UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00449
`Patent No. 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,924,506 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 506 PATENT ......................................................... 4 
`A. 
`Priority date OF THE 506 PATENT .................................................... 4 
`B. 
`SUMMARY OF THE 506 PATENT ................................................... 5 
`C. 
`THIS PETITION PRESENTS QUESTIONS OF
`PATENTABILITY THAT HAVE NOT BEEN BEFORE THE
`OFFICE ................................................................................................ 9 
`LEVEL of Ordinary Skill In the art ................................................... 11 
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................... 11 
`1. 
`“Data Parcel” in all claims .................................................... 11 
`2. 
`“A Mesh” in claim 13 ............................................................. 11 
`3. 
`All other claim terms ............................................................. 12 
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE 506 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ................ 12 
`A. 
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE REFERENCES AS PRIOR ART ....... 12 
`B. 
`SUMMARY OF INVALIDITY POSITIONS ................................... 14 
`VI.  DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1-21 OF 506 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 506 Patent .................................. 15 
`
`D. 
`E. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`2.  Motivations to combine Reddy and Hornbacker ..................... 22 
`GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-21 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) OVER REDDY AND HORNBACKER ............ 26 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 26 
`2. 
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 39 
`3. 
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 40 
`4. 
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 41 
`5. 
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 41 
`6. 
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 42 
`7. 
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 44 
`8. 
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 47 
`9. 
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 52 
`10.  Claim 10 ................................................................................... 53 
`11.  Claim 11 ................................................................................... 53 
`12.  Claim 12 ................................................................................... 53 
`13.  Claim 13 ................................................................................... 54 
`14.  Claim 14 ................................................................................... 54 
`15.  Claim 15 ................................................................................... 54 
`16.  Claim 16 ................................................................................... 57 
`17.  Claim 17 ................................................................................... 58 
`18.  Claim 18 ................................................................................... 58 
`19.  Claim 19 ................................................................................... 58 
`20.  Claim 20 ................................................................................... 59 
`21.  Claim 21 ................................................................................... 59 
`VII.  CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 60 
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent 8,924,506 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00449
`
`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 (“Michalson 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.
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent 8,924,506 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00449
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Microsoft Corporation
`
`(“Microsoft” or “Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1-21
`
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,506 B2 (“the 506 Patent,” Ex. 1002), 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 1-21 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). As demonstrated
`
`by this Petition, claims 1-21 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST: Petitioner is the only real party in interest
`
`10
`
`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 506 Patent and two other patents in the same
`
`family, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,139,794 B2 and 7,908,343 B2, are being asserted
`
`15
`
`against Petitioner in an on-going patent infringement lawsuit brought by Patent
`
`Owner in Bradium Techs. LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 1:15-cv-00031-RGA, filed on
`
`Jan. 9, 2015. Petitioner previously filed petitions for IPR of the 343 Patent and 506
`
`Patent, IPR2015-01434 and IPR2015-01435, respectively, which were denied on
`
`Dec. 23, 2015. This Petition is a second IPR petition on the 506 Patent. In addition,
`
`20
`
`Petitioner is pursuing separate IPR petitions for the 343 and 794 Patents.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent 8,924,506 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00449
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`5
`
`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
`
`numbers of 858-720-5700 (phone) and 858-720-5799 (fax), and the following
`
`email for service and all communications:
`
`10
`
`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
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104, 42.105 and 42.15 and thus should be accorded a filing
`
`15
`
`date as the date of filing of this Petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.106.
`
`A. GROUND FOR STANDING
`Pursuant to § 42.104(a), Petitioner hereby certifies that the 506 Patent is
`
`available for IPR and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting
`
`IPR challenging claims of the 506 Patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`20
`
`Specifically, Petitioner has the standing, and meets all requirements, to file this
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent 8,924,506 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00449
`
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`5
`
`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 1-21 of the 506 Patent and cancel
`
`Claims 1-21 because they are invalid on the ground and evidence presented in this
`
`Petition.
`
`10
`
`The Prior Art: The prior art references relied upon are prior art references
`
`discussed in this Petition and discussed in the Declaration of Prof. William R.
`
`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 grounds 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 1-21 of the 506 Patent
`
`is governed by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Further, statutory provisions of
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311 to 319 govern this IPR.
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent 8,924,506 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00449
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: The 506 Patent is an unexpired patent, and each claim
`
`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
`
`5
`
`11-19 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015). This is known as the broadest reasonable
`
`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 1-21 of
`
`the 506 Patent are unpatentable and specifies where each element of the claim is
`
`10
`
`found in the prior art of patents or printed publications relied upon.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 506 PATENT
`The 506 Patent is entitled “Optimized Image Delivery Over Limited
`
`Bandwidth Communication Channels” and was granted on Dec. 30, 2014 from
`
`non-provisional App. No. 13/027,929 filed on Feb. 15, 2011. Per USPTO records,
`
`15
`
`the 506 Patent was originally assigned by the inventors to Inovo Ltd. On Jun. 17,
`
`2013, Inovo assigned the 506 Patent to Bradium.
`
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE 506 PATENT
`
`A.
`The App. No. 13/027,929 is a continuation-in-part of App. No. 12/619,643,
`
`filed on Nov. 16, 2009 and now Pat. No. 7,908,343. The 12/619,643 App. is a
`
`20
`
`continuation of App. No. 10/035,987, filed on Dec. 24, 2001 and now Pat. No.
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent 8,924,506 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00449
`
`
`
`7,644,131. The 10/035,987 application further claims priority to six provisional
`
`applications, App. Nos. 60/258,488, 60/258,489, 60/258,465, 60/258,468,
`
`60/258,466, and 60/258,467, all filed on Dec. 27, 2000. Based on the USPTO
`
`record, the earliest priority date of the 794 Patent is no earlier than Dec. 27, 2000.
`
`5
`
`SUMMARY OF THE 506 PATENT
`
`B.
`The “Background” of the 506 Patent describes a “well recognized problem”
`
`of how to reduce the latency for transmitting full resolution images over the
`
`Internet, so such images can be received on an “as needed” basis, particularly for
`
`“complex images” such as “geographic, topographic, and other highly detailed
`
`10
`
`maps.” Ex. 1002 at 1:52-59. The 506 Patent admits that solutions already in
`
`existence included “transmitting the image in highly compressed formats that
`
`support progressive resolution build-up of the image within the current client field
`
`of view.” Id. at 1:59-65. Such “conventional” solutions, like the ones described in
`
`U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,698,689 (Tzou) and 6,182,114 (Yap), however, usually “presume
`
`15
`
`that client systems have an excess of computing performance, memory and storage”
`
`and are “generally unworkable for smaller, often dedicated or embedded” clients.
`
`Id. at 1:59-3:12. According to the 506 Patent, the conventional solutions do not
`
`work well under “very limited network bandwidth” situations. Id. at 3:12-25.
`
`To address these perceived issues in the existing art, the 506 Patent purports
`
`20
`
`to disclose a system capable of “optimally presenting image data on client systems
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent 8,924,506 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00449
`
`
`
`with potentially limited processing
`
`performance, resources, and
`
`communications bandwidth.” Id. at
`
`3:46-49. Fig. 2 shows a network
`
`5
`
`image server system 30 as a
`
`preferred embodiment of “the
`
`present invention.” Id., 5:60-6:45 and Fig. 2.
`
`Under the purported “invention” in the 506 Patent, the network image server
`
`system 30 stores a combination of source image data 32 and source overlay data 34.
`
`10
`
`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., 5:60-6:6. Preferably image data parcels are stored in conventional
`
`15
`
`quad-tree data structures, where tree nodes of depth D correspond to the stored
`
`image parcels of a derivative image of resolution KD.” Id., 7:27-30 and Fig. 3.
`
`This Petition will describe how such quad-tree structures were already well-
`
`known, for example, in the Reddy reference. See Ex. 1004 at ¶¶19-23.
`
`The 506 Patent describes a network image server system having a network
`
`20
`
`image server 30 and a client system18 or 20, where a user can input navigational
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent 8,924,506 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00449
`
`
`
`commands to adjust a 3D viewing frustum for the image displayed on the client
`
`system. Ex. 1002 at 5:30-59. High-resolution source image data is pre-processed
`
`by the image server into “a series K1-N of derivative images of progressively lower
`
`image resolution.” Id. at 6:7-22, Fig. 2. The source image is also subdivided into a
`
`5
`
`regular array of 64 by 64 pixel resolution image parcels (a.k.a. image tiles), and
`
`each image parcel may be compressed to fit into a single TCP/IP packet for faster
`
`transmission. Id. at 6:12-28; 8:14-32.
`
`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.
`
`10
`
`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
`
`15
`
`reference, Hornbacker, discloses the use of URLs to request particular 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
`
`20
`
`images within the same file, and could be used with geographically referenced data
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent 8,924,506 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00449
`
`
`
`according to the 1995 GeoTIFF standard for use with map-related imagery. Ex.
`
`1005, ¶¶78-82. In addition, Kodak’s FlashPix format introduced in 1996 allowed
`
`for storing a multi-resolution, tiled image pyramid in a file. Ex. 1005, ¶¶83-84.
`
`According to the 506 Patent, when the viewing point is changed in response
`
`5
`
`to a user navigation command, the client software “determines the ordered priority
`
`of image parcels to be requested from the server . . . to support the progressive
`
`rendering of the displayed image.” Ex. 1002 at 7:59-62. A number of image parcel
`
`requests are then placed in a request queue, to be issued according to each
`
`request’s assigned priority. Id. at 7:62-64; 9:7-19. Although various factors may
`
`10
`
`affect the priority assigned to a parcel request, e.g., the “resolution of the client
`
`display” (9:37-54) or whether the image parcel is “outside of the viewing frustum”
`
`(10:9-12), generally speaking, “image parcels with lower resolution levels will
`
`accumulate greater priority values,” so “a complete image of at least low resolution
`
`will be available for rendering” in a fast manner (10:59-67). In addition, the control
`
`15
`
`parameter for calculating the priority can be set in a way that gives “higher priority
`
`for parcels covering areas near the focal point of the viewer” to make sure that
`
`image parcels are requested “based on the relative contribution of the image parcel
`
`data to the total display quality of the image.” Id. at 11:1-19.
`
`Again, this Petition will show that such concepts were not novel in 1999. In
`
`20
`
`particular, this Petition will show that 3D geographic browser software was known
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent 8,924,506 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00449
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`5
`
`prefetching tiles. Ex. 1004, ¶¶21, 44, and 46.
`
`According to the 506 patent, after the needed parcels are requested and
`
`received, an algorithm is used to select the image parcel for rendering and display.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 9:20-25. Overlay data may also be added to the display if its image
`
`coordinates matches the current image parcel location. Id. at 9:29-34. Reddy
`
`10
`
`discloses this operation in its tile catching features. Ex. 1004, ¶¶44-45.
`
`The 506 Patent states that the disclosed technology can achieve faster image
`
`transfer by (1) dividing the source image into parcels/tiles (e.g., Ex. 1002 at Fig. 2,
`
`6:7-32); (2) processing the parcels/tiles into a series of progressively lower
`
`resolution parcels/tiles (id.); and (3) requesting and transmitting the needed
`
`15
`
`parcels/tiles in a priority order, generally lower-resolution tiles first (e.g., id. at
`
`Figs. 5 and 6, 7:59-8:59). Also see, id. at 3:50-4:47. As shown in greater detail
`
`below, all of these features and their combinations in claims 1-21 were known and
`
`were published prior to the earliest priority date of the 506 Patent.
`
`C. THIS PETITION PRESENTS QUESTIONS OF
`PATENTABILITY THAT HAVE NOT BEEN BEFORE THE OFFICE
`
`20
`
`Claims 1-21 of the 506 Patent were examined in the original examination of
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent 8,924,506 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00449
`
`
`
`the 506 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 1-21 in the 506
`
`Patent was well known before its filing date. The incomplete prior art record in the
`
`original examination is demonstrated by cited prior art references in this Petition
`
`5
`
`that were absent in the original examination.
`
`In addition, the analysis of claims 1-21 in this Petition is based on a single
`
`ground over the combined teachings of Reddy (Ex. 1004) and Hornbacker (Ex.
`
`1003). Neither the primary reference, Reddy, nor the overall ground were
`
`presented in Petitioner’s first IPR petition under PTAB Case No. IPR2015-01435.
`
`10
`
`The analysis and evidence of this Petition demonstrate that claims 1-21 attempt to
`
`recapture of what was already in the prior art.
`
`Notably, claims 1-21 of the 506 Patent are being currently asserted against
`
`Petitioner 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
`
`15
`
`C.F.R. § 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) each claim element and (2) the claimed subject matter as a whole in each
`
`challenged claim.
`
`PTAB is respectfully requested to institute the trial for review of claims 1-21.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent 8,924,506 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00449
`
`
`
`D. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) for the technology in the 506
`
`Patent should have a Master of Science or equivalent degree in electrical
`
`engineering or computer science, or alternatively a Bachelor of Science or
`
`5
`
`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 digital image data over a computer network. Ex.
`
`1005, ¶¶ 27-31.
`
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`E.
`Petitioner proposes constructions for certain claim terms pursuant to the
`
`10
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard for inter partes review. The
`
`proposed BRI claim constructions are offered only to comply with 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.100(b) and 42.104(b)(3) and for the sole purpose of this Petition, and thus do
`
`not necessarily reflect appropriate claim constructions to be used in litigation and
`
`15
`
`other proceedings where a different claim construction standard applies.
`
`“Data Parcel” in all claims
`
`1.
`Petitioner proposes that the term “data parcel” be construed under BRI as
`
`“data that corresponds to an element of a source image array.” Support for this
`
`construction is found in the specification, for example, Ex. 1002 at 6:6-32 and Fig.
`
`20
`
`2. Ex. 1005, ¶ 99.
`
`2.
`
`“A Mesh” in claim 13
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent 8,924,506 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00449
`
`
`
`Petitioner proposes that the term “mesh” be construed under BRI as “a
`
`collection of polygons.” The 506 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 of an object such as a three-dimensional object.
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1005, ¶100. The set of polygons is a “mesh” onto which textures may later be
`
`mapped. While the 506 Patent 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
`
`10
`
`mapped.. into the polygon corresponding coordinates… of the video memory.”
`
`All other claim terms
`
`3.
`The proposed construction of all remaining claim terms under BRI is their
`
`corresponding plain and ordinary meaning. Ex. 1005, ¶101.
`
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE 506 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`15
`
`Claims 1-21 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) for merely reciting
`
`known, predictable and/or obvious combinations of the cited prior art references.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE REFERENCES AS PRIOR ART
`
`A.
`All prior art references cited in this Petition were not on record during the
`
`20
`
`original examination of the 506 Patent. In particular, the proposed combination of
`
`the prior art references and the invalidity ground described below are presented to
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent 8,924,506 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00449
`
`
`
`the Patent Office for the first time with respect to claim 1-21.
`
`Reddy (Ex. 1004): Reddy was published in the March/April 1999 issue of
`
`IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications. Therefore, Reddy is a self-
`
`authenticating periodical on its face. Additionally, as Dr. Michalson explains, the
`
`5
`
`IEEE and its 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, ¶95. See, e.g. Ericsson, Inc. v. Intellectual
`
`10
`
`Ventures I LLC, 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 506
`
`15
`
`Patent. Ex. 1009 [British library cover page and declaration], Ex. 1010 [Linda Hall
`
`Library cover 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
`
`20
`
`claimed by Bradium. Hornbacker is prior art under at least § 102(b).
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent 8,924,506 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00449
`
`
`
`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), analyzes the differences between the claimed invention and the cited
`
`5
`
`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 invalidity grounds discloses all elements recited in claims 1-21.
`
`Reddy and Hornbacker recognize related technical problems to each other
`
`and the 506 Patent in retrieving large-scale images, such as massive terrain data,
`
`10
`
`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 506 Patent by processing source imagery into a
`
`multiresolution image pyramid, requesting image tiles of various resolutions based
`
`15
`
`on the user’s viewpoint, and rendering the received image tiles for display on a
`
`client device.
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1-21 OF 506 PATENT
`A. A POSITA WOULD HAVE HAD REASONS OR WOULD
`HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO COMBINE REDDY AND HORNBACKER
`
`20
`
`The teachings in Reddy and Hornbacker provide specific reasons and
`
`motivations that would have caused a POSITA to combine them as claimed in
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent 8,924,506 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00449
`
`
`
`claims 1-21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Based on Sections IV(B) and V(B)
`
`above that provide a high level view of various teachings in Reddy and Hornbacker
`
`on the technology of the 506 Patent, this Section VI(A) and the analyses for each
`
`claim and each element in Section VI(B) provide articulated reasoning and rational
`
`5
`
`underpinning for the combination of Reddy and Hornbacker.
`
`1.
`Reddy and Hornbacker Provide Related Teachings in the
`Same Technical Field as the 506 Patent
`
`Reddy and Hornbacker were both published in 1999 and reflect the state of
`
`prior art in the technology of the 506 Patent. Ex. 1005, ¶¶102-106. As discussed
`
`10
`
`below, Reddy teaches similar technical solutions to the 506 Patent for viewing
`
`massive sets of map data over a network in 3D using a pyramid multiresolution
`
`hierarchy and optimized 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.
`
`15
`
`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,
`
`which provided 3D visualization of large terrain data sets (including aerial imagery)
`
`20
`
`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
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent 8,924,506 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00449
`
`
`
`standard Virtual Reality Markup Language (VRML), therefore allowing
`
`compatibility with data from other sources, and (2) enabling access from a standard
`
`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.
`
`5
`
`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
`
`conditions” such as military mission planning, battle damage assessment, and
`
`emergency relief efforts. Id., ¶48.
`
`10
`
`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
`
`models, imagery such as aerial, satellite, or map imagery, and information
`
`representing features such as place names, buildings, roads, culture features or
`
`15
`
`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
`
`“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
`
`20
`
`text descriptions. Id., ¶¶9-26 and 31-48.
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent 8,924,506 B2/PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00449
`
`
`
`According to Reddy, the TerraVision II online VRML browser enables a
`
`user to visualize large geographic databases in three dimensions from a simulated
`
`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
`
`5
`
`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 506 Patent’s user map navigation features
`
`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
`
`10
`
`image” in the 506 Patent. Ex. 1001 at 7:50-67 and Figs. 3 and 4.
`
`Reddy enables its resolution-de