UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE IPR2016-00448
`
`Patent No. 7,908,343
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. PEGGY
`AGOURIS IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`OWNER RESPONSE PURSUANT TO
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Bradium Technologies LLC - patent owner
`Microsoft Corporation - petitioner
`IPR2016-00448
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
`A. Background and Qualifications .................................................................. 1
`B. Materials Considered .................................................................................. 2
`C. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”) ........................................... 4
`D. Claim Construction ..................................................................................... 6
`1.
`“Limited Bandwidth Communications Channel” ............................... 7
`2.
`“Limited Communication Bandwidth Computer Device” ............... 10
`II. Summary of opinions ....................................................................................... 14
`III. MY ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS 1–20 ............................................................... 14
`A. Summary ................................................................................................... 14
`B. Discussion of Reddy and Hornbacker ...................................................... 22
`1. Reddy ................................................................................................ 22
`2. Hornbacker ........................................................................................ 23
`C. The Asserted References Do Not Teach or Suggest All Elements of
`the ’343 Patent .......................................................................................... 24
`1. Reddy does not disclose a limited bandwidth communications
`channel .............................................................................................. 24
`2. Reddy does not disclose a limited communication bandwidth
`computer device ................................................................................ 25
`3. Neither Reddy nor Hornbacker discloses selection of data
`parcels for progressive resolution enhancement ............................... 30
`4. Neither Reddy nor Hornbacker discloses prioritization of
`requests for image parcels, including based on difference in
`resolution. ......................................................................................... 32
`5. Neither Reddy nor Hornbacker discloses the use of a
`“prioritization value” ........................................................................ 36
`6. Neither Reddy nor Hornbacker discloses the ’343 patent’s
`efficient data structure ...................................................................... 40
`
`i
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`D. A POSA Would Not Have Selected and Combined Reddy and
`Hornbacker, and the Asserted Combination Is Driven by Improper
`Hindsight .................................................................................................. 46
`1. The prior art taught away from an image pyramid
`approach such as TerraVision II for real-time image
`display over the World Wide Web ................................................ 49
`2. Reddy teaches away from operation on a limited
`communications bandwidth computer device .............................. 51
`3. Hornbacker and Reddy are incompatible .................................... 54
`4. The reference combination is guided by hindsight ...................... 56
`E. There was a long-felt need but unresolved need for the invention of
`the ’343 Patent. ......................................................................................... 59
`IV. Concluding Statement ...................................................................................... 62
`
`
`
`ii
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`LIST OF APPENDICES
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Dr. Peggy Agouris Curriculum Vitae
`
`
`
`iii
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Bradium Technologies LLC
`
`(“Bradium” or “Patent Owner”) as an expert consultant in regards to inter partes
`
`review proceeding IPR2016-00448 for U.S. Patent No. 7,908,343.
`
`2.
`
`In
`
`IPR2016-00448,
`
`I understand
`
`that Petitioner, Microsoft
`
`Corporation (“Microsoft” or “Petitioner”) is challenging the validity of Claims 1
`
`through 20 of the ’343 Patent.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the Board instituted an inter partes review on the
`
`following Ground: Claims 1–20 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Reddy
`
`in view of Hornbacker. Paper No. 9 (Institution Decision) at 44.
`
`4.
`
`I was asked to consider whether the challenged claims of the U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,908,343 (“the ’343 Patent”) (Ex. 1001), which are Claims 1 through
`
`20, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of
`
`the date of the invention.
`
`A. Background and Qualifications
`This is a summary of my background and qualifications. I set forth
`5.
`
`my background in more detail in my Curriculum Vitae which is attached as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`6.
`
`I am currently Dean of the College of Science at George Mason
`
`University. I am additionally the Director of the Center for Earth Observing &
`
`1
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Space Research at George Mason University. I was previously employed as a
`
`Professor of Geoinformatics at the College of Science at George Mason University.
`
`7.
`
`Prior to my employment at George Mason University, I was an
`
`assistant professor, and then associate professor, at the School of Computing and
`
`Information Science at the University of Maine from 1995 to 2001 and 2001 to
`
`2006 respectively. During my time as associate professor, I was also the Chief
`
`Technology Officer at Milcord Maine, LLC from 2004 to 2006. I served as the
`
`Chair of the department of Geography and Geoinformation Science at George
`
`Mason University from 2008 to 2013 and was the Acting Associate Provost for
`
`Graduate Education at George Mason University from 2012 to 2013.
`
`8.
`
`I have an Engineering Diploma, which I obtained from the National
`
`Technical University of Athens, Greece. I also have a Master of Science degree in
`
`Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science and a Doctorate in
`
`Digital Image Processing and Analysis from the Ohio State University.
`
`9.
`
`Based on my academic and industry experience, as set forth more
`
`fully in Appendix A, I am quite familiar with the state of the art in 1999 in
`
`Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and related fields. I was, and continue to
`
`be, actively involved in the field.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`
`2
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`10. For time spent in connection with this case, I am being compensated
`
`at my customary rate. My compensation is not dependent upon the outcome of
`
`this petition or any issues involved in or related to the ’343 Patent, and I have
`
`no other financial stake in this matter. I have no financial interest in, or affiliation
`
`with, any of the real parties in interest or the patent owner.
`
`11. The materials I considered include the ’343 Patent and the prosecution
`
`history for the ’343 Patent, the Petition from Microsoft for inter partes review
`
`(Paper No. 1), the Michalson Declaration in support of the Petition (Ex. 1005), the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision to institute inter partes review
`
`in IPR2016-00448 (Paper No. 9), and Bradium’s Preliminary Response (Paper
`
`No. 8). I also considered the materials that I refer to and that I cite in this
`
`declaration, and, to the extent that I considered them relevant, the materials
`
`provided by Dr. Michalson or the Petitioner.
`
`12.
`
`In addition, I have drawn on my experience and knowledge, as
`
`discussed above and described more fully in my CV, in the areas of image
`
`processing, geographic information systems, interactive computer graphics, and
`
`dynamic visualization, among other areas.
`
`13. Counsel for Bradium has asked me to assume that the date of
`
`invention for the ’343 Patent is October 1999. I understand that Dr. Michalson
`
`considered as the date of invention the earliest invention date claimed by the
`
`3
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`inventors during prosecution of the ’343 Patent, which is October 1999. See Ex.
`
`1005 ¶ 3. Therefore, my analysis of the state of the prior art is also based on an
`
`invention date of October 1999.
`
`14.
`
`I note that the most recent of the prior art references cited in the
`
`two grounds that were instituted by the Board is dated “March/April 1999” for
`
`Reddy (Ex. 1004 page 30). Accordingly, I understand that the asserted prior art
`
`would not change depending on whether October 1999 or December 27, 2000
`
`(which I understand is the date of provisional applications that are relied on for
`
`priority by the ’343 Patent) is considered to be the date of invention.
`
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”)
`15. The ’343 Patent relates to networked or internet based image
`
`distribution systems, in particular to a system and methods for efficiently selecting
`
`and distributing image parcels through a narrowband or otherwise limited
`
`bandwidth communications channel to support presentation of high-resolution
`
`images subject to dynamic viewing frustums. See Ex. 1001 1:25–30.
`
`16.
`
`I understand
`
`that
`
`the factors considered
`
`in determining
`
`the
`
`ordinary level of skill in the art include the level of education and experience of
`
`persons working in the field, the types of problems encountered in the field, and
`
`the sophistication of the technology.
`
`4
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`17. Based on these factors, in my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSA”) relating to the technology of the ’343 Patent at the time of the
`
`invention would have been a person with a four-year bachelor’s degree or
`
`equivalent in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science,
`
`as well as at least two years of experience in image and graphics processing
`
`including developing, designing, or programming client-server software for
`
`computer networked environments.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that Dr. Michalson has opined that a POSA 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. (Ex. 1005 at Paragraph 31.) My opinions as
`
`set forth in this declaration would not change even if I were to assume
`
`Dr. Michalson’s definition of a POSA is correct.
`
`19. The opinions I express herein are given from the point of view of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art, as described above, at the time of the
`
`invention of the ’343 Patent (which I have been asked to assume is October 1999).
`
`Even if I do not repeat this explicitly, this is the perspective that I applied in my
`
`analysis and in this declaration, unless I indicate otherwise.
`
`5
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`D. Claim Construction
`I understand that the claims and specification of a patent must be read
`20.
`
`and construed through the eyes of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the priority date of the claims.
`
`21.
`
`I further understand that the claim construction standard that applies
`
`for the purposes of this proceeding is the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI)
`
`of the claim language, in light of the specification. I have applied this standard in
`
`claim constructions I have set forth below.
`
`22. Elsewhere in my analysis, except when I state otherwise, I have
`
`applied the ordinary meaning of claim terms as they are used in the specification,
`
`under the BRI standard.
`
`23. The Board has construed term “data parcel” to mean data that
`
`corresponds to an element of a source image array. (Paper 9 at p.11.) I have
`
`applied the Board’s definition in my analysis.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the Board construed “Image Parcel” in IPR2015-
`
`01432 for the related U.S. Pat. No. 7,139,794. IPR2015-01432, Paper No. 15 at 10
`
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2015). The Board construed “image parcel” to be an element of
`
`an image array, with the image parcel being specified by the X and Y position in
`
`the image array coordinates and an image set resolution index. I understand that
`
`6
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent Owner has proposed this definition be adopted in this IPR. I have reviewed
`
`and I agree with this definition.
`
`25. The Board has determined that “mesh” does not require further
`
`construction. I have applied the Board’s guidance in my analysis.
`
`26.
`
`In conducting my analysis of the challenged claims of the ’343 patent,
`
`I have applied the claim constructions below consistent with the BRI standard. I
`
`have considered these constructions solely in the context of this inter partes review
`
`and have not considered other litigation proceedings where a different standard
`
`may apply.
`
`“Limited Bandwidth Communications Channel”
`
`1.
`I understand that Patent Owner has proposed a BRI claim construction
`
`27.
`
`for the term “limited bandwidth communications channel” in all claims of
`
`the ’343 patent of “a wireless or narrowband communications channel.” I have
`
`reviewed and agree with this proposed construction.
`
`28. Support for this construction is found in the specification, for example
`
`at 1:25–30; 3:6–9; 3:9–14; 3:37–31; 5:24–30; 8:64–67, and as set forth below.
`
`29. No communications channel is unlimited, and therefore I consulted
`
`the specification to understand how the patentee was using the term “limited
`
`bandwidth communications channel.”
`
`7
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`30. A limited bandwidth communications channel is limited by direct
`
`technological constraints. Although the term is not defined in the specification of
`
`the ’343 patent (as noted by the Board, Paper No. 9 at 23), the ’343 patent states
`
`that “limited bandwidth conditions may exist due to either the direct technological
`
`constraints dictated by the use of a low bandwidth data channel or indirect
`
`constraints imposed on relatively high-bandwidth channels by high concurrent user
`
`loads.” Ex. 1001 at 3:9–14 (emphasis added).
`
`31. A high-bandwidth channel operating under high concurrent user load
`
`can suffer from limited bandwidth conditions, but a low bandwidth data channel
`
`relates to the technological constraints on that channel itself. A narrowband
`
`connection such as dial-up, for example, regardless of concurrent user load, has a
`
`technologically imposed maximum bandwidth throughput. A POSA would have
`
`understood that a “limited bandwidth communications channel” refers to the “low
`
`bandwidth data channel” in the specification, which is low bandwidth due to
`
`technological constraints.
`
`32. A narrowband communications channel
`
`is
`
`limited by direct
`
`technological constraints and is disclosed by the ’343 patent as a limited bandwidth
`
`communications channel. The ’343 patent states, for example, that “[t]he
`
`disclosure is related to network based, image distribution systems and, in particular,
`
`to a system and methods for efficiently selecting and distributing image parcels
`
`8
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`through narrowband or otherwise limited bandwidth communication channel to
`
`support presentation of high-resolution images subject to dynamic viewing
`
`frustums.” Ex. 1001 at 1:25–30 (emphasis added). Narrowband channels
`
`generally include non-broadband communications channels, such as wired dial-up
`
`connection, which was a common consumer-level communications channel in
`
`1999.
`
`33. Wireless networks are also limited by direct technological constraints
`
`as discussed at length in the ’343 patent as limited bandwidth communications
`
`channels. For example, the ’343 patent specification notes: “Another problem is
`
`that small clients are generally constrained to generally to [sic] very limited
`
`network bandwidths, particularly when operating under wireless conditions.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:6–9. Wireless networks are particularly susceptible to packet loss, a
`
`latency problem the ’343 patent seeks to address.
`
`34. The patent states: “Reliable transport protocols, however, merely
`
`mask packet losses and the resultant, sometimes extended, recovery latencies.
`
`When such covered errors occur, however, the aggregate bandwidth of the
`
`connection is reduced and the client system can stall waiting for further image data
`
`to process.” Ex. 1001 at 3:37–31.
`
`35. The ’343 patent also contemplates performance on wireless devices in
`
`describing its preferred embodiment of four concurrent threads. “Empirically, for
`
`9
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`many wireless devices, four concurrent threads are able to support a relatively
`
`continuous delivery of image data parcels to the client 20 for display processing.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 8:64–67. Figure 1 of the ’343 patent shows a preferred embodiment of
`
`the invention, including a wireless connection. “The preferred operational
`
`environment 10 of the present invention is generally shown in FIG. 1. A network
`
`server system 12, operating as a data store and server of image data, is responsive
`
`to requests received through a communications network, such as the Internet 14
`
`generally and various tiers of internet service providers (ISPs) including a wireless
`
`connectivity provider 16.” Ex. 1001 at 5:24–30.
`
`36.
`
`It is my opinion that the Petitioner’s construction of this term relies on
`
`a flawed reading of the specification and is overbroad. The Petition argues that
`
`Reddy teaches a device that retrieves data over limited bandwidth communications
`
`channel because Reddy uses the Internet. See Paper 1 (Petition) at 48–49 (Claim
`
`13, preamble). The Internet, however, is not a “communications channel” as used
`
`in the ’343 patent or as would be understood by a POSA in 1999. A client device
`
`would use a communications channel to use the Internet. Further, as explained
`
`above, constraints imposed by high concurrent user loads create limited bandwidth
`
`conditions, not limited bandwidth channels.
`
`2.
`
`“Limited Communication Bandwidth Computer Device”
`
`10
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`37.
`
`I understand that Patent Owner has proposed BRI claim construction
`
`for the term “limited communication bandwidth computer device” in all claims of
`
`the ’343 patent of “a small client for example smaller, typically dedicated function
`
`devices often linked through wireless network connections, such as PDAs,
`
`smartphones, and automobile navigation systems.”
`
`38. Support for this construction is found in the specification, for example,
`
`at 2:51–55; 3:7–14; 3:14–19; 3:14–16; 3:32–36; 4:6–9; 5:36–43; 5:29–30; 5:30-36;
`
`5:30–31; 8:7–10, and as set forth below.
`
`39. No computer device has unlimited communications bandwidth, and
`
`therefore I consulted the specification to understand how the patentee was using
`
`the term “limited communications bandwidth computer device.”
`
`40. Support for the construction I propose is found in the specification,
`
`which describes a number of preferred embodiments of the ’343 patent’s invention,
`
`whose goal is to provide a client system viable on small clients. See, e.g., Ex. 1001
`
`at 3:32–36. “A mobile computing device such as mobile phone, smart phone, and
`
`or personal digital assistant (PDA) is a characteristic small client. Embedded,
`
`low-cost kiosk and or automobile navigation systems are other typical examples.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 2:51–55. “Cellular connected PDAs and webphones are examples of
`
`small clients that are frequently constrained by limited bandwidth conditions. The
`
`conventionally realizable maximum network transmission bandwidth for such
`
`11
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`small devices may range from below one kilobit per second to several tens of
`
`kilobits per second” Ex. 1001 at 3:14–19. “The client software system is very
`
`small and easily downloaded to conventional computer systems or embedded in
`
`conventional dedicated function devices, including portable devices, such as PDAs
`
`and webphones.” Ex. 1001 at 4:6–9. “For small clients 20, the available memory
`
`for the parcel data store 46 is generally quite restricted. In order to make optimal
`
`use of the available memory, only currently viewable image parcels are subject to
`
`download.” Ex. 1001 at 8:7–10.
`
`41. The ’343 patent states that a small client is generally constrained to
`
`very limited network bandwidths either through direct technological constraints (a
`
`limited bandwidth communications channel as explained above) or through
`
`indirect constraints imposed on relatively high-bandwidth channels by high
`
`concurrent user loads. Ex. 1001 at 3:7–14. The ’343 patent anticipates that even
`
`when a small client is using a relatively high-bandwidth communications channel,
`
`it may be subject to high concurrent user load. Ex. 1001 at 3:7–14. Figure 1 of
`
`the ’343 patent displays two examples of limited bandwidth situations for a small
`
`client 20: a plug-in local network server 22 implementing a small, embedded web
`
`server (Ex. 1001 at 5:36–43) as well as a wireless connectivity provider 16
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 5:29–30). The ’343 patent also notes that cellular connected PDAs
`
`and webphones are frequently constrained by limited bandwidth conditions
`
`12
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 3:14–16), both by their limited bandwidth channel (cellular) and by
`
`high concurrent user load (cellular towers potentially servicing multiple users).
`
`42.
`
`I disagree with
`
`the
`
`construction of
`
`“limited bandwidth
`
`communications device” that is set forth in the Petition (Paper No. 1). It is
`
`unreasonably broad, even under the BRI standard. Petitioner claims that “a
`
`POSITA would have understood that both the Internet and WWW are computer
`
`network technologies in which multiple users share bandwidth somewhere in the
`
`network, and therefore, Reddy’s terrain data viewing also works when a user has
`
`limited bandwidth available due to other users’ bandwidth utilization.” Paper
`
`No. 1 at 27. Petitioner’s interpretation effectively writes the “limited bandwidth”
`
`language out of the claims, as any computer device that connects to the Internet
`
`would qualify as a “limited communications bandwidth computer device.” A
`
`POSA would not have understood a limited communications bandwidth computer
`
`device, in light of the patent specification, to mean “any device connected to the
`
`Internet.” A reasonable construction gives meaning to the term by limiting the
`
`claims to the kinds of devices and communications networks discussed throughout
`
`the patent, i.e., portable devices on narrowband or wireless connections.
`
`43. Although nothing stops the invention of the ’343 patent from
`
`operating on a conventional workstation and/or personal computer (see Ex. 1001 at
`
`5:30–36; Fig. 1), the claims of the patent do not extend to such use. The
`
`13
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`specification notes, for example, that client systems include conventional
`
`workstations and personal computers (Ex. 1001 at 5:30–31), but the claim
`
`language itself is narrower.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`44.
`
`In this Section I present a summary of my opinions. The full
`
`statement of my opinions and the bases for my opinions are contained in the
`
`appropriate sections of my declaration. I give this summary, however, for the
`
`convenience of the reader.
`
`45. For the reasons set forth in this declaration, and based on my analysis
`
`of the ’343 Patent, my knowledge and experience, my understanding of the state of
`
`the art in 1999, my analysis of the Petition and accompanying materials and of the
`
`Board’s institution decision, it is my opinion that the challenged claims (1-20)
`
`would not have been obvious to a POSA as of the date of the invention, October
`
`1999.
`
`III. MY ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS 1–20
`A.
`Summary
`46.
`
`In my opinion, Reddy in view of Hornbacker does not teach or
`
`suggest all of the elements of the challenged claims of the ’343 patent.1 Reddy
`
`
`As I explain in this declaration, it is my opinion that Reddy does not
`1.
`
`teach or suggest “limited bandwidth communications channel” (claims 13–20),
`
`14
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`does not
`
`teach or suggest a system capable of operating on “limited
`
`communication bandwidth computer devices” or over a “limited bandwidth
`
`communications channel,” one or both of which are required elements of all claims.
`
`Nor does Reddy teach or suggest the ’343 patent’s efficient KD, X, Y data structure
`
`(all claims) or adaptable prioritization parameter method (claims 10–11), both of
`
`which enable efficient operation on limited communications bandwidth computer
`
`devices. Reddy also does not teach or suggest prioritization of data parcels (claims
`
`10–11, 15–16).
`
`
`“limited communications bandwidth computer device” (all claims), “device mobile
`
`computer system, a cellular computer system, an embedded computer system, a
`
`handheld computer system, a personal digital assistants [sic] and an internet-
`
`capable digital phone” (claim 3), “associating a prioritization value to said
`
`request . . . wherein issuing said request is responsive to said prioritization value
`
`for issuing said request in a predefined prioritization order” (claims 10 and 11),
`
`and “storing each data parcel on the remote computer in a file of defined
`
`configuration such that a data parcel can be located by specification of a KD, X, Y
`
`value that represents the data set resolution index D and corresponding image array
`
`coordinate” (all claims).
`
`
`
`15
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`
`47. Hornbacker does not teach or suggest all the elements which Reddy is
`
`lacking. 2 Hornbacker does not teach or suggest the efficient KD, X, Y data
`
`structures of the ’343 patent. Hornbacker also does not teach or suggest
`
`prioritization of data parcels or the prioritization parameter of the ’343 patent.
`
`48. Therefore, the combination of Hornbacker with Reddy would not
`
`satisfy the claim language and claims 1–20 should not be found obvious over
`
`Reddy in view of Hornbacker. Further, Hornbacker’s disclosure of structures that
`
`Petitioner alleges should be considered “a limited communications bandwidth
`
`computer device,” “a limited bandwidth communications channel,” or a file
`
`configuration such that a data parcel can be located by “specification of a KD, X, Y
`
`value” would not be combined with Reddy, for reasons set forth below.
`
`49. That is, a POSA would not have combined Reddy and Hornbacker to
`
`arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`As I explain in this declaration, Hornbacker does not disclose the
`2.
`
`elements “associating a prioritization value to said request . . . wherein issuing said
`
`request is responsive to said prioritization value for issuing said request in a
`
`predefined prioritization order” (claims 10 and 11) and “storing each data parcel on
`
`the remote computer in a file of defined configuration such that a data parcel can
`
`be located by specification of a KD, X, Y value that represents the data set
`
`resolution index D and corresponding image array coordinate” (all claims).
`
`16
`
`20
`
`

`
`
`
`50. A POSA would not have considered a document-image system such
`
`as Hornbacker in conjunction with a GIS system such as Reddy. See Section III.D.
`
`51. Also, in addressing a bandwidth-limited situation, a POSA would not
`
`have looked to Reddy, either alone or in view of Hornbacker, because Reddy is
`
`specifically designed for a high-speed internet connection and is computationally
`
`complex and bandwidth intensive.
`
`52. Reddy is part of the Multidimensional Applications GigaBit (which
`
`refers to an extremely high-speed network) Internet Consortium (MAGIC) project.
`
`Ex. 1004, ¶38
`
`and p.37
`
`(Acknowledgements,
`
`showing
`
`funding by
`
`“Multidimensional Applications Gigabit Internet Consortium II”). Further, as
`
`shown in Exhibit 2066, SRI International (authors of Reddy/TerraVision II and
`
`also of Exhibit 2066), intended to apply TerraVision to extremely high-speed,
`
`specialized networks in the context of a Digital Earth project. SRI reported that
`
`TerraVision was engineered to support the Digital Earth framework, which was
`
`intended to operate on “advanced NGI networks.” Ex. 2066 at 2. Advanced NGI
`
`networks are “Next Generation Initiate” networks focused on government and
`
`research use at extremely high-speeds. See Ex. 2067.
`
`53. A POSA would not have considered Reddy for a limited bandwidth
`
`environment and would not have applied Reddy to achieve the method and system
`
`described and claimed in the ’343 patent.
`
`17
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`
`54. A POSA would also not have considered Hornbacker in a bandwidth-
`
`limited environment. Hornbacker discloses that the server custom-calculates tile
`
`views of an image based, for example, on a particular angle of rotation that the user
`
`happens to request—these tiles would be unusable in the system of Hornbacker by
`
`a user who requests the same image at a slightly different angle, for example,
`
`which a POSA would understand to be an inefficient approach that would
`
`needlessly result in a lot of duplicative network traffic.
`
`55. The Petition’s suggestion to combine Hornbacker with Reddy is
`
`driven by improper hindsight. A POSA would not have looked to Reddy in view
`
`of Hornbacker, because these two references take entirely different approaches.
`
`Reddy describes the use of custom software (a version of VRML that runs as a
`
`processing-intensive client application) on the user computer to achieve real-time
`
`“fly over” effect in a complex 3D environment. By contrast, Hornbacker is
`
`designed to avoid the need for custom software by allowing users to access an
`
`image via off-the-shelf computer browsers and workstations, by placing the burden
`
`on the server to custom-calculate tiled views of an image file in response to simple
`
`requests from the client computers. Further, a POSA would have understood that
`
`applying the custom-tile-calculation approach of Hornbacker to Reddy would
`
`severely slow down the system by imposing an excessive calculation burden,
`
`which would not make sense because it would be directly contrary to the goal of
`
`18
`
`22
`
`

`
`
`
`Reddy of allowing the user to “fly over” terrain. Further, the approach of
`
`Hornbacker would have been understood to be impractical for the hundreds of
`
`gigabytes of data of the Reddy environment. See Ex. 1004, ¶2.
`
`56. Another reason that a POSA would not have looked to Reddy or
`
`Hornbacker is that the prior art taught away from the innovations of the ’343 patent
`
`and towards the use of compression and progressive transmission of image files.
`
`The prior art discouraged the use of the ’343 patent’s KD, X, Y data structure in
`
`limited-bandwidth situations where speed of performance was an issue because
`
`that data structure required redundant transmission of image information. See Ex.
`
`1005 at Appendix N at 1; Ex. 2043 at 49:9–53:18.
`
`57. To achieve gradually improving resolution of an image using tiles, for
`
`example, first a low-resolution tile would need to be downloaded, and then a series
`
`of completely new images in the form of higher-resolution tiles. This was
`
`understood prior to the ’343 patent as problematic as it consumed and wasted
`
`precious bandwidth in a bandwidth-constrained environment.
`
`58. The prior art instead directed the POSA to the use of compression
`
`techniques such as progressive transmission, a technique that was praised as
`
`allowing for rapid viewing by the user of a low-resolution image and efficient and
`
`smooth improvement of image resolution over time, in contrast to the perceived
`
`higher memory usage, redundancy, and “popping” caused by sudden changes in
`
`19
`
`23
`
`

`
`
`
`using an image tiles that required a “brand new” image for each resolution level.
`
`See Ex. 1005 at Appendix BB (Migdal) at Fig. 1B and 2:29–34, 2:43–45; Ex. 1005
`
`at Appendix N at 1; Ex. 2043 at 53:19–54:3, 70:9–71:19.
`
`59. The invention of the ’343 patent satisfied what a POSA would have
`
`understood was a long-felt but unresolved need for fast and efficient transfer of
`
`image data (such as map data) in limited bandwidth situations. Ex. 2006 at 24
`
`(p.32). There was a documented need for better solutions for image transfer for
`
`mapping and image systems since the 1970’s and 19