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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`r
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM R. MICHAL SON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`I hereby declare that all the statements made in this Declaration are of my
`
`own kno~ledge 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 #
`
`2016 in /JOV6-Ir/K
`
`William R. Michalson
`
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`LIST OF APPENDICES ......................................................................................... iii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .......................................................................... 3
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE .................................................... 5
`A.
`Education and Work Experience .......................................................... 5
`B.
`Compensation ....................................................................................... 9
`C.
`Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon ..................................... 9
`IV. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ................................................... 10
`A.
`Claim Construction............................................................................. 10
`B.
`Anticipation ........................................................................................ 10
`C.
`Obviousness ........................................................................................ 11
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 11
`V.
`VI. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND OF THE 343 Patent............................. 13
`A. Data Communications Over the Internet ............................................ 16
`B.
`Data Communications in Wireless Mobile Systems .......................... 18
`C.
`Image Tiles and Image Pyramids ....................................................... 20
`D.
`Compression of Image Tiles .............................................................. 25
`E.
`Progressive Image Resolution Enhancement ..................................... 26
`F.
`Three-Dimensional Graphics ............................................................. 28
`1.
`Overview of 3D Computer Graphics principles ...................... 28
`2.
`Texture ..................................................................................... 35
`3.
`Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML) ......................... 39
`G. Mip-Maps ........................................................................................... 40
`H.
`Storage of image data ......................................................................... 46
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE 343 Patent ................................................................ 48
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PRIOR ART AND SUMMARY OF
`OPINIONS .................................................................................................... 54
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`Reddy .................................................................................................. 54
`A.
`Hornbacker ......................................................................................... 55
`B.
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 55
`A.
`“Data Parcel” ...................................................................................... 56
`B.
`“A mesh” in claim 13 ......................................................................... 56
`C.
`Other claim terms ............................................................................... 57
`X. UNPATENTABILITY OF THE 343 PATENT CLAIMS........................... 57
`A.
`CLAIMS 1-20 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) AS BEING OBVIOUS OVER REDDY IN VIEW OF
`HORNBACKER ................................................................................ 57
`1.
`Overview of Reddy: ................................................................. 59
`2.
`Overview of Hornbacker .......................................................... 66
`3. Motivations to Combine Reddy and Hornbacker. ................... 68
`4.
`Claim-by-claim analysis .......................................................... 73
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`
`
`
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`
`
`LIST OF APPENDICES
`
`Appendix A
`
`Curriculum Vitae of William R. Michalson
`
`Appendix B
`
`Excerpt of Hanan Samet, The Design and Analysis of Spatial
`Data Structures, University of Maryland (1989, Reprinted with
`corrections in Jan. 1994)
`
`Appendix C
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,263,136 (DeAguiar et al)
`
`Appendix D
`
`U.S. Patent 4,972,319 (Delorme)
`
`Appendix E
`
`Appendix F
`
`Appendix G
`
`Appendix H
`
`Appendix I
`
`Appendix J
`
`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.)
`
`Appendix K
`
`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.
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Appendix L
`
`Appendix M
`
`Appendix N
`
`
`
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`
`Appendix T
`
`Appendix X
`
`Appendix Y
`
`Appendix Z
`
`Appendix AA
`
`OpenGL Standard Version 1.2.1, April 1999, available:
`https://www.opengl.org/documentation/specs/version1.2/opengl
`1.2.1.pdf
`
`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”)
`
`Appendix GG
`
`GeoTIFF Format Specification Revision 1.0
`
`Appendix HH
`
`TIFF Revision 6.0, dated June 3, 1992.
`
`Appendix II
`
`FlashPix Format Specification v1.0, dated September 11, 1996
`
`Appendix KK
`
`The Virtual Reality Modeling Language ISO/IEC 14772-
`1:1997
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`My name is William R. Michalson. I am a faculty member at
`
`
`I.
`1.
`
`Worcester Polytechnic Institute. I have been engaged by Microsoft Corporation
`
`(“Microsoft”) to investigate and opine on certain issues relating to U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,908,343 B2 (“the 343 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
`
`343 Patent (“Microsoft IPR Petition”) which requests the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (“PTAB”) to review and cancel all claims of the 343 Patent—claims 1-20
`
`(“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 343
`
`Patent— U.S. Patent Nos. 7,139,794 B2 and 8,924,506 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 343 Patent was assigned from the inventors Isaac
`
`Levanon and Yoni Lavi to 3DVU Ltd (2000) Israel on September 11, 2008, then
`
`assigned from 3DVU, Inc. to Inovo Limited on June 5, 2009, and assigned from
`
`
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`
`
`Inovo Limited to Bradium on June 17, 2013. Bradium is therefore referred to as
`
`the “Patent Owner” in this declaration.
`
`3.
`
`In this declaration, I will first discuss the technology background
`
`related to the 343 Patent and then provide my analyses and opinions on claims 1-
`
`20 of the 343 Patent. The discussion of the technology background includes an
`
`overview of that technology as it was known before October 1999, which I
`
`understand as being the earliest invention date of the 343 Patent claimed by the
`
`inventors in their inventor declarations submitted to the USPTO during the original
`
`prosecution of the 343 Patent’s parent patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,644,131. This
`
`overview provides some of the bases for my opinions with respect to the 343
`
`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 have been taken.
`
`5.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied on information and evidence
`
`identified in this declaration, including the 343 Patent, the prosecution history of
`
`the 343 Patent, and prior art references listed as Exhibits to the Microsoft IPR
`
`2
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`
`
`Petition and listed as appendices of this declaration. The Appendices to this
`
`declaration include a number of references known to those in the art to describe
`
`technical concepts relevant to the subject matter of this declaration, and include
`
`(for example) patents, technical publications, and industry standards. In my
`
`opinion, an expert or a person of ordinary skill in the art in the subject matter
`
`relevant to this declaration would consider each of the Appendices to this
`
`declaration relevant to the subject matter of this declaration and would reasonably
`
`rely on such materials to form an opinion as to the state of the art prior to
`
`December 27, 2000, the interpretation of the prior art references relied upon in
`
`Microsoft’s petition, and the obviousness of the claims challenged in the petition. I
`
`have also relied on my own personal experience in the field of computer graphics,
`
`which includes the design and development of computer graphic hardware,
`
`software, and display systems.
`
`II.
`6.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`Claims 1-20 of the 343 Patent relate to a system and a method for
`
`dynamic visualization of image data transferred through a communications channel.
`
`For the reasons explained below, none of the features described in Claims 1-20 of
`
`the 343 Patent were novel as of October 1999, nor does the 343 Patent teach a
`
`novel and non-obvious way of combining these known features.
`
`3
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`Claims 1-20 of the 343 Patent relate to well-known technologies in
`
`
`
`7.
`
`the computer industry such as multi-resolution hierarchical maps, image
`
`compression, packetized data transmission, and three-dimensional (3D) graphics
`
`rendering. No element of Claims 1-20 is novel, and Claims 1-20 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 1-20 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 1-20 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 1-20; however, my opinion that Claims 1-20 are invalid under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 is not limited to these specific grounds, and indeed, it is my
`
`opinion that Claims 1-20 would have been invalid in light of the general
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention.
`
`4
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`For purposes of my analyses in this declaration only, I provide my
`
`
`
`9.
`
`proposed construction of certain terms in Claims 1-20 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
`I received a Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering in 1989 and a
`
`11.
`
`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
`
`also have extensive experience in computer communication and data processing
`
`systems as well as systems for the efficient transmission of digital images and
`
`5
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`
`
`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 (WPI) 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 Robot Navigation and Control Laboratory.
`
`6
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`My research projects at WPI cover various technologies and include
`
`
`
`16.
`
`(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
`
`7
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`
`
`incorporated database systems into other hardware and software systems for use in
`
`storing and retrieving GIS-related data.
`
`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.
`
`8
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`My curriculum vitae, which provides a detailed summary of my
`
`
`
`21.
`
`education, work experience, publication, teaching history, and etc. is attached to
`
`this declaration as Appendix A.
`
`B. Compensation
`I am being compensated for the services I am providing in this and
`
`22.
`
`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
`The documents on which I rely for the opinions expressed in this
`
`23.
`
`declaration are documents and materials identified in this declaration, including the
`
`343 Patent, patents related to the 343 Patent, the prosecution history for the 343
`
`Patent and other patents related to the 343 Patent, the prior art references and
`
`information discussed in this declaration, including the references attached as
`
`exhibits of the IPR Petition for the 343 Patent, WO 99/41675 to Cecil V.
`
`Hornbacker, III (“Hornbacker”) (Ex. 1003), TerraVision II: Visualizing Massive
`
`Terrain Databases in VRML by M. Reddy et al., IEEE Computer Graphics and
`
`Applications, March/April 1999 (Ex. 1004), and any other references specifically
`
`9
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`
`
`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
`Microsoft’s counsel has advised that, when construing claim terms of
`
`24.
`
`an unexpired patent, a claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.”
`
`B. Anticipation
`Microsoft’s counsel has advised that in order for a patent claim to be
`
`25.
`
`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
`
`reference. In order for a reference to inherently disclose a claim limitation, that
`
`claim limitation must necessarily be present in the reference.
`
`10
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`C. Obviousness
`Microsoft’s counsel has also advised me that obviousness under pre-
`
`
`
`26.
`
`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
`I understand from Microsoft’s counsel that the claims and
`27.
`
`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
`
`skill in the art, the following factors may be considered: (a) the types of problems
`
`encountered by those working in the field and prior art solutions thereto; (b) the
`
`11
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`
`
`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 of the Invention” section of the 343 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 1:34-43.
`
`29.
`
`To solve this problem and to address some perceived issues in the
`
`existing art, the 343 Patent discloses a system capable of “optimally presenting
`
`image data on client systems with potentially limited processing performance,
`
`resources, and communications bandwidth.” Id. at 3:40-43. 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
`
`parcels/tiles needed for a particular viewpoint in a priority order, generally lower-
`
`resolution tiles first.
`
`30.
`
`In light of the disclosed technology of the 343 Patent, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art for the 343 Patent would need education or work
`
`12
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`
`
`experience in computer network communications. Because a “common
`
`application” of the 343 Patent is to transmit “geographic, topographic, and other
`
`highly detailed maps,” (id. at 1:37-39), 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 343 PATENT
`31.1
`It is my opinion that the 343 Patent recites an obvious and predictable
`
`combination of technical features that were well-known in the art at the time the
`
`343 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
`
`and documented in the art at the time of filing of the 343 Patent, and therefore
`
`13
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`
`
`would be within the knowledge 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.
`
`31.2
`
`The 343 Patent recites that the “preferred operational environment of
`
`the present invention is generally shown in Fig. 1” and links a network server with
`
`a client system “through a communications network, such as the Internet 14
`
`generally and various tiers of Internet service providers (ISPs) including a wireless
`
`connectivity provider.” Ex. 1001, 5:24-36, Fig. 1:
`
`14
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`Based on my review of the entire specification of the 343 Patent, it
`
`
`
`31.3
`
`appears to me that the inventors describe a system that relied on conventional
`
`network connections, including conventional wireless networking methods, and
`
`that the underlying means of transmitting data over the Internet or over a wireless
`
`network are not emphasized as a point of novelty. In other words, in order to
`
`implement the alleged invention in the 343 Patent, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have to rely on existing methods already known in the art of connecting
`
`to the Internet and sending data over a wireless connection, since the 343 Patent
`
`does not provide any novel teachings about this aspect of the alleged system. This
`
`fact is particularly relevant to certain claim limitations which relate to, e.g., the
`
`bandwidth of the communications channel, whether the communications channel is
`
`wireless, and the type of client device which operates the 343 Patent’s user
`
`software, because the ability to connect to the Internet, or connect to the Internet
`
`via a wireless channel or on a “small” client device such as a PDA, is something
`
`that the 343 Patent assumes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would already
`
`know how to do. I considered this relevant to my analysis later in this declaration
`
`that these claim limitations are obvious over the references discussed and that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success
`
`implementing the system described by Reddy (which itself describes a laptop
`
`15
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`
`
`computer) on, for example, a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) or via a wireless
`
`connection.
`
`32.
`
`I provide below a general description of the underlying technology of
`
`transmitting data over the Internet and via wireless connections as it existed in
`
`2000 and in before.
`
`A. Data Communications Over the Internet
`The predominant computer networking technology and set of
`
`33.
`
`communications protocols used for most online communications today and prior to
`
`the filing of the application for the 343 Patent is known as the Internet Protocol (IP)
`
`suite including TCP/IP, named after its two main component protocols: the
`
`Transmission Control Protocol and the Internet Protocol. While other protocols,
`
`such as the User Datagram Protocol, or UDP, are also part of the IP suite of
`
`protocols, the 343 Patent teaches at 7:26-46 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 343 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 sized
`
`blocks. Packets are composed of a header and a payload. The “payload” is the
`
`16
`LEGAL129251392.3
`
`Microsoft et al. Exhibit 1005
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM R. MICHALSON
`IN SUPPORT