`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,908,343 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ..................................................................................................... iii
`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 ............................................................. 2
`B.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE .......................................... 3
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 343 PATENT ......................................................... 4
`A.
`SUMMARY OF THE 343 PATENT ................................................ 5
`B.
`THIS PETITION PRESENTS QUESTIONS OF
`PATENTABILITY THAT HAVE NOT BEEN BEFORE
`THE OFFICE ..................................................................................... 9
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................... 10
`C.
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..................................... 10
`D.
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE 343 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ................ 11
`A.
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE REFERENCES AS PRIOR
`ART .................................................................................................... 12
`SUMMARY OF INVALIDITY POSITIONS ................................ 13
`B.
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY OF
`CLAIMS 1-20 OF 343 PATENT ............................................................... 14
`A. A POSITA WOULD HAVE HAD REASONS OR WOULD
`HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO COMBINE REDDY AND
`HORNBACKER ............................................................................... 14
`1.
`Reddy and Hornbacker Provide Related Teachings in the
`Same Technical Field as the 343 Patent .................................. 14
`2. Motivations to combine Reddy and Hornbacker ..................... 21
`B. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-20ARE OBVIOUS OVER
`REDDY IN VIEW OF HORNBACKER ....................................... 25
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 25
`Dependent Claims 2-12 ............................................................ 41
`2.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 48
`3.
`Dependent Claims 14-20 .......................................................... 54
`4.
`VII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 58
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,908,343 B2 to Levanon et al. (“the 343 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002 U.S. Patent No. 8,924,506 B2 to Levanon et al. (“the 506 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`PCT Publication No. WO 99/41675 to Cecil V. Hornbacker, III
`(“Hornbacker”)
`
`Ex. 1004 Reddy et al., “TerraVision II: Visualizing Massive Terrain Databases
`in VRML,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications March/April
`1999, pp. 30-38 (“Reddy”) (with added paragraph numbers by
`Petitioner for ease of reference in the Petition)
`
`Ex. 1005 Declaration of Prof. William R. Michalson (“Michaelson Decl.”) with
`Appendices
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`EP1070290 to Cecil V. Hornbacker, III
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Printout of IEEE Explore citations to Reddy et al. (Ex. 1004)
`
`Ex. 1008 Printout of Google Scholar citations to Reddy et al. (Ex. 1004)
`
`Ex. 1009 Cover page and authenticating declaration of Reddy et al. (Ex. 1004)
`from British Library
`
`Ex. 1010 Cover page of Reddy et al. (Ex. 1004) from Linda Hall Library
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Proof of Service dated Jan. 12, 2015 in Case No. 15-cv-00031-RGA,
`Bradium Technologies, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Microsoft Corporation
`
`(“Microsoft” or “Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-
`
`20 of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2 (“the 343 Patent,” Ex. 1001), currently owned by
`
`5
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC (“Bradium” or “Patent Owner”). This Petition shows
`
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at
`
`least one of the claims 1-20 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). As demonstrated
`
`by the evidence in this Petition, claims 1-20 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §103(a).
`
`10
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST: Petitioner is the only real party in interest
`
`and there are no other real parties in interest under 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(2) and 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1).
`
`RELATED MATTERS: The 343 Patent and two other patents in the same
`
`15
`
`family, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,139,794B2 and 8,924,506B2, are being asserted against
`
`Petitioner in an on-going patent infringement lawsuit brought by Patent Owner in
`
`Bradium v. Microsoft, 1:15-cv-00031-RGA, filed on Jan. 9, 2015. Petitioner filed
`
`its first IPR petition on the 343 Patent under PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01434 on
`
`Jun. 16, 2015 and PTAB denied the institution on Dec. 23, 2015. This Petition is a
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`second IPR petition on the 343 Patent. In addition, Petitioner is pursuing separate
`
`IPR petitions for the 794 and 506 Patents.
`
`NOTICE OF COUNSEL AND SERVICE INFORMATION: Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4) and 42.10(a), Petitioner appoints Bing Ai (Reg.
`
`5
`
`No. 43,312) as its lead counsel, Matthew Bernstein (pro hac vice), Vinay Sathe
`
`(Reg. No. 55,595) and Patrick J. McKeever (Reg. No. 66,019) as its back-up
`
`counsel. Petitioner also requests authorization to file a motion for Mr. Bernstein to
`
`appear pro hac vice. The above attorneys are all at the mailing address of Perkins
`
`Coie LLP, 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350, San Diego, CA 92130, contact
`
`10
`
`numbers of 858-720-5700 (phone) and 858-720-5799 (fax), and the following
`
`email for service and all communications:
`
`PerkinsServiceBradiumIPR@perkinscoie.com. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a
`
`Power of Attorney is concurrently filed.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`This Petition complies with all statutory requirements and requirements
`
`15
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104, 42.105 and 42.15 and thus should be accorded a filing
`
`date as the date of filing of this Petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.106.
`
`A. GROUND FOR STANDING
`Pursuant to § 42.104(a), Petitioner hereby certifies that the 343 Patent is
`
`20
`
`available for IPR and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`IPR challenging claims of the 343 Patent on the ground identified herein.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner has the standing, and 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. §§ 42.101 and 42.102. In particular, this Petition is timely filed under 35
`
`5
`
`U.S.C. §315(b) on Jan. 11, 2016 because Petitioner was served with a complaint
`
`for the Case No. 15-cv-00031-RGA on Jan. 12, 2015. Ex. 1011.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`B.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) and 42.22, the precise relief requested is
`
`that the Board institute an IPR trial on Claims 1-20 of the 343 Patent and cancel
`
`10
`
`Claims 1-20 because they are invalid on evidence presented in this Petition.
`
`The Prior Art: The prior art includes prior art discussed in this Petition and
`
`in the Declaration of Prof. Michalson (Ex. 1005).
`
`Supporting Evidence Relied Upon For The Challenge: The supporting
`
`evidence includes the Declaration of Prof. Michalson (Ex. 1005) supporting the
`
`15
`
`invalidity ground in this Petition and other supporting evidence in the Exhibit List.
`
`Statutory Ground(s) Of Challenge And Legal Principles: Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(2), the review of patentability of claims 1-20 is governed by
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Further, statutory provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 311 to 319 govern this IPR.
`
`20
`
`Claim Construction: The 343 Patent is an unexpired patent and each claim
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`shall be given by the Patent Office “its broadest reasonable construction in light of
`
`the specification of the patent in which it appears” to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, No. 2014-1301 at
`
`11-19 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015). This is known as the broadest reasonable
`
`5
`
`interpretation (BRI) standard.
`
`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 1-20 are
`
`unpatentable and specifies where each element of the claim is found in the prior art
`
`patents or printed publications relied upon.
`
`10
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 343 PATENT
`The 343 Patent was granted on Mar. 15, 2011 from App. No. 12/619,643
`
`filed on Nov. 16, 2009. Per USPTO records, the 343 Patent was originally assigned
`
`by the inventors to 3DVU Ltd. (2000) Israel on Sept. 11, 2008, then assigned by
`
`3DVU, Inc. to Inovo Limited on June 5, 2009. On June 17, 2013, Inovo assigned
`
`15
`
`the 343 Patent to Bradium. The 343 Patent is a continuation of App. No.
`
`10/035,987, filed on Dec. 24, 2001 and now Pat. No. 7,644,131. The 987
`
`application claims priority to 6 prov. applications, 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.
`
`Based on the USPTO record, the earliest priority date of the 343 Patent is no
`
`20
`
`earlier than Dec. 27, 2000.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`SUMMARY OF THE 343 PATENT
`
`A.
`The “Background” of the 343 Patent describes a “well recognized problem”
`
`of how to reduce the latency for transmitting full resolution images over the
`
`Internet, so such images can be received on an “as needed” basis, particularly for
`
`5
`
`“complex images” such as “geographic, topographic, and other highly detailed
`
`maps.” Ex. 1001, 1:34-51. The 343 Patent admits that solutions already in
`
`existence included “transmitting the image in highly compressed formats that
`
`support progressive resolution build-up of the image within the current client field
`
`of view.” Id., 1:51-61. Such “conventional” solutions, like the ones described in
`
`10
`
`U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,698,689 (Tzou) and 6,182,114 (Yap), however, usually “presume
`
`that client systems have an excess of computing performance, memory and storage”
`
`and are “generally unworkable for smaller, often dedicated or embedded” clients.
`
`Id., 1:51-2:58. According to the 343 Patent, the conventional solutions do not work
`
`well under “limited network bandwidth” situations. Id., 3:7-31.
`
`15
`
`To address these perceived issues
`
`in the existing art, the 343 Patent
`
`purports to disclose a system capable of
`
`“optimally presenting image data on
`
`client systems with potentially limited
`
`20
`
`processing performance, resources, and communications bandwidth.” Id., 3:40-43.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`Fig. 2 shows a network image server system 30 as a preferred embodiment of “the
`
`present invention.” Id., 5:54-6:41 and Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`Under the purported “invention” in the 343 Patent, the network image server
`
`system 30 stores a combination of source image data 32 and source overlay data 34.
`
`5
`
`The source image data 32 is typically high-resolution bit-map raster map and or
`
`satellite imagery of geographic regions, which can be obtained from commercial
`
`suppliers. The overlay image data 34 is typically a discrete data file providing
`
`image annotation information at defined coordinates relative to the source image
`
`data 32. Id., 5:55-67. Preferably, image data parcels are stored in conventional
`
`10
`
`quad-tree data structures, where tree nodes of depth D correspond to the stored
`
`image parcels of a derivative image of resolution KD.” Id., 6:42-62 and Fig. 3. This
`
`Petition will describe how such quad-tree hierarchy structures were already well-
`
`known, for example, in the Reddy reference (Ex. 1004).
`
`The 343 Patent describes a network image server system having a network
`
`15
`
`image server 30 and a client system 18 or 20, where a user can input navigational
`
`commands to adjust a 3D viewing frustum for the image displayed on the client
`
`system. Ex. 1001, 5:24-53. 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., 5:54-6:6, Fig. 2. The source image is also subdivided into a
`
`20
`
`regular array of 64 by 64 pixel resolution image parcels (a.k.a. image tiles), and
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`each image parcel may be compressed to fit into a single TCP/IP packet for faster
`
`transmission. Id., 6:6-22; 7:28-46.
`
`This Petition will discuss how such processing techniques were well known
`
`in the art, particularly as shown by this Petition’s primary reference, Reddy (Ex.
`
`5
`
`1004), which discloses the processing of large sets of source image data to create a
`
`multiresolution image pyramid which can be viewed in three dimensions using an
`
`online web browser. Storing image tiles in a manner that facilitates retrieving them
`
`by their relative position and level of resolution was also known. This Petition’s
`
`secondary reference, Hornbacker, discloses the use of URLs to request particular
`
`10
`
`tiles by identifying the relative position and level of resolution of a particular tile.
`
`Ex. 1003 at 8:30-9:19. As Dr. Michalson discusses, it was also well-known in the
`
`industry that multiple images at different resolutions could be stored in the same
`
`file. For example, the TIFF image standard supported “subfiles” for different
`
`images within the same file, and could be used with geographically referenced data
`
`15
`
`according to the 1995GeoTIFF standard for use with map-related imagery. Ex.
`
`1005, ¶¶81-83. In addition, Kodak’s FlashPix format introduced in 1996 allowed
`
`for storing a multi-resolution, tiled image pyramid in a file. Ex. 1005, ¶84.
`
`According to the 343 Patent, when the viewing point is changed in response
`
`to a user navigation command, the client software “determines the ordered priority
`
`20
`
`of image parcels to be requested from the server . . . to support the progressive
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`rendering of the displayed image.” Ex. 1001, 7:17-20. A number of image parcel
`
`requests are then placed in a request queue, to be issued according to each
`
`request’s assigned priority including giving higher priority for parcels covering
`
`areas near the focal point of the viewer. Id., 7:20-22; 8:20-32, 8:50-67, 9:23-26,
`
`5
`
`and 10:6-33.
`
`Again, this Petition will show that such concepts were not novel in 1999. In
`
`particular, this Petition will show that 3D geographic browser software was known
`
`in the art using a “progressive coarse-to-fine algorithm to load and display new
`
`data,” and load new detail progressively as a user approaches an area of terrain or
`
`10
`
`display the highest resolution data available if some high-resolution tiles have yet
`
`to arrive and to predict user’s future moves by extrapolating flight path and
`
`prefetching tiles. Ex. 1004, ¶¶21, 44, and 46.
`
`According to the 343 Patent, after the needed parcels are requested and
`
`received, an algorithm is used to select the image parcel for rendering and display.
`
`15
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:33-38. Overlay data may also be added to the display if its image
`
`coordinates matches the current image parcel location. Id., 8:42-47.
`
`The 343 Patent states that the disclosed technology can achieve faster image
`
`transfer by (1) dividing the source image into parcels/tiles (e.g., Ex. 1001 at Fig. 2,
`
`6:1-26); (2) processing the parcels/tiles into a series of progressively lower
`
`20
`
`resolution parcels/tiles (id.); and (3) requesting and transmitting the needed
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`parcels/tiles in a priority order, generally lower-resolution tiles first (e.g., id. at
`
`Figs. 5 and 6, 7:26-8:32). See also id. at 3:40-4:41. As shown below, all of these
`
`features and their combinations in claims 1-20 were known and were published
`
`prior to the earliest priority date of the 343 Patent.
`
`5
`
`B.
`THIS PETITION PRESENTS QUESTIONS OF
`PATENTABILITY THAT HAVE NOT BEEN BEFORE THE OFFICE
`
`Claims 1-20 were examined in the original examination of the 343 Patent in
`
`which the Examiner relied on an incomplete record of prior art and thus did not
`
`know that the subject matter of the issued claims 1-20 was well known before its
`
`10
`
`filing date. The incomplete prior art record in the original examination is
`
`demonstrated by cited prior art references in this Petition that were absent in the
`
`original examination.
`
`In addition, the analysis of claims 1-20 is based on a single ground over the
`
`combined teachings of Reddy (Ex. 1004) and Hornbacker (Ex. 1003). Neither the
`
`15
`
`primary reference, Reddy, nor the overall ground, were presented in Petitioner’s
`
`first IPR petition under PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01434. The analysis and
`
`evidence of this Petition demonstrate that claims 1-20 contain nothing new but a
`
`recapture of what was already in the prior art.
`
`Notably, claims 1-20 are being currently asserted against Petitioner
`
`20
`
`Microsoft in the Delaware District Court. This Petition is filed within the one-year
`
`statutory period under 35 U.S.C. §315(b). To comply with the spirit of 37 C.F.R. §
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`42.1(b), Petitioner is presenting a single invalidity ground accompanied with
`
`detailed and articulated explanations on the prior art teaching with respect to (1)
`
`the claimed subject matter as a whole in each challenged claim and (2) each claim
`
`element.
`
`5
`
`PTAB is respectfully requested to institute the trial for review of claims 1-20.
`
`C. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) for the technology in the 343
`
`Patent should have a Master of Science or equivalent degree in electrical
`
`engineering or computer science, or alternatively a Bachelor of Science or
`
`10
`
`equivalent degree in electrical engineering or computer science, with at least 5
`
`years of experience in a technical field related to geographic information system or
`
`the transmission of digital image data over a computer network. Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 27-31.
`
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`D.
`Petitioner proposes constructions for certain claim terms pursuant to the
`
`15
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard only to comply with 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.100(b) and 42.104(b)(3) and for the sole purpose of this Petition. Thus, the
`
`proposed constructions do not necessarily reflect appropriate claim constructions to
`
`be used in litigation and other proceedings where a different claim construction
`
`standard applies.
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`“Data Parcel” in all claims: The term “data parcel” is construed under the
`
`BRI as “data that corresponds to an element of a source image array.” Support for
`
`this construction is found in the specification, for example, at 6:4-26 and Fig. 2. Ex.
`
`1005, ¶102.
`
`5
`
`“A mesh” in claim 13: The term “mesh” is construed under BRI as “a
`
`collection of polygons.” The 343 Patent does not use the term “mesh” in the
`
`specification. In computer graphics, sets of polygons are used to model a shape or
`
`geometry of an object or a surface. Ex. 1005, ¶¶62-67, 120.1. The set of polygons
`
`is a “mesh” onto which textures may later be mapped. Id. While the 343 Patent
`
`10
`
`does not use the term “mesh,” the closest teaching is at 9:1-31, which recites that
`
`“the image display space is progressively split… by four to one reductions into
`
`polygons” and that each visible polygon in the mesh is associated with a
`
`corresponding image parcel. The image parcel is then “texture mapped… into the
`
`polygon corresponding coordinates… of the video memory.” Id.
`
`15
`
`All other claim terms: The proposed construction of all remaining claim
`
`terms under BRI is their corresponding plain and ordinary meaning. Ex. 1005,
`
`¶102.2.
`
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE 343 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`20
`
`Claims 1-20 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a) for merely
`
`reciting known, predictable and/or obvious combinations of the cited prior art
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`references.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE REFERENCES AS PRIOR ART
`
`A.
`All prior art references cited in this Petition were not on record during the
`
`original examination of the 343 Patent. In particular, the proposed combination of
`
`5
`
`the prior art references and the invalidity ground described below are presented to
`
`the Patent Office for the first time with respect to claim 1-20.
`
`Reddy (Ex. 1004): Reddy was published in the March/April 1999 issue of
`
`IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications and thus is a self-authenticating
`
`periodical on its face. Additionally, as Dr. Michalson explains, the IEEE and its
`
`10
`
`publications are commonly read and relied on by those in the field, and a POSITA
`
`would recognize the publication marks on Reddy (such as the journal title and
`
`issue date in the footers and copyright line in the lower right-hand corner of the
`
`first page) as markings that would be commonly relied on by those of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. Ex. 1005, ¶98. See, e.g. Ericsson, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`
`15
`
`IPR2014-00527, Paper 41 at 10-13 (PTAB May 18, 2015) (taking Official Notice
`
`of reliability of IEEE publications). Reddy has also been cited several times by
`
`other publications (Ex. 1007 [IEEE explore citations printout], Ex. 1008 [Google
`
`scholar citations printout]), and received and catalogued by at least two research
`
`libraries more than one year prior to the priority date of the 343 Patent. Ex. 1009
`
`20
`
`[British library cover page and declaration], Ex. 1010 [Linda Hall Library cover
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`page]. Therefore, Reddy is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`Hornbacker (Ex. 1003):WO 99/41675 to Cecil V. Hornbacker, III
`
`(“Hornbacker”) is a patent publication that was filed on Feb. 12, 1998 and
`
`published on Aug. 19, 1999, more than one year prior to the earliest priority date
`
`5
`
`claimed by Bradium. Hornbacker is prior art under at least § 102(b).
`
`SUMMARY OF INVALIDITY POSITIONS
`
`B.
`Under the BRI claim construction and from the perspective of a POSITA,
`
`this Petition discusses the pertinent teachings of the cited prior art (Reddy and
`
`Hornbacker) in the proposed invalidity ground, analyzes the differences between
`
`10
`
`the claimed invention and the cited prior art by considering the claimed invention
`
`as a whole and the cited prior art as a whole under the BRI claim construction, and
`
`concludes that the prior art in the proposed ground discloses all elements recited in
`
`claims 1-20.
`
`Reddy and Hornbacker recognize related technical problems to each other
`
`15
`
`and the 343 Patent in retrieving large-scale images, such as massive terrain data,
`
`over network communications channels, such as the Web or the Internet, for
`
`display on a limited communication bandwidth computer device. Reddy, viewed in
`
`light of Hornbacker, disclose the same technical solutions to these problems
`
`described and claimed in the 343 Patent by processing source imagery into a
`
`20
`
`multiresolution image pyramid, requesting image tiles of various resolutions based
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`on the user’s viewpoint, and rendering the received image tiles for display on a
`
`client device.
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS
`1-20 OF 343 PATENT
`A. A POSITA WOULD HAVE HAD REASONS OR WOULD
`HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO COMBINE REDDY AND HORNBACKER
`
`5
`
`The teachings in Reddy and Hornbacker provide specific reasons and
`
`motivations that would have caused a POSITA to combine them as claimed in
`
`claims 1-20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Based on Sections IV(B) and V(B)
`
`10
`
`above that provide a high level view of various teachings in Reddy and Hornbacker
`
`on the technology of the 343 Patent, this Section VI(A) and the analyses for each
`
`claim and each element in Section VI(B) provide articulated reasoning and rational
`
`underpinning the combination of Reddy and Hornbacker.
`
`1.
`Reddy and Hornbacker Provide Related Teachings in the
`Same Technical Field as the 343 Patent
`
`15
`
`Reddy and Hornbacker were both published in 1999 and reflect the state of
`
`prior art in the technology of the 343 Patent. As discussed below, Reddy teaches
`
`similar technical solutions to the 343 Patent for viewing massive sets of map data
`
`over a network in 3D using a pyramid multiresolution hierarchy and optimized
`
`20
`
`downloading of image tiles based on the user’s location and orientation, while
`
`Hornbacker teaches methods of dividing large data sets into tiles, compressing
`
`those tiles, and requesting the appropriate tiles over a network.
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`Reddy was published in the March/April 1999 issue of the IEEE Computer
`
`Graphics and Applications journal. Reddy describes a software system called
`
`TerraVision II. TerraVision II built on previous work funded by the Defense
`
`Advanced Research Projects Agency to develop an earlier version of TerraVision,
`
`5
`
`which provided 3D visualization of large terrain data sets (including aerial imagery)
`
`over a high-speed ATM network. Ex. 1004, ¶ 38. Improvements in TerraVision II
`
`include (1) allowing the user to browse online geographic information in the
`
`standard Virtual Reality Markup Language (VRML), therefore allowing
`
`compatibility with data from other sources, and (2) enabling access from a standard
`
`10
`
`personal computer, including a laptop, as a plug-in for a common internet browser
`
`over the Worldwide Web (WWW) rather than a specialized high-speed network.
`
`Id., ¶¶9, 31, 39, 48. Reddy teaches that by placing this capability on a standard
`
`computer and making the information available over the WWW, the geographic
`
`browsing capabilities of the system may be used in “distributed, time-critical
`
`15
`
`conditions” such as military mission planning, battle damage assessment, and
`
`emergency relief efforts. Id., ¶48.
`
`Reddy teaches that the online VRML information on massive map or terrain
`
`data sets accessed by a web browser may include various forms of information
`
`such as multiple types of geo-referenced data, digital elevation information, site
`
`20
`
`models, imagery such as aerial, satellite, or map imagery, and information
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`representing features such as place names, buildings, roads, culture features or
`
`annotations. Ex. 1004, Abstract, ¶¶1-2, 4-8, 19-26. Reddy teaches data processing
`
`and data delivery over the Web to a user operating a web browser on a user device
`
`(e.g., a PC or a laptop) to retrieve the map data and to navigate in the map with a
`
`5
`
`“real time” map navigation experience based on multiresolution terrain techniques
`
`and a pyramid multiresolution hierarchy as illustrated in Figs. 1-4 and 5 and related
`
`text descriptions. Id., ¶¶9-26 and 31-48.
`
`According to Reddy, the TerraVision II online VRML browser enables a
`
`user to visualize large geographic databases in three dimensions from a simulated
`
`10
`
`3D “fly-over” user perspective. Reddy describes how a user can zoom on a 3D
`
`model of earth viewed from space and “fly” all the way down to see a particular
`
`building, with terrain and map imagery data appearing at higher and higher
`
`resolutions as the user progressively gets closer to a point on the map. Id., ¶3.
`
`Therefore, Reddy discloses the 343 Patent’s user map navigation features
`
`15
`
`responsive to the changes in the viewing frustum from user input navigation
`
`commands in a so-called “three-dimensional fly-over navigation of the displayed
`
`image” in the 343 Patent. Ex. 1001 at 7:8-46 and Figs. 3 and 4.
`
`Reddy enables its resolution-dependent viewing over the Web via a browser
`
`on a user device by using various techniques. For example, Reddy discloses a
`
`20
`
`“quad-tree” structure (in which one tile or node at a given resolution or level of
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`detail branches off to four (2x2) tiles or nodes at the next higher level). The quad-
`
`tree structure links several types of data, including elevation data as well as terrain
`
`imagery and other features that may be overlaid on a map. Id., ¶¶19-26. Image tiles
`
`are organized into a pyramid, which is a multiresolution hierarchy of image tiles in
`
`5
`
`which (1) each tile has the same pixel dimensions, (2) a tile at a given level of the
`
`pyramid maps onto four tiles at the next higher level, and (3) the resolution (area
`
`covered by one pixel) varies by a factor of two between subsequent levels. Id.,
`
`¶¶14-17. The resolution levels in the hierarchy facilitate a 3D perspective view by
`
`allowing higher resolution tiles to be retrieved for locations closer to the viewpoint.
`
`10
`
`For example, Fig. 1(a) depicts the image pyramid, while Fig. 1(b) shows the tiles
`
`of differing resolutions that are obtained and used to form a view when the user is
`
`positioned in the lower-right hand portion of the map (¶15-17):
`
`When the user’s simulated viewpoint approaches a region of terrain, the
`
`15
`
`quad-tree structure is used to load and display more detail “progressively… in a
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`coarse-to-fine fashion” which allows the user to “interact with the scene while
`
`higher resolution imagery and elevation loads.” Id., ¶¶21, 44. Notably, Reddy’s Fig.
`
`1 and accompanying text teach the same feature shown in Fig. 2 of the 343 Patent.
`
`Therefore, before the earliest priority date of the 343 Patent, Reddy
`
`5
`
`documented the recognition in the industry of the challenges in disseminating
`
`“massive terrain data sets” and “many millions of polygons and many gigabytes of
`
`imagery” of 3D maps and spatial data over the Web on users’ demand by using a
`
`web browser. Reddy taught the use of a web browser to navigate the VRML
`
`structures easily and efficiently, and further acknowledged that the time required to
`
`10
`
`download and render such a model would prohibit any real-time interaction using
`
`then-existing VRML browsers. Id., Title, Abstract, ¶¶5-7, 12.
`
`The “optimized image delivery over limited bandwidth communication
`
`channels” as stated in the title of the 343 Patent was thus documented by Reddy in
`
`1999. The 343 Patent states that “a general purpose of the present invention is to
`
`15
`
`provide an efficient system and methods of optimally presenting image data on
`
`client systems with potentially limited processing performance, resources, and
`
`communications bandwidth.” Ex. 1001 at 3:40-43. This purpose, however, was
`
`achieved by Reddy’s 1999 TerraVision II technology which “represent[s] massive,
`
`distributed terrain databases in VRML” and allows users “to navigate efficiently
`
`20
`
`around these structures using either a standard VRML browser or our specialized
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,343 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`TerraVision II browser.” Id., ¶49.
`
`Like Reddy, in 1999 Hornbacker addressed similar technical issues to those
`
`discussed in the 343 Patent: “Network and system performance p