`and are to be issued by the parcel request subsystem according to each request’s
`
`assigned priority. Id. at 7:62-64; 9:7-19. Although various factors may affect the
`
`priority assigned to a parcel request, e.g., the “resolution of the client display”
`
`(9:37-54) or whether the image parcel is “outside of the viewing frustum” (10:9-
`
`12), generally speaking, “image parcels with lower resolution levels will
`
`10
`
`accumulate greater priority values,” so “a complete image of at least low resolution
`
`will be available for rendering” in a fast manner (10:59-67). 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 the image parcel
`
`15
`
`data to the total display quality of the image.” Id. at 11:1-19.
`
`After the needed image parcels are requested and received, an algorithm is
`
`used to select the image parcels for rendering and display. Id. at 9:20-25. Overlay
`
`data may also be added to the display if its image coordinates matches the current
`
`image parcel location. Id. at 9:29-34.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,506 B2
`
`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 needed parcels/tiles in a priority order, generally
`
`5
`
`lower-resolution tiles first.
`
`As shown by this Petition, the 506 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, ¶¶ 32-77 in “VI. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND OF THE 506
`
`10
`
`PATENT.” As shown in Section VI of this Petition, all of these features and their
`
`combinations in claims 1-21 were known or predictable and/or obvious
`
`combinations of the prior art features, and were published prior to the earliest
`
`priority date of the 506 Patent. Prof. Michalson opines that claims 1-21 are obvious
`
`for additional grounds. Id., ¶¶ 92-481. Claims 1-21 of the 506 Patent reflect the
`
`15
`
`Patent Owner’s belated effort to “re-patent” subject matter that was already in the
`
`public domain.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION FILE HISTORY
`
`C.
`In the original examination of the 506 Patent, the Examiner relied on an
`
`incomplete record of prior art and thus did not know that the subject matter of the
`
`20
`
`issued claims 1-21 in the 506 Patent was well known and published by others
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,506 B2
`
`before its filing date 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 that were absent in
`
`the original examination, such as Potmesil, Hornbacker, Rutledge, Ligtenberg,
`
`5
`
`Lindstrom, Cooper and others. In addition, the file history contains no discussions
`
`on the prior art U.S. Patent No. 6,182,114 (Yap) that is listed on the face of the 506
`
`Patent and is mentioned in the “Background of the Invention” of the 506 Patent.
`
`This lack of specific discussion of the Yap reference with respect to claims 1-21 is
`
`an oversight by the Examiner because the disclosure of the Yap reference is highly
`
`10
`
`relevant and is material to the patentability of claims 1-21. Prof. Michalson opines
`
`that claims 1-21 are obvious over the Yap reference in view of additional prior art.
`
`Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 386-473.
`
`This Petition is a remedial measure for correcting the unfortunate outcome
`
`of issuing the invalid claims 1-21 in the 506 Patent due to the lack of a fuller and
`
`15
`
`more complete record of relevant prior art and due to lack of adequate
`
`consideration of relevant teaching in the cited prior art in the original examination.
`
`D. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) for the 506 Patent should
`
`have a Master of Science or equivalent degree in electrical engineering or
`
`20
`
`computer science, or alternatively a Bachelor of Science or equivalent degree in
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,506 B2
`
`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 digital image data over a computer network. Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 27-31.
`
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`E.
`Petitioner proposes that each of claim terms be construed to have its
`
`5
`
`ordinary and plain meaning in light of the specification of the 506 Patent pursuant
`
`to the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard for inter partes review.
`
`The proposed BRI 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
`
`10
`
`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 506 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`Claims 1-21 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) for merely reciting
`
`15
`
`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 506 patent. Potmesil, Hornbacker, Lindstrom,
`
`Ligtenberg and Hassan are prior art under § 102(b). Rutledge was filed on July 28,
`
`20
`
`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.
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,506 B2
`
`Cooper is prior art under at least § 102(e).
`
`SUMMARY OF INVALIDITY POSITIONS
`
`B.
`The cited prior art references in this Petition, not previously before the
`
`Office, disclose systems and methods of subdividing large images into a regular
`
`5
`
`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.
`
`Therefore, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect
`
`to at least one of claims 1-21. Specifically, claims 1-21 are rendered obvious by (1)
`
`10
`
`Potmesil in view of Hornbacker and Lindstrom, and (2) Rutledge in view of
`
`Ligtenberg, Cooper and/or Hassan.
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1-21 OF 506 PATENT
`
`The language of claims 1-21 of the 506 Patent is partitioned into claim
`
`15
`
`elements that are each identified by respective claim element numbers as defined
`
`in Ex. 1012. The claim element numbers are used to identify claim elements and
`
`specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed
`
`publications relied upon.
`
`Besides Grounds 1 to 3 discussed in this Petition, Prof. Michalson opines
`
`20
`
`that claims 1-21 are obvious for four more grounds in view of additional prior art.
`
`Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 285-479.
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,506 B2
`
`A. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-21 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) OVER POTMESIL, HORNBACKER, AND LINDSTROM
`
`Potmesil and Hornbacker disclose similar technologies for retrieving images
`
`from networked servers using Internet web browsers and HTTP protocol and
`
`5
`
`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 at
`
`Abstract. The system is designed for use in a wide variety of devices, such as
`
`10
`
`cellular phones and heads-up displays in vehicles. Id. at 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. at
`
`Fig. 1, 1329-30. Potmesil teaches that the use of prefiltered power-of-two images
`
`for texture mapping was well-known in the art, including in the OpenGL standard
`
`15
`
`used for rendering in the 3D browser. Id. at 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 that the ‘506 Patent claims priority to. Ex. 1002 at 1329;
`
`Ex. 1010 at 1010, 7:13-9:6, Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 69-75, 96. The 2D and 3D geographical
`
`map browsers implement a tile caching process that calculates the tiles needed to
`
`20
`
`render the current view and tiles likely to be needed in the future, requests those
`
`tiles from the server, and caches those tiles. For example, in a “flight simulator”
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,506 B2
`
`mode, the 3D browser requests and caches tiles from the flight path ahead of the
`
`user’s simulated viewpoint. Id. at 1332-33, Fig. 2. Image tiles may be compressed
`
`using a variety of formats such as JPEG or GIF. Id. at 1334-35. Potmesil teaches
`
`that the geographical system outlined in the paper may be used in a variety of
`
`5
`
`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.
`
`The system includes a web server networked to client workstations, which use a
`
`10
`
`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
`
`by factors of two. Id., 6:13-20, 7:11-14. The image tiles may be compressed using
`
`15
`
`GIF compression with a typical compression ratio of 4:1. Id., 6:20-7:3.
`
`In the same technology field as Potmesil and Hornbacker, Lindstrom teaches
`
`an online client/server system for viewing large-scale geographic data, e.g. terrain
`
`elevation and imagery data, using a 3D perspective view with multiple windows.
`
`Ex. 1004, Abstract, §§ 1, 3, 4.1, 4.2.6, Fig. 1. Lindstrom uses a pyramidal quadtree
`
`20
`
`structure to organize multi-resolution terrain and image data in a hierarchical
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,506 B2
`
`manner, and processes requests for image tiles using a prioritized queue and an
`
`image cache. Id., Abstract, §§2, 3, 4, 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3. Lindstrom further
`
`teaches that the display process on the client is multithreaded to improve the
`
`utilization of the system to facilitate balanced and separable management of the
`
`5
`
`system parts and support display in multiple windows. Id., Abstract, Fig. 1, §§ 1, 3,
`
`4, 4.2, 4.2.1, 4.2.3, 4.2.5, 4.2.6, 6. A POSITA would recognize that Lindstrom
`
`teaches a substantially similar online system to Potmesil with similar goals, and
`
`that the multi-threaded system of Lindstrom would provide similar advantages to
`
`speeding up processing in the system of Potmesil, particularly in view of the
`
`10
`
`related teaching in Potmesil that the tile caching and compositing processes run
`
`independently and asynchronously. Ex. 1002, 1333, Ex. 1008, ¶ 97.1, 97.2.
`
`Additionally, a POSITA would recognize that the specific teachings of Lindstrom
`
`about the function of the LOD manager including the dynamically updated priority
`
`queue for tile requests and the limiting of rendering based on display thresholds
`
`15
`
`would provide additional implementation details to assist a POSITA in
`
`implementing the technology disclosed by Potmesil. Ex. 1008, ¶ 101.
`
`The combination of Potmesil, Hornbacker, and Lindstrom collectively
`
`teaches or suggests all the limitations of claims 1-21 and renders each claim as a
`
`whole obvious and unpatentable. Ex. 1009 at ¶¶ 92-94.
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,506 B2
`
`A POSITA would be motivated to combine Potmesil, Hornbacker, and
`
`Lindstrom 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.
`
`5
`
`1009 at ¶¶ 101-102. In this regard, Potmesil, Hornbacker, and Lindstrom address
`
`similar or the same 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. Id. Potmesil and Lindstrom specifically discloses use of the
`
`10
`
`technology in terrain visualization applications and map applications. The
`
`teachings of 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,
`
`15
`
`specifically recognizes the relevance of teachings relating to mapping to the
`
`disclosure of Hornbacker by citing and explaining several online mapping
`
`references, including Potmesil, in the description of the prior art. Ex. 1011 at
`
`[0006], [0007]. Accordingly a POSITA would be motivated to consider the
`
`teachings of both references in designing a mapping application designed to view a
`
`20
`
`map over a limited bandwidth communications channel. Ex. 1009, ¶ 103. In
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,506 B2
`
`addition, the analyses of Potmesil, Hornbacker, and Lindstrom in connection with
`
`claim limitations of claims 1-21 below provide additional reasons or motivations
`
`that would cause a POSITA to combine Potmesil, Hornbacker, and Lindstrom in
`
`the manner as suggested in this Petition.
`
`5
`
`Detailed element-by-element analyses are provided below.
`
`Claim 1, Preamble:
`
`The preamble of claim 1 is taught by both Potmesil
`
`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
`
`10
`
`containing large-scale images divided into tiles. Ex. 1002 at Abstract, 1327-28,
`
`1335. Potmesil specifically suggests that the system will be used in cellular phones.
`
`Id., 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
`
`15
`
`low bandwidth communication channel such as a 28.8 kbaud modem. Ex. 1003 at
`
`Abstract, 13:28-14:11. The system may be used on devices such as notebook
`
`computers, palm-top computers, and Web television adapters. Id. at 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
`
`20
`
`transmit such data. Ex. 1003 at 6:20-7:1. A POSITA would recognize that the
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,506 B2
`
`compression techniques taught by Hornbacker could advantageously be used to
`
`implement the connection over a mobile network as suggested by Potmesil. Ex.
`
`1009, ¶¶ 105-107.
`
`Claim 1, Claim Element 1.A: Potmesil teaches software as part of the
`
`5
`
`client image visualization application that requests and caches tiles from the server.
`
`Ex. 1002 at Abstract, 1328, 1329-30 (§§ 2, 2.1), 1332-33 (§§ 3, 3.1), Fig. 2.
`
`Hornbacker teaches that tiles within a large database may be located by requests to
`
`a server which use URLs to identify the specific tile by characteristics such as
`
`resolution, location, view angle, etc. Ex. 1003, Abstract, 3:10-27, 5:16-25, 6:13-19,
`
`10
`
`7:26-8:6, 8:30-9:28, 10:24-28, 12:24-13:10. Potmesil and Hornbacker both teach
`
`methods of requesting image tiles over a network according to a priority order.
`
`Potmesil and Hornbacker identify a common problem with the display of portions
`
`of very large images over a network, which is the latency and bandwidth
`
`consumption associated with downloading an entire image, and arrive at similar
`
`15
`
`solutions in the form of requests for specific tiles in a priority order based on how
`
`soon the tiles need to be displayed. 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