Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: July 27, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: July 27, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–21 (the “challenged claims”)
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,924,506 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’506 patent”). Bradium
`Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8,
`“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be
`instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” For the reasons described below, we determine
`that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
`showing the unpatentability of claims 1–21. Accordingly, we institute an
`inter partes review of claims 1–21 of the ’506 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`According to Petitioner, the ’506 patent and two other patents in the
`same family, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,139,794 B2 (“the ’794 patent”)1 and
`7,908,343 B2 (“the ’343 patent”), are being asserted by Patent Owner in the
`following litigation: Bradium Techs. LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 1:15-cv-
`00031-RGA, filed on January 9, 2015 in the District of Delaware. See Pet.
`
`
`1 The ’794 patent is the subject of on-going IPR2015-01432. The ’343
`patent was the subject of IPR2015-01434, in which inter partes review was
`not instituted, and is currently the subject of IPR2016-0448.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`1. The ’506 patent was also the subject of IPR2015-01435, in which inter
`partes review was not instituted.
`
`B. The ’506 Patent
`The ’506 patent describes an image distribution system for retrieving
`high-resolution or large-scale images from a network image server over a
`limited-bandwidth communications channel for display on client devices,
`where a user may navigate over the images displayed on the client device by
`controlling a viewing frustum placed over the displayed images. See
`Ex. 1002, Abstract; col. 1, ll. 29–34; col. 5, ll. 31–59. The retrieval of large-
`scale or high-resolution images is achieved by selecting, requesting, and
`receiving update image parcels relative to an operator or user controlled
`image viewpoint. See id. at Abstract; col. 3, ll. 50–59. In an embodiment,
`when the viewing frustum is changed by user navigation commands, the
`client device determines the priority of the image parcels to be requested
`from the server “to support the progressive rendering of the displayed
`image,” and the image parcel requests are placed in a request queue to be
`issued in priority order. See id. at col. 7, ll. 50–65.
`On the server side, high-resolution source image data is pre-processed
`by the image server to create a series of derivative images of progressively
`lower resolution. See id. at col. 6, ll. 7–12. Figure 2 of the ’506 patent is
`reproduced below.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts preparation of pre-processed image parcels at the network
`image server. See id. at col. 4, ll. 60–63; col. 5, ll. 60–63; col. 6, ll. 7–10.
`As illustrated in Figure 2, source image data 32 is pre-processed to obtain a
`series K1-N of derivative images of progressively lower image resolution. Id.
`at col. 6, ll. 10–12. Initially, the source image data—i.e., the series image
`K0—is subdivided into a regular array of image parcels of a fixed byte size,
`e.g., 8K bytes. Id. at col. 6, ll. 12–17. In an embodiment, the resolution of a
`particular image in the series is related to the predecessor image by a factor
`of four while, at the same time, the array subdivision is also related by a
`factor of four, such that each image parcel of the series images has the same
`fixed byte size, e.g., 8K bytes. Id. at col. 6, ll. 17–22.
`In another embodiment, the image parcels are compressed by a fixed
`ratio—for example, the 8K byte parcels are compressed by a 4-to-1
`compression ratio such that each image parcel has a fixed 2K byte size. Id.
`at col. 6, ll. 23–28. This allows each image parcel to fit into a single
`network data packet, which improves data delivery and avoids the
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`transmission latency and processing overhead of managing image parcel
`data broken up over multiple network data packets. See id. at col. 8, ll. 15–
`22.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim
`1 is illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced below:
`1.
`A method of retrieving large-scale images over network
`communications
`channels
`for display on
`a
`limited
`communication bandwidth computer device, said method
`comprising:
`limited communication bandwidth
`issuing, from a
`computer device to a remote computer, a request for an update
`data parcel wherein the update data parcel is selected based on
`an operator controlled image viewpoint on the computer device
`relative to a predetermined image and the update data parcel
`contains data that is used to generate a display on the limited
`communication bandwidth computer device;
`processing, on the remote computer, source image data to
`obtain a series K1-N of derivative images of progressively lower
`image resolution and wherein series image K0 being subdivided
`into a regular array wherein each resulting image parcel of the
`array has a predetermined pixel resolution wherein image data
`has a color or bit per pixel depth representing a data parcel size
`of a predetermined number of bytes, resolution of the series
`K1-N of derivative images being related to that of the source
`image data or predecessor image in the series by a factor of
`two, and said array subdivision being related by a factor of two
`such that each image parcel being of a fixed byte size;
`receiving said update data parcel from the data parcel
`stored in the remote computer over a communications channel;
`and
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`displaying on the limited communication bandwidth
`computer device using the update data parcel that is a part of
`said predetermined image, an image wherein said update data
`parcel uniquely forms a discrete portion of said predetermined
`image.
`
`D. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following ground of unpatentability (Pet. 26–
`
`59):
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Statutory Basis
`
`Ground
`
`1–21
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Reddy2 and Hornbacker3
`
`
`
`II. ISSUES UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`In IPR2015-01435, we declined to institute inter partes review of the
`’506 patent because Petitioner had not established that the cited Lindstrom
`reference qualifies as prior art. IPR2015-01435, Dec. on Inst. (’1435 Paper
`15) 8–16.4 We also determined that Petitioner had not established the
`combination of Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Cooper disclosed the claimed
`feature “the resolution of the series K1-N of derivative images being related to
`that of the source image data or predecessor image in the series by a factor
`
`2 Ex. 1004, M. Reddy, Y. Leclerc, L. Iverson, N. Bletter, TerraVision II:
`Visualizing Massive Terrain Databases in VRML, IEEE Computer Graphics
`and Applications, Vol. 19, No. 2, 30–38, IEEE Computer Society,
`March/April 1999 (“Reddy”).
`3 Ex. 1003, WO 99/41675 (Aug. 19, 1999) (“Hornbacker”).
`4 The papers and exhibits in IPR2015-01435 are designated with the “’1435”
`prefix, as indicated above.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`of two and, said array subdivision being related by a factor of two such that
`each image parcel being of a fixed byte size.” Id. at 17–27. We noted that
`this limitation captures the concept of varying the resolution and array
`subdivision of the series images in relation to each other, so as to maintain
`the size of each image parcel at the same fixed byte size. Id. at 19. We also
`concluded that Petitioner had not demonstrated that the cited portions of
`Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Cooper teach this feature. Id. at 20.
`In the instant Petition, Petitioner asserts a single challenge of
`obviousness based on the combination of Reddy and Hornbacker. Pet. 10,
`26–59. As Petitioner notes, neither Reddy nor the combination of Reddy
`and Hornbacker was considered in IPR2015-01435. Id. at 10.
`Patent Owner argues that the current Petition is an improper “do-over”
`because it uses our initial decision in IPR2015-01435 as a “roadmap” to
`preparing a better petition (Prelim. Resp. 6–11), fails to explain why
`Petitioner could not have presented in its first Petition the art and the
`arguments presented in the current Petition (id. at 11–13), and Petitioner’s
`arguments are substantially the same as those denied in the first petition (id.
`at 13–16).
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments concerning the
`number and timing of the petitions as being prejudicial to Patent Owner. Id.
`at 10–11. Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s filing of five petitions
`unduly prejudices Patent Owner overstates the case. Patent Owner has
`asserted three patents (the ’794 patent, the ’343 patent, and the ’506 patent)
`in infringement litigation against Petitioner. We instituted in IPR2015-
`01432 on Petitioner’s challenge to the ’794 patent. The instant Petition is
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`only the second brought by Petitioner against the ’506 patent. Similarly, the
`petition challenging the ’343 patent in IPR2016-00448 is only the second
`petition brought against the ’343 patent. Both the instant Petition and the
`petition filed in IPR2016-00448 assert a single challenge to patentability.
`Thus, Petitioner has not overwhelmed Patent Owner with an unreasonable
`number of challenges to patentability.
`We recognize Patent Owner’s concern about unfettered serial attacks
`by the same petitioner. However, Patent Owner’s complaints about the
`timing of the first and second petitions, i.e., the first petition being filed
`shortly after Patent Owner served its infringement complaint and the second
`petition being filed near the end of the statutory period (Prelim. Resp. 10–
`11), do not demonstrate prejudice. On the contrary, the timing of the
`petitions illustrates that Petitioner acted expeditiously after being sued by
`Patent Owner and that the one year statutory time bar for filing a petition
`imposed by 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) provides a self-limiting mechanism that
`protects Patent Owner from prejudice resulting from serial attacks by the
`same Petitioner.
`Whether Petitioner initially failed to locate references that, in
`combination, disclose the claimed features or failed to argue them
`successfully in its first petition, alone, does not immunize Patent Owner
`from challenges raised in a second properly filed petition. Patent Owner
`protests that our denial of the first petition provides a roadmap to a
`successful challenge of the ’506 patent and insists that we should exercise
`our discretion to deny Petitioner a second bite at the apple. Prelim. Resp. 8–
`10. Our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) necessarily
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`implies that we can exercise discretion to reach the opposite result. Patent
`Owner cites a number of cases where we denied institution exercising our
`discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) based on a “roadmap” theory.
`However, it is unrealistic to assume a second petition will not attempt to
`address deficiencies of an earlier petition, and there is no established per se
`rule requiring that we deny institution based on a “roadmap” test. Instead,
`we exercise our discretion based on whether the arguments in the Petition
`and the disclosures in the references are distinguished substantively from
`those in the initial petition. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (“In determining whether to
`institute or order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31,
`the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request
`because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously
`were presented to the Office.”). As discussed below, in this case we are
`persuaded that the issues presented by Petitioner’s citation of Reddy in the
`instant Petition have not been considered previously.
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s expert Dr. Michalson had
`attached the Fuller reference as an exhibit to his declaration in IPR2015-
`01435 (’1435 Ex. 1009, App. E) and that the Fuller reference is related to
`Reddy because Fuller describes an earlier version of the TerraVision system
`discussed by Reddy. Prelim. Resp. 14. Although Petitioner does not explain
`why it did not cite Reddy in its first petition notwithstanding Petitioner’s
`knowledge of the development of the TerraVision system, we note Patent
`Owner’s acknowledgement that Fuller concerns an earlier version of the
`TerraVision system and that Petitioner did not cite Fuller in any challenge.
`Id. at 13–14. Patent Owner does not establish how Petitioner would have
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`relied on Fuller to assert the same challenges as those asserted based on
`Reddy as a primary reference in the instant Petition. Instead, Patent Owner
`argues Petitioner asserts Reddy as a substitute for Potmesil and Lindstrom
`that were previously combined with Hornbacker in the IPR2015-1435
`petition, arguing Reddy teaches features similar to those taught by Potmesil
`or Lindstrom, such as the quad-tree structure and local cache. Id. at 14–15.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument because, as our analysis
`of Reddy in this Decision demonstrates, Reddy discloses an approach and
`provides substantive information that is qualitatively different from the
`references cited in the challenges in IPR2015-01435. Therefore, under the
`circumstances of this case, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny
`institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Cuozzo Speed
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144 (2016) (holding that 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b) “represents a reasonable exercise of the rulemaking authority
`that Congress delegated to the . . . Office”).
`In IPR2015-01434, we construed the term “data parcel” to mean “data
`that corresponds to an element of a source image array.” Microsoft Corp. v.
`Bradium Tech. LLC, Case IPR2015-01434, slip op. at 9 (PTAB Dec. 23,
`2015) (Paper 15, Decision Denying Institution). Petitioner proposes we
`apply the same construction in this proceeding. Pet. 11. As Patent Owner
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`does not propose any other construction, we apply this construction in this
`proceeding.
`Petitioner proposes that we construe the term “mesh” to mean “a
`collection of polygons.” Id. at 11–12. Patent Owner does not propose any
`construction for “mesh.” The term “mesh” is used in claims 8 and 15, but
`the parties do not identify any use of “mesh” in the Specification of the ’506
`Patent. As used in claims 8 and 15, portions of a mesh correspond to a
`defined image. Based on this usage, we are not persuaded that the term
`“mesh” requires any further construction.
`Neither party proposes any further claim constructions. In applying a
`broadest reasonable construction, claim terms generally are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic
`Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We construe all of the
`remaining claim terms to have their ordinary meaning to one skilled in the
`art.5
`
`
`5 Petitioner identifies a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) as
`having a Master of Science or equivalent degree in electrical engineering
`and computer science, or alternatively a Bachelor of Science or equivalent
`degree in electrical engineering or computer science and five years of
`experience in a technical field related to geographic information systems or
`the transmission of digital image data over a computer network. Pet. 11
`(citations omitted). Patent Owner does not dispute this definition of a person
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`VI. PATENT OWNER’S CHALLENGE TO REDDY AS PRIOR ART
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has failed to show Reddy is
`applicable prior art because Petitioner has not shown that Reddy was
`publicly accessible prior to the critical date of the ’506 patent. Prelim. Resp.
`16–22. The IEEE journal in which Reddy was published is printed material
`purporting to be a newspaper or periodical, and is self-authenticating under
`the Federal Rules of Evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 902(6). Patent Owner does not
`challenge the authenticity of the IEEE publication. Thus, it is undisputed
`that Reddy appeared in the IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol.
`19, No. 2, IEEE Computer Society, March/April 1999. Patent Owner argues
`only that Petitioner has not shown the journal in which Reddy appeared was
`accessible to the public. Prelim. Resp. 16–22. Petitioner has produced
`several pieces of documentation, including a copy of Reddy as it appeared in
`the subject journal with a copy of the journal cover addressed to the Linda
`Hall Library Serials Department and a receipt stamp dated February 24,
`1999 on the contents page stating the journal was published by the IEEE
`Computer Society as Volume 19, No. 2 for March/April 1999 and the ISSN.
`Ex. 1010 at 1, 3. Petitioner has also provided a second identical cover,
`contents page, and copy of the article as it appeared in the journal addressed
`to the British Library with a stamp on the cover indicating receipt on 3-Mar-
`1999 accompanied by a letter (“the Jennings Letter”) indicating that the
`journal would have been made available for public use as of March 3, 1999.
`Ex. 1009. Patent Owner argues that the Jennings Letter is unauthenticated
`and unsworn, does not state it is based on personal knowledge, lacks
`foundation, and constitutes hearsay. Prelim Resp. 19.
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`IEEE publications, such as the one in which Reddy appeared, are
`distributed widely and intended to be accessible to the public. The Board
`has in the past recognized that IEEE is a well-known, reputable compiler and
`publisher of scientific and technical publications, taken Official Notice that
`members in the scientific and technical communities who both publish and
`engage in research rely on the information published on the copyright line of
`IEEE publications, and recognized the information on the copyright line of
`IEEE publications as an exception to the hearsay rule under Federal Rule of
`Evidence 803(17). Ericsson, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, Case
`IPR2014-00527, slip op. at 10–11 (PTAB May 18, 2015) (Paper 41). The
`wide distribution of IEEE publications distinguishes them from academic
`papers such as masters and doctoral theses, which in some cases may not be
`well catalogued or indexed. The Board has accepted the copyright date of
`an IEEE publication as evidence of its public availability. Id. at 10. In view
`of the reliability of IEEE publications and their wide distribution, as well as
`the evidence provided by Petitioner that the subject journal containing the
`Reddy article was provided to libraries for circulation to the public, we find
`that for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner has demonstrated that Reddy
`constitutes applicable prior art.
`
`V. OBVIOUSNESS OVER REDDY AND HORNBACKER
`A. Relevant Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
`whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains.
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in
`the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`B. Analysis
`1. Introduction
`Claim 1 of the ’506 patent recites a method of retrieving large scale
`images over network communication channels on a limited bandwidth
`communications device. As noted by Patent Owner, the ’506 patent seeks to
`reduce computation intensity at the client side of a client-server system in
`order to accommodate small clients with minimal processing power and
`storage capacity. Prelim. Resp. 32; Ex. 1002, col. 3, ll. 38–42; col. 4, ll. 7–
`11. By implementing a priority scheme, the ’506 patent also permits the use
`of low bandwidth network connections. Ex. 1002, col. 4, ll. 16–22.
`Petitioner contends that Reddy teaches a system for retrieving massive
`terrain data sets including satellite and aerial imagery (large-scale data sets)
`over the Internet. Pet. 26. According to Petitioner, Reddy allows the user to
`browse on-line geographic information in standard Virtual Reality Markup
`Language (VRML), thereby providing compatibility with different sources,
`and enables access for a standard personal computer, such as a laptop over
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`the worldwide web (WWW), instead of a specialized high-speed network.
`Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 9, 31, 39, 48).
`Patent Owner contends that the Petition (1) fails to analyze the
`references as a whole and that Petitioner’s reason for combining them are
`insufficient (Prelim. Resp. 31–38) and (2) does not match the claim language
`to the disclosures of the asserted references (id. at 38–58).
`
`2. The Reddy and Hornbacker References
`We begin by addressing the references as a whole. As to the
`references as a whole, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner ignores
`disclosures in Reddy that lead away from the invention of the ’506 patent.
`Prelim. Resp. 33. Patent Owner argues that, unlike the ’506 patent, Reddy
`discloses a computationally intensive approach on the client side that would
`not be suitable for the characteristic small clients of the ’506 patent. Id.
`After noting Reddy’s description of the earth’s shape (id. at 33–34, citing
`Ex. 1004, p. 35 sidebar), terrain flyover capability (id. at 34, citing Ex. 1004
`¶¶ 29, 35, 36, 38), and a 3D proximity detection algorithm (id., citing
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 21), Patent Owner cites paragraph 41 of Reddy for the
`proposition the Reddy is designed for use with powerful, specialized
`workstations and PCs on high-speed networks. Id. at 34.
` Paragraph 41 of Reddy makes no mention of specialized workstations
`and PCs on the client side of high-speed networks. Paragraph 41 of Reddy
`states that TerraVision II was designed for the sole purpose of rendering
`large geographic databases in real time using optimized solutions, such as a
`fast quad tree search of multiresolution hierarchy, to achieve visibility
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`culling. Ex. 1004 ¶ 41. Patent Owner cites paragraph 38 of Reddy, which
`discloses that
`interactive
`to enable
`TerraVision was designed
`visualization of massive terrain databases that can be
`distributed over a high-speed wide-area network.
`TerraVison I was developed as part of the US Defense
`Advanced Research Projects Agency’s [(DARPA’s)]
`Multidimensional Applications Gigabit
`Internet
`Consortium (Magic) project and has been demonstrated
`with data sets on the order of tens of Gbytes.
`
`Id. at ¶ 38. Paragraph 39 of Reddy states as follows:
`Generic VRML browsers cannot perform terrain-specific
`optimizations because they have no knowledge of the
`underlying data’s
`representation
`and
`application.
`TerraVision II extends TerraVision I functionality by
`supporting our VRML 97 representations. In effect, it’s a
`custom VRML browser specifically designed
`to
`optimally navigate our VRML terrain databases.
`
`Id. at ¶ 39. Although Reddy mentions massive data sets required for terrain
`mapping, Reddy does not state that computing is intensive on the client side,
`particularly in TerraVision II. Reddy seeks to enable visualization of near
`photorealistic 3D models of terrain that can be on the order of hundreds of
`gigabytes. Id. at ¶ 2. Acknowledging that terrain models are massive,
`Reddy states that, because the time required to download and render a model
`of even a 1 degree area of earth’s surface would prohibit any real-time
`interaction using the current generation of VRML browsers, it is essential to
`manage the level of detail (LOD). Id. at ¶ 12.
`Like Reddy, the ’506 patent is directed to retrieving large-scale
`images over a network. Ex. 1002, Abstract. Claim 1 recites processing on
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`the remote computer (the server) source image data to obtain a series K1-N of
`derivative images of progressive lower image resolution, with each series
`image being subdivided into a regular array, and in which each image parcel
`of the array has a predetermined pixel resolution. Id. at col. 12, ll. 40–45.
`Claim 1 of the ’506 patent also recites that a limited communication
`bandwidth device (e.g., a client) issues a request to the remote computer
`(e.g., a server) for an update data parcel containing data used to generate a
`display, selected based on the image viewpoint on the computer device
`relative to a predetermined image, (e.g., an image stored in a database). Id.
`at col. 12, ll. 32–37.
`In Reddy, users browse a representation of terrain data stored in a
`database on a remote computer using a standard VRML plug-in for Internet
`browsers, such as Netscape Communicator™ or Microsoft Internet
`Explorer™. Ex. 1004 ¶ 31. Reddy also discloses the TerraVision II
`browser. Id. at ¶¶ 38–48. Reddy discloses storing the representation of
`terrain data to be accessed by the client browser as a tiled pyramid, in which
`each pyramid image is segmented into rectangular tiles having the same
`pixel resolution as a multiresolution hierarchy for a data set. Id. at ¶ 15.
`Distant imagery is rendered at a lower resolution than near imagery to
`achieve distance-based LOD. Id. at ¶ 16. The tiled pyramid optimizes the
`amount of data transferred over the network, because the data to be fetched
`and displayed is only that needed for the region the user is viewing and only
`at sufficient resolution for the viewer’s viewpoint. Id. at ¶ 17. Reddy also
`states that the LOD selection in the VRML browser is based on whether or
`not a user is in a volume around the tile and that TerraVision uses projected
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`screen size to reduce terrain detail, considering such factors as display size
`and the angle at which the user views the terrain. Id. at ¶ 42.
`Paragraph 47 of Reddy states “TerraVison II is not required to view
`VRML terrain data sets; it simply increases browsing efficiency. Any
`standard VRML browser can interact with these data. However, Terra
`Vision II introduces an attractive scalability feature to terrain data set
`navigation.” Id. at ¶ 47. Paragraph 48 of Reddy states:
`TerraVision II can be implemented on a graphics
`workstation connected to a gigabit-per-second ATM
`network with high-speed disk servers for fast response
`times. However, TerraVision can also be implemented
`on a PC connected to the Internet, or a standard VRML
`browser on a laptop machine can be used to browse the
`same data. This makes the system particularly useful in
`military mission planning and battle damage assessment,
`emergency relief efforts, and other distributed time-
`critical conditions.
`
`Id. at ¶ 48. Reddy thus demonstrates “it’s possible to represent massive
`distributed terrain databases in VRML.” Id. at ¶ 49. Reddy further states,
`“It’s also possible for users to navigate efficiently around these structures
`using either a standard VMRL browser or our specialized TerraVision II
`browser.” Id.
`Reddy’s disclosure of reducing the amount of data to be processed
`depending on the user’s location and viewpoint, remotely accessing image
`data in a multiresolution approach using a browser, and implementing
`TerraVison II on a PC connected to the Internet, as these devices existed in
`1999, is inconsistent with Patent Owner’s arguments that Reddy employs
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`intensive client side computation or teaches away from the approach claimed
`in the ’506 patent.
`Petitioner cites Hornbacker as using graphical web browsers on client
`systems to view large images divided into tiles. Pet. 27–28 (citing Ex. 1003,
`Abstract, p. 6, l. 20–p. 7, l. 1; p. 13, l. 28–p. 14, l. 11, p. 14, ll. 26–28).
`According to Petitioner, like Reddy, Hornbacker addresses similar
`technical issues as those addressed in the ’506 patent, i.e., network and
`system performance problems in accessing large image files from a network
`file server. Pet. 19–20. The ’506 patent states, “As well recognized problem
`with such conventional systems could be that full resolution image
`presentation may be subject to the inherent transfer latency of the network.”
`Ex. 1002, col. 1, ll. 52–55. Petitioner cites Hornbacker as teaching methods
`of dividing large data sets into tiles, compressing those tiles and requesting
`the appropriate tiles over a network. Pet. 15.
`Noting that Hornbacker discloses implementing progressive image
`display using algorithms at the client that allow a rough view of an image to
`be displayed while the remainder of the image content is downloaded, Patent
`Owner argues that Hornbacker’s progressive transmission of additional data
`for additional image details is bandwidth intensive and akin to the
`conventional, problematic prior art disclosed by the ’506 patent
`Specification. Prelim. Resp. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1002, col. 1, l. 47–col. 2,
`l. 49; Ex. 1003, col. 12, ll. 25–27, 29–30, col. 13, ll. 6–10). Thus, Patent
`Owner contends that Hornbacker also would lead the reader away from the
`solution of the ’506 patent. Id. at 37.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`Hornbacker discloses a computer network server that provides image
`view data to client workstations using graphical web browsers to display the
`view of the image from a server. Ex. 1003, Abstract. According to
`Hornbacker, network and system performance problems that previously
`existed when accessing large image files from a network are eliminated by
`tiling the image view so that the computation or transmission of the image
`can be done in incremental fashion. Id. Viewed tiles are cached on the
`client to further reduce network traffic. Id. Hornbacker discloses that by
`tiling and caching, relatively small amounts of data need to be transmitted
`when the user selects a new view of an image already received and viewed.
`Ex. 1003, p. 13, ll. 17–21. The image view server disclosed in Hornbacker
`further provides that the data transfer size remains constant even if the size
`of the view image is increased. Id. at p. 14, l. 11–12. Thus, we are not
`persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that Hornbacker teaches away from
`the subject matter recited in the claims of the ’506 patent.
`
`3. Motivation to Combine Reddy and Hornbacker
`Petitioner contends Reddy teaches an overall system that enables a
`sta
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
