Trials@uspto.gov Paper 17
`
`571-272-7822
`Date Entered: April 5, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
` BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a petition, Paper 2 (“Pet.”),
`
`to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–25 (the “challenged claims”)
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2 (“the ’239 Patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 311.
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary
`
`Response, Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”), contending that the Petition should be
`
`denied as to all challenged claims. We have jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.4(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review
`
`may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows
`
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Having
`
`considered the arguments and the associated evidence presented in the
`
`Petition and the Preliminary Response, for the reasons described below, we
`
`institute inter partes review of claims 1–19 and 21–25.
`
`
`
`REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`
`The Petitioner identifies itself as the only real party-in-interest. Pet. 1.
`
`PENDING LITIGATION
`
`The Petition states that the ’239 Patent and three other patents in the
`
`same family, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,139,794 B2 (’794 patent), 7,908,343 B2
`
`(’343 patent), and 8,924,506 B2 (’506 patent), are being asserted against
`
`Petitioner in an on-going patent infringement lawsuit brought by Patent
`
`Owner in Bradium Techs. v. Microsoft, 1:15-cv-00031-RGA, filed January
`
`9, 2015. Pet. 1–2. Petitioner states that Patent Owner asserted the ’239
`
`Patent for the first time in the aforementioned litigation by filing an
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`amended complaint on March 11, 2016, and served the Petitioner with the
`
`amended complaint on March 14, 2016. Id. at 2. Petitioner also identifies
`
`the following petitions for inter partes review of the related patents:
`
`• ’794 patent: IPR2015-01432, instituted Dec. 23, 2015, final written
`
`decision finding claims 1 and 2 not unpatentable entered on Dec. 21, 2016,
`
`Notice of Appeal filed Feb. 21, 2017;1
`
`• ’343 patent:
`
`IPR2015-01434, institution denied Dec. 23, 2015
`
`IPR2016-00448, instituted July 25, 2016
`
`• ’506 patent:
`
`IPR2015-01435, institution denied Dec. 23, 2015
`
`IPR2016-00449, instituted July 27, 2016.
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`THE ’239 PATENT (EXHIBIT 1001)
`
`In the ’239 Patent, large scale images are retrieved over network
`
`communication channels for display on client devices by selecting an update
`
`image parcel relative to an operator controlled image viewpoint to display on
`
`the client device. Ex. 1001, Abstract; 3:47–51. A request for an update
`
`image parcel is associated with a request queue for subsequent issuance over
`
`a communication channel. Id. at 3:51–54. The update image parcel is
`
`received in one or more data packets on the communications channel and is
`
`displayed as a discrete portion of the predetermined image. Id. at 3:54–60.
`
`The update image parcel optimally has a fixed pixel array size and may be
`
`
`1 The Petition was filed on September 30, 2016. We have included
`subsequent history information not available when the Petition was filed.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`constrained to a resolution equal to or less than the display device resolution.
`
`Id.
`
`The system described in the ’239 Patent has a network image server
`
`and a client system where a user can input navigational commands to adjust
`
`a 3D viewing frustum for the image displayed on the client system. Ex.
`
`1001, 5:26–55. 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. Id. at 3:48–51.
`
`When the viewing frustum is changed by user navigation commands, a
`
`control block in 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. Id. at 7:45–62.
`
`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. Id. at 6:3–8. Figure 2 of the ’239 patent is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’239 Patent
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’239 Patent depicts preparation of pre-processed image
`
`parcels at the network image server. See id. at 4:57–60; 6:10. 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 6:6–8.
`
`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 6:8–13. 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 6:14–18. 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 6:19–24. The image parcels are stored in a file of
`
`defined configuration, such that any parcel can be located by specification of
`
`a KD,X,Y value, representing the image set resolution index D and the
`
`corresponding image array coordinate. Id. at 6:24–28. The TCP/IP protocol
`
`is used to deliver image parcels, e.g., 2K-byte compressed image parcels, to
`
`the clients. Id. at 8:10–11, 17–19. For preferred embodiments, where
`
`network bandwidth is limited, entire image parcels preferably are delivered
`
`in corresponding data packets. Id. at 8:11–14. This allows each image
`
`parcel to fit into a single network data packet, which improves data delivery
`
`and avoids the transmission latency and processing overhead of managing
`
`image parcel data broken up over multiple network data packets. Id. at
`
`8:14–17.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`
`ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
`
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
`
`1. A method of retrieving images over a network
`communication channel for display on a user computing device,
`the method comprising steps of:
`issuing a first request from the user computing device to
`one or more servers, over one or more network communication
`channels, the first request being for a first update data parcel
`corresponding to a first derivative image of a predetermined
`image, the predetermined image corresponding to source image
`data, the first update data parcel uniquely forming a first discrete
`portion of the predetermined image, wherein the first update data
`parcel is selected based on a first user-controlled image
`viewpoint on the user computing device relative to the
`predetermined image;
`receiving the first update data parcel at the user computing
`device from the one or more servers over the one or more
`network communication channels, the step of receiving the first
`update data parcel being performed after the step of issuing the
`first request;
`displaying the first discrete portion on the user computing
`device using the first update data parcel, the step of displaying
`the first discrete portion being performed after the step of
`receiving the first update data parcel;
`issuing a second request from the user computing device
`to the one or more servers, over the one or more network
`communication channels, the second request being for a second
`update data parcel corresponding to a second derivative image of
`the predetermined image, the second update data parcel uniquely
`forming a second discrete portion of the predetermined image,
`wherein the second update data parcel is selected based on a
`second user-controlled image viewpoint on the user computing
`device relative to the predetermined image, the second user-
`controlled image viewpoint being different from the first user-
`controlled image viewpoint;
`receiving the second update data parcel at the user
`computing device from the one or more servers over the one or
`more network communication channels, the step of receiving the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`second update data parcel being performed after the step of
`issuing the second request;
`displaying the second discrete portion on the user
`computing device using the second update data parcel, the step
`of displaying the second discrete portion being performed after
`the step of receiving the second update data parcel;
`wherein:
`a series of K1-N derivative images of progressively lower
`image resolution comprises the first derivative image and the
`second derivative image, the series of K1-N of derivative images
`resulting from processing the source image data, series image K0
`being subdivided into a regular array wherein each resulting
`image parcel of the array has a predetermined pixel resolution
`and a predetermined color or bit per pixel depth, resolution of the
`series K1-N of derivative images being related to resolution of
`the source image data or predecessor image in the series by a
`factor of two, and the array subdivision being related by a factor
`of two.
`
`
`ART CITED IN PETITIONER’S CHALLENGES
`
`Petitioner cites the following references in its challenges to
`
`patentability:
`
`Reference
`PCT Publication No. WO
`99/41675 to Cecil V. Hornbacker,
`III, publ. Aug. 19, 1999
`Reddy et al., “TerraVision II:
`Visualizing Massive Terrain
`Databases
`in VRML,” IEEE Computer
`Graphics and Applications
`March/April
`1999, pp. 30–38
`U.S. Patent No. 6,728,960 B1
`issued Apr. 27, 2004
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Designation
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Hornbacker
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Reddy
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Loomans
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`CHALLENGES ASSERTED IN PETITION
`
`Claims
`
`Statutory Basis
`
`1–20, 23–25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`21, 22
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Challenge
`Obvious over Reddy
`and Hornbacker
`Obvious over Reddy,
`Hornbacker, and
`Loomans
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee,
`
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). 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). Any special definition for a claim term must
`
`be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`Data Parcel
`
`Petitioner proposes that we construe the term “data parcel” as “data
`
`that corresponds to an element of a source image array.” Pet. 12.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is the same construction we applied in
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Tech. LLC, Case IPR2016-00448 and Microsoft
`
`Corp. v. Bradium Tech. LLC, Case IPR2015-01434. Patent Owner does not
`
`dispute this construction. Prelim. Resp. 6. See Microsoft Corporation v.
`
`Bradium Tech. LLC, Case IPR2014-01434, slip op (PTAB Dec. 23, 2015)
`
`(Paper 15, Decision Denying Institution). In this proceeding, we apply
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`Image Parcel
`
`Patent Owner proposes that in this proceeding we adopt the same
`
`construction for “image parcel” as we adopted in Microsoft Corp. v.
`
`Bradium Tech. LLC, Case IPR2015-01432, i.e., “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.” Prelim. Resp.
`
`7. See Microsoft Corporation v. Bradium Tech. LLC, Case IPR2015-01432,
`
`slip op. at 7 (PTAB Dec. 21, 2016) (Paper 51, Final Written Decision).
`
`Petitioner does not propose a specific construction for this term. In this
`
`proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`
`Mobile Device
`
`Patent Owner proposes that we construe “mobile device” to mean “a
`
`portable small client such as a mobile phone, smart phone, or personal
`
`digital assistant (PDA) that is constrained to limited bandwidth.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 8. Petitioner does not propose a specific construction. Patent Owner
`
`argues that the Specification distinguishes between “mobile device” and
`
`“user computer device” based on their attributes, i.e., small clients are
`
`constrained to limited processing capabilities and working with limited
`
`bandwidth networks. Id. at 9–12; see Ex. 1001, 2:40–55, 3:10–19. The
`
`word “mobile” in the term “mobile device” suggests a device that is
`
`portable. The ’239 Patent states “A mobile computing device such as a
`
`mobile phone, smart phone, tablet and or personal digital assistant (PDA) is
`
`a characteristic small client. Embedded, low-cost kiosk, automobile
`
`navigation systems and Internet enabled I connected TV are other typical
`
`examples.” Ex. 1001, 2:53–58. The Specification of the ’239 Patent further
`
`discusses the features of small clients. Id. at 2:49–53. In view of these
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`disclosures, we are not persuaded that the term “mobile device” requires
`
`further construction for purposes of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER’S PRIOR ART CHALLENGES
`
`Introduction
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 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 person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`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 ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`Petitioner articulates its analysis of Reddy and Hornbacker for each of
`
`challenged claims 1–20 and 23–25. Pet. 13–58. Patent Owner explicitly
`
`disputes Petitioner’s analysis of claims 20, 23 and 24, but does not provide
`
`an explicit analysis of the remaining claims, other than disputing the choice
`
`and the proposed combination of the prior art references. Prelim. Resp. 25–
`
`29, 34–38. Petitioner cites Reddy, Hornbacker and Loomans as rendering
`
`claims 21–22 obvious. Pet. 58–65. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner
`
`has not established Loomans is applicable prior art. Prelim. Resp. 23–25.
`
`Patent Owner also explicitly contends that the combination of Reddy,
`
`Hornbacker, and Loomans does not render claim 22 obvious. Id. at 29–34.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner also argues that a person of ordinary skill would not have been
`
`motivated to combine the asserted references. Id. at 34–48.
`
`Claims 1–20 and 23–25 As Obvious Over Reddy and Hornbacker
`
`Petitioner states that Reddy discloses processing large sets of source
`
`image data to create a multiresolution image pyramid that can be viewed in
`
`three dimensions using an online web browser. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs.
`
`1–4 and associated text). Petitioner acknowledges that Reddy does not
`
`specify how requests for image tiles would identify locations and zoom
`
`levels of image tiles and cites Hornbacker as disclosing specific methods to
`
`implement the teachings of Reddy to identify specific needed tiles. Id. at 14.
`
`According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill would have been
`
`motivated to combine the teachings of Reddy and Hornbacker. Petitioner
`
`states that Reddy describes browsing techniques for requesting tiles based on
`
`user viewpoint and suggests that tiles may be located by HTTP requests
`
`directed to particular URLs. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 21, 26, 522).
`
`Noting that Reddy does not explain exactly how tiles are located, Petitioner
`
`contends that Hornbacker details techniques, such as the structure of an
`
`HTTP request for identifying a particular tile at a desired location and
`
`resolution, that a person of ordinary skill would recognize assist in
`
`requesting tiles in a 3D browser, as taught by Reddy. Id. at 20–21 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003, 5:16–6:19, 8:30–9:19, 11:19–28, Ex. 1005, Michalson Decl.
`
`¶¶ 120–26).
`
`
`2 Petitioner has inserted paragraph designators in Reddy. We adopt
`Petitioner’s paragraph designators in Reddy for consistency of notation in
`this proceeding.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`As to the preamble of claim 1, i.e., a method of retrieving images over
`
`a network communication channel for display on a user communication
`
`device, Petitioner notes that Reddy discloses a system for retrieving terrain
`
`data sets including satellite and aerial imagery over the Internet with a
`
`standard Web browser on and displaying the images segmented into regions
`
`of different resolution on PC or laptop machine. Pet. 24.
`
`Petitioner identifies as element 1A the limitation that recites a user
`
`computer issuing a first request to a server for an update data parcel
`
`corresponding to a first derivative image uniquely forming a first discrete
`
`portion of a predetermined image corresponding to source image data. Id. at
`
`25. Petitioner cites Reddy’s description of processing a predetermined
`
`image, such as satellite data, into a multi-resolution pyramid of derivative
`
`images using a series of K1, K2, . . . Kn progressively lower resolution
`
`derivative images and dividing the derivative images into tiles as disclosing
`
`this feature. Id. at 24–27. Reddy discloses that users can browse terrain data
`
`using a VRML plug-in for browsers, such as Netscape communicator or
`
`Microsoft Internet Explorer. Ex. 1004 ¶ 31. Petitioner states that Reddy
`
`describes retrieving image tiles (“geotiles”) based on the user’s selected
`
`view using a web browser and universal resource locators (URLs). Pet. 27–
`
`28.
`
`Petitioner also cites Hornbacker as teaching that image data is
`
`represented by discrete derivation images at different resolutions and that
`
`tiles may be located via specialized URL requests that identify a tile by
`
`characteristics such as resolution and location. Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1003,
`
`Abstract, 3:10–27, 5:16–25, 6:13–19, 7:26-8:6, 8:30–9:28, 10:24-28, 12:24–
`
`13:10 and 18:20–23). Thus, Petitioner argues that the problem addressed by
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`Reddy includes how to identify tiles desired to render a particular
`
`geographic view and that a person of ordinary skill would have looked to
`
`Hornbacker’s disclosure of identifying image tiles using URLs based on tile
`
`coordinates and other viewing characteristics as an efficient way to specify
`
`needed tiles in Reddy. Id. at 29.
`
`Petitioner identifies as element 1B the limitation that recites selecting
`
`the first update parcel based on a first user controlled image viewpoint on
`
`the user computing device relative to the predetermined image. Id. For this
`
`limitation, Petitioner cites Reddy’s disclosure of a 2-D pan and zoom display
`
`or a 3-D simulated viewpoint chosen by the operator in which tiles of
`
`appropriate resolution are selected based on a user’s proximity to the tile of a
`
`predetermined image. Id. at 29–30.
`
`Petitioner identifies as limitation 1C the recitation of the user
`
`computing device receiving the first update data parcel from one or more
`
`servers over the communication channels after issuing the first request. Id.
`
`at 31. Petitioner cites as element 1D the recitation of displaying the first
`
`discrete portion on the user computing device on the first update data parcel
`
`after receiving the first update data parcel. Id. Petitioner cites Ex. 1005,
`
`Declaration of Dr. William R. Michalson (“Michalson Decl.”) ¶¶ 147–148)
`
`and argues that a person of ordinary skill would recognize that in Reddy the
`
`image tiles (update data parcels) are received from a server following a
`
`request and before they are displayed. Id.
`
`Petitioner identifies as element 1E the limitation that recites the user
`
`computer issuing over the network communication channels a second
`
`request for a second update parcel corresponding to a second derivative
`
`image of the predetermined image. Pet. 32. This limitation also recites that
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`the second update data parcel uniquely forms a second discrete portion of
`
`the predetermined image and is selected based on a second user controlled
`
`image viewpoint of the user computing device relative to the predetermined
`
`image, that is different from the first user-controlled image viewpoint. Id.
`
`As Petitioner points out, this limitation differs from those elements identified
`
`as 1A and 1B only in that it recites a second request concerning a viewpoint
`
`different from that in the first request. Id. With respect to limitation 1E,
`
`Petitioner cites Reddy’s description of zooming or flying over an image,
`
`with requests for imagery of appropriate location and zoom levels and more
`
`detailed tiles when a user approaches a region, as disclosing the claimed
`
`requests for retrieval of updated data parcels. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 3, 36–
`
`38).
`
`Petitioner identifies as limitation 1F the recitation of the user
`
`computing device receiving the second update data parcel from one or more
`
`servers over the communication channels after issuing the second request.
`
`Id. at 33. Petitioner cites as element 1G the recitation of displaying the
`
`second discrete portion on the user computing device on the second update
`
`data parcel after reeving the second update data parcel. Id. Petitioner notes
`
`that these limitations are disclosed by Reddy as discussed above with respect
`
`to limitations 1C and 1D. Id.
`
`Petitioner identifies as limitation 1H the recitation of a series of K1-N
`
`derivative images of progressively lower resolution that comprise the first
`
`and second derivative images resulting from the processing of the source
`
`image data. Id. Petitioner cites Reddy’s disclosure, discussed above, of
`
`processing an image as a multi-resolution pyramid of images by repeated
`
`down-sampling of image data to lower resolutions at each level, as
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`supporting this limitation. Id. at 33–34 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 14–24, 41–46,
`
`Figs. 1–3). Petitioner cites Hornbacker as disclosing that view tiles are
`
`generated at a server by an image tiling routine that divides an image into a
`
`grid of smaller images that are computed further for distinct resolutions. Id.
`
`Petitioner identifies as element 1I the series image K0 being
`
`subdivided into a regular array and cites the disclosure in Reddy that each
`
`tile at a given level maps onto four tiles at the next higher level and the
`
`original image K0 is subdivided in a regular array of 8x8 tiles, with the next
`
`two levels being divided into regular arrays of 4x4 and 2x2 tiles. Id. at 35.
`
`We agree with Petitioner that the disclosure in Reddy is substantially
`
`identical to that of the ’239 Patent’s disclosure of dividing source image data
`
`into derivative images of progressively lower image resolution. See id.
`
`Petitioner identifies as element 1J the recitation that each resulting
`
`image parcel has a predetermined pixel resolution and a predetermined bit
`
`per pixel depth. Id. As Petitioner notes, similar to the ’239 Patent, Reddy
`
`discloses that the 64 tiles making up the 1024x1024 original image K0 are
`
`each 128x128 pixels and that that within each pyramid “all tiles have the
`
`same pixel dimensions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 15–16). Petitioner further
`
`cites Reddy’s disclosure of using known imagery formats, e.g. Portable
`
`Bitmap (PBM), to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill
`
`would recognize such formats as having a fixed color or bit pixel depth. Id.
`
`at 35–36. According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill would also
`
`know that the size of data representing an uncompressed tile is the product
`
`of the bit depth multiplied by the pixel dimensions. Id. at 36. Petitioner
`
`further cites Hornbacker as explicitly disclosing the use of tiles having a
`
`predetermined resolution and color or bit per pixel depth and that tiles
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`preferably are fixed at 128x128 pixels image files. Id. at 36–37. Petitioner
`
`notes that fixed sized tiling provides a more efficient mechanism for
`
`caching, identifying and locating tiles. Id.
`
`Petitioner cites as element 1K the recitation that resolution of the
`
`series K1-N of derivative images is related to resolution of the source image
`
`data or predecessor image in the series by a factor of two, and the array
`
`subdivision is related by a factor of two. Id. at 40. Petitioner cites Reddy’s
`
`disclosure of progressive down sampling an image to produce layers at ¼ the
`
`resolution of the previous layer (i.e., ½ width x ½ height=1/4 resolution),
`
`noting that because all tiles have the same 128 x 128 pixel dimensions each
`
`progressively lower resolution layer image includes ¼ the number of tiles
`
`from the previous layer. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 14–15). Based on the
`
`current evidence, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that this is the
`
`same factor of four relationship between images as that described in the
`
`preferred embodiment of the ’239 Patent. Petitioner cites a similar
`
`disclosure in Hornbacker. Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1003, 6:13–7:25, 8:7–15,
`
`14:2–16).
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute explicitly Petitioner’s assertions
`
`concerning the disclosures in Reddy and Hornbacker. Based on the current
`
`record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated the elements of
`
`claim 1 are disclosed in the asserted combination of Reddy and Hornbacker.
`
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites determining the
`
`first user controlled image viewpoint based at least in part on a first
`
`navigational input of the user computing device. Petitioner persuasively
`
`cites Reddy’s teaching of using map and viewpoint displays, allowing a user
`
`to click on the map as a navigational input to move the viewpoint to that
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`location. Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 3, 37). Claim 2 also recites preparing
`
`the first request by processing a control block of the user computer device
`
`based at least in part on the first user controlled image viewpoint. Claim 4
`
`recites a similar limitation for the second user controlled image viewpoint.
`
`Petitioner notes that the ’239 Patent does not define precisely a “processing
`
`control block,” but describes an architecture preferably implemented by a
`
`software plug-in or application executed by the client. Id. at 43 (citing Ex.
`
`1001, 7:8–11, Fig. 3), 45. Based on the current state of the evidence, we
`
`find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that Reddy’s disclosure of a
`
`geographic browser to request particular tiles based on navigational inputs
`
`renders this limitation obvious for purposes of institution.
`
`Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and recites that the step of preparing
`
`the first request is performed based at least in part on altitude and attitude of
`
`the first viewpoint relative to the predetermined image. Petitioner
`
`persuasively cites Reddy’s exemplary scenario of a user zooming in from
`
`space, flying over mountains and approaching a target requiring an altitude
`
`and attitude image viewpoint. Id. at 43–45.
`
`Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and recites preparing the first request
`
`based at least in part on 3 dimensional altitude and attitude of the first
`
`viewpoint relative to the predetermined image. Petitioner applies the same
`
`analysis to this claim as it applied to claim 3. Id. at 46. We further note that
`
`Reddy TerraVision includes 3D flythroughs. Ex. 1004 ¶ 38. As to claim 6,
`
`which depends from claim 5 and recites that the predetermined image is an
`
`image of a geographic area, we agree with Petitioner that Reddy discloses
`
`maps, aerial, and satellite imagery and digital elevation models of a region.
`
`Pet. 46.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`Claim 7 depends from claim 5 and recites the first and second
`
`navigational inputs comprise first and second lateral x position data, lateral y
`
`position data, z height position data and rotational position data. Claim 8
`
`depends from claim 5 and recites that the first and second navigational
`
`inputs comprise three dimensional coordinate data and rotational position
`
`data. As Petitioner notes and explains persuasively in more detail relative to
`
`claim limitation 1B, a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that
`
`displaying a perspective view from a viewpoint would require at least x, y,
`
`and z positional data, i.e., three dimensional coordinate position data, as well
`
`as direction of view, i.e., rotational data. Id. at 47–48 (citing Ex. 1005,
`
`Michalson Decl. ¶¶ 186–189; Ex. 1004 ¶ 37).
`
`Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites that the first derivative
`
`image includes the second derivative image having a higher level of detail
`
`than the first derivative image. Similarly claim 10 depends from claim 1 and
`
`recites that the second derivative image includes the first derivative image
`
`having a lower level of detail than the first derivative image. Both claims 9
`
`and 10 recite that the first request is issued before the second request. As
`
`Petitioner persuasively notes, Reddy discloses that when a user approaches a
`
`terrain region more detail is progressively loaded and displayed in a coarse-
`
`to-fine fashion. Pet. 48–50 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 12–17, Fig. 1).
`
`Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and recites that the first derivative
`
`image does not include the second derivative image and the second
`
`derivative image does not include the first derivative image. Citing the
`
`declaration of Dr. Michalson, Petitioner persuasively argues that it would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill that Reddy would request
`
`different derivative images for the original source, such as different tiles at
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`the same zoom level, as the user moves through an image. Id. at 50–51
`
`(citing Ex. 1005, Michalson Decl. ¶ 193).
`
`Claims 12–19 recite various features comprising an overlay or overlay
`
`data, i.e., the first update parcel comprising overlay data for the first
`
`derivative image (claim 12), the overlay data comprising text annotation of
`
`streets or landmarks (claims 13 and 19), the overlay data comprising graphic
`
`data representing a three dimensional object (claim 14), the overlay data
`
`comprising graphics data describing at least one object in three dimensions
`
`(claim 15), the overlay data comprising one or more graphical icons (claim
`
`16), a second overlay for a second derivative image (claim 17), the first and
`
`second overlay data in a resolution independent format (claim 18). As to
`
`these claims, Petitioner persuasively cites Reddy’s d