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 No. 9,253,239
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. PEGGY
`AGOURIS IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`OWNER RESPONSE
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`Exhibit 2014
`Bradium Technologies LLC - patent owner
`Microsoft Corporation - petitioner
`IPR2016-01897
`1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 2
`A. Background and Qualifications .................................................................. 3
`B. Materials Considered .................................................................................. 4
`C. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”) ........................................... 5
`D. Selected Claims of the ’239 Patent ............................................................. 6
`E. Claim 1 ....................................................................................................... 7
`F. Claim 21 ..................................................................................................... 8
`G. Claim 22 ..................................................................................................... 8
`H. Claim Construction ................................................................................... 10
`1.
`“Data Parcel” (Claims 1, 12, 17, 21, 22) .......................................... 10
`2.
`“Image Parcel” (Claims 1, 25) .......................................................... 11
`3.
`“Mobile Device” (Claim 23) ............................................................ 11
`II. SUMMARY OF OPINION .............................................................................. 12
`III. MY ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS 1–19 and 21–25 ............................................. 13
`A. Disclosures of Reddy, Hornbacker, and Loomans .................................. 13
`1. Reddy ................................................................................................ 13
`2. Hornbacker ........................................................................................ 14
`3. Loomans ............................................................................................ 15
`B. The Asserted References Do Not Teach or Suggest All Elements of
`Claims 21 or 22 (Ground 2) of the ’239 Patent ........................................ 16
`1. The generic disclosures of multi-threading relied on by Dr.
`Michalson would not have led a POSA to the claimed
`invention ........................................................................................... 18
`2. Austreng and Loomans do not teach or suggest the use of
`multithreading to concurrently download and request update
`data parcels ....................................................................................... 23
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`3. Austreng (Ex. 1016) would not have taught or suggested to a
`POSA the use of multiple threads to concurrently download
`data parcels. ...................................................................................... 25
`4. Loomans (Ex. 1014) would not have taught or suggested to a
`POSA the use of multiple threads to concurrently download
`data parcels. ...................................................................................... 32
`5. Loomans and Austreng do not disclose multi-threading
`applied to “data parcels” as required by claims 21 and 22. .............. 38
`6. Applying Multithreading of Loomans or Austreng to Reddy
`Would be Unworkable ...................................................................... 39
`7. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 39
`C. A POSA Would Not Have Selected and Combined the Asserted
`References ................................................................................................ 40
`1. A POSA would not have selected Reddy ......................................... 40
`2. A POSA would not have combined Reddy and Hornbacker ........... 42
`3. A POSA would not have combined Reddy or Hornbacker
`with Loomans ................................................................................... 43
`4. Hornbacker and Reddy are incompatible ......................................... 44
`5. Hornbacker and Loomans are incompatible ..................................... 46
`6. Austreng teaches away from the asserted combination of
`Reddy and Hornbacker with Loomans. ............................................ 46
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`LIST OF APPENDICES
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Dr. Peggy Agouris Curriculum Vitae
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`I hereby declare that all the statements made in this Declaration are of my
`
`own knowledge and true; that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and that such willful false
`
`statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issue
`
`thereupon.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
`
`America that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Dated:
`
`August 1, 2017
`
`Signed by:
`
`Peggy Agouris
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Bradium Technologies LLC
`
`(“Bradium” or “Patent Owner”) as an expert consultant in regards to inter partes
`
`review proceeding IPR2016-01897 for U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239.
`
`2.
`
`In
`
`IPR2016-01897,
`
`I understand
`
`that Microsoft Corporation
`
`(“Microsoft” or “Petitioner”) filed a petition challenging the validity of Claims 1
`
`through 25 of the ’239 Patent.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that Bradium filed a Preliminary Patent Owner Response
`
`(Paper 9) on January 6, 2017. I submitted a declaration in support of Bradium’s
`
`Preliminary Patent Owner response, which is Exhibit 2003.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that the Board has recently issued Final Written
`
`Decisions in IPR2016-00448 and IPR2016-00449 in which the Board concluded
`
`that claims of the ’343 patent and ’506 patent were unpatentable as obvious over
`
`the combination of Reddy and Hornbacker,
`
`5.
`
`I understand that, for this proceeding, IPR2016-01897, the Board has
`
`instituted a review as to all claims except for claim 20. In other words, the Board
`
`has instituted a review of Claims 1–19 and 21–25.
`
`6.
`
`I understand that the Board has instituted an inter partes review on the
`
`following Grounds:
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Ground 1: Claims 1–19, 23–25 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Reddy (Ex. 1004) in view of Hornbacker (Ex. 1003).
`
`Ground 2: Claims 21–22 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Reddy
`
`in view of Hornbacker and Loomans (Ex. 1014).
`
`7.
`
`I was asked to further consider whether the instituted claims of the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 (“the ’239 Patent”) (Ex. 1001), which are Claims 1–19,
`
`21–25, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”)
`
`as of the date of the invention.
`
`8.
`
`For time spent in connection with this case, I am being compensated
`
`at my customary rate. My compensation is not dependent upon the outcome of
`
`this petition or any issues involved in or related to the ’239 Patent, and I have
`
`no other financial stake in this matter. I have no financial interest in, or affiliation
`
`with, any of the real parties in interest or the patent owner.
`
`A.
`
`9.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`This is a summary of my background and qualifications. I set forth
`
`my background in more detail in my Curriculum Vitae which is attached as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`10.
`
`I am currently Dean of the College of Science at George Mason
`
`University. I am additionally the Director of the Center for Earth Observing &
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Space Research at George Mason University. I was previously employed as a
`
`Professor of Geoinformatics at the College of Science at George Mason University.
`
`11.
`
`Prior to my employment at George Mason University, I was an
`
`assistant professor, and then associate professor, at the School of Computing and
`
`Information Science at the University of Maine from 1995 to 2001 and 2001 to
`
`2006 respectively. During my time as associate professor, I was also the Chief
`
`Technology Officer at Milcord Maine, LLC from 2004 to 2006. I served as the
`
`Chair of the department of Geography and Geoinformation Science at George
`
`Mason University from 2008 to 2013 and was the Acting Associate Provost for
`
`Graduate Education at George Mason University from 2012 to 2013.
`
`12.
`
`I have an Engineering Diploma, which I obtained from the National
`
`Technical University of Athens, Greece. I also have a Master of Science degree in
`
`Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science and a Doctorate in
`
`Digital Image Processing and Analysis from the Ohio State University.
`
`13. Based on my academic and industry experience, as set forth more
`
`fully in Appendix A, I am quite familiar with the state of the art in 1999 in
`
`Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and related fields. I was, and continue to
`
`be, actively involved in the field.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`14.
`
`The materials I considered include the ’239 Patent, materials
`
`incorporated by reference therein, the prosecution history for the ’239 Patent, the
`
`Petition from Microsoft for inter partes review (Paper No. 2), and the Michalson
`
`Declaration in support of the Petition (Ex. 1005). I also considered the Board’s
`
`Institution Decision (Paper 17). I also considered the materials that I refer to and
`
`that I cite in this declaration, and, to the extent that I considered them relevant, the
`
`materials provided by Dr. Michalson or the Petitioner.
`
`15.
`
`In addition, I have drawn on my experience and knowledge, as
`
`discussed above and described more fully in my CV, in the areas of image
`
`processing, geographic information systems, interactive computer graphics, and
`
`dynamic visualization, among other areas.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that Bradium considers the date of invention for the ’239
`
`Patent to be October 1999. I understand that Dr. Michalson considered the date of
`
`invention to be December 2000 based on the ’239 patent’s discussion of the
`
`technology background. See Ex. 1005 ¶3.
`
`17. Counsel for Bradium has asked me to assume that the asserted
`
`references, Reddy, Hornbacker, and Loomans, are prior art for the purposes of my
`
`analysis. I have further been asked to consider both asserted dates of invention.
`
`My analysis would not change based on which of these dates I assume.
`
`C.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”)
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`18.
`
`I understand that the Board, noting that “we do not perceive any
`
`meaningful difference between the parties’ definitions of the technical field of the
`
`required experience,” has recently stated that a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention (or “POSA”) of the U.S. Patent 7,908,343 (the “’343
`
`patent”) and U.S. Patent 8,924,506 (the “’506 patent”) “would have had a Bachelor
`
`of Science or equivalent degree in electrical engineering or computer science as
`
`well as two to five years of experience in a technical field related to geographic
`
`information system or the transmission of digital image data over a computer
`
`network.” IPR2016-00448 at Paper 69 at 12; IPR2016-00449 at Paper 67 at 15.
`
`19.
`
`I have been asked to apply, and have applied, this understanding of
`
`the level of skill of a POSA in my analysis herein.
`
`20.
`
`The opinions I express herein are given from the point of view of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art, as described above, at the time of the
`
`invention of the ’239 Patent (which I will treat as the latter of the two dates for
`
`consideration). Even if I do not repeat this explicitly, this is the perspective that I
`
`applied in my analysis and in this declaration, unless I indicate otherwise. It is my
`
`opinion that a POSA would not change substantially between October 1999 and
`
`December 2000 for the purposes of my analysis of these asserted prior art
`
`references.
`
`D.
`
`Selected Claims of the ’239 Patent
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`E.
`
`Claim 1
`
`21. Claim 1 recites:
`
`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
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`communication channels, the step of receiving the 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.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 12:26 - 13:17.
`
`F.
`
`Claim 21
`
`22. Claim 21, which depends from claim 1, recites:
`
`21. A method as in claim 1, wherein:
`
`the steps of issuing the first request and receiving the first update data
`parcel are part of a first thread;
`
`the steps of issuing the second request and receiving the second
`update data parcel are part of a second thread; and
`
`the first thread and the second thread are executed at least in part
`concurrently.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 14:44 - 51.
`
`G.
`
`Claim 22
`
`23. Claim 22, which depends from claim 1, recites:
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`22. A method as in claim 1, further comprising:
`
`issuing a third request from the user computing device to the one or
`more servers, over the one or more network communication channels,
`the third request being for a third update data parcel corresponding to
`a third derivative image of the predetermined image, the third update
`data parcel uniquely forming a third discrete portion of the
`predetermined image;
`
`receiving the third update data parcel at the user computing device
`from the one or more servers over the one or more network
`communication channels;
`
`issuing a fourth request from the user computing device to the one or
`more servers, over the one or more network communication channels,
`the fourth request being for a fourth update data parcel corresponding
`to a fourth derivative image of the predetermined image, the fourth
`update data parcel uniquely forming a fourth discrete portion of the
`predetermined image; and
`
`receiving the fourth update data parcel at the user computing device
`from the one or more servers over the one or more network
`communication channels;
`
`wherein:
`
`the steps of issuing the first request and receiving the first update data
`parcel are part of a first thread;
`
`the steps of issuing the second request and receiving the second
`update data parcel are part of a second thread;
`
`the steps of issuing the third request and receiving the third update
`data parcel are part of a third thread;
`
`the steps of issuing the fourth request and receiving the fourth update
`data parcel are part of a fourth thread; and
`
`the first thread, the second thread, the third thread, and the fourth
`thread are executed at least in part concurrently.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 14:52 - 15:16.
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`H.
`
`24.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`I understand that the claims and specification of a patent must be read
`
`and construed through the eyes of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the priority date of the claims.
`
`25.
`
`I further understand that the claim construction standard that applies
`
`for the purposes of this proceeding is the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI)
`
`of the claim language, in light of the specification. I have applied this standard in
`
`claim constructions I have set forth below.
`
`26.
`
`Elsewhere in my analysis, except when I state otherwise, I have
`
`applied the ordinary meaning of claim terms as they are used in the specification,
`
`under the BRI standard.
`
`1.
`
` “Data Parcel” (Claims 1, 12, 17, 21, 22)
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the Petitioner has proposed a construction of the
`
`term “Data Parcel” to be “data that corresponds to an element of a source image
`
`array,” Paper 2, p.12, and that Patent Owner agrees with this construction.
`
`28.
`
`I further understand that the Board has construed the claim term “data
`
`parcel” as meaning “data that corresponds to an element of a source image array.”
`
`Paper 17 at 8.
`
`29.
`
`I have applied this definition in my analysis.
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`2.
`
`“Image Parcel” (Claims 1, 25)
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the Board has construed “image parcel” to be “an
`
`element of an image array, with the image parcel being specified by the X and Y
`
`position in the image array coordinates and an image set resolution index.” Paper
`
`17 at 9.
`
`31.
`
`I have applied this definition in my analysis.
`
`3.
`
`“Mobile Device” (Claim 23)
`
`32.
`
`I understand that the Board has concluded that in view of the
`
`teachings of the ’239 patent, the term “mobile device” does not require further
`
`construction for purposes of this proceeding. The Board stated:
`
`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.
`
`Paper 17 at 9.
`
`33.
`
`The ’239 patent at 2:495–3 explains that “[s]mall clients, however,
`
`typically have restricted performance processors with possibly no dedicated
`
`
`
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`11
`
`15
`
`

`

`floating-point support, little general purpose memory, and extremely limited
`
`persistent storage capabilities, particularly relative to common image sizes.”
`
`34.
`
`I have applied the Board’s definition and statements in my analysis,
`
`where applicable.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINION
`
`35.
`
`In this Section I present a summary of my opinions. The full
`
`statement of my opinions and the bases for my opinions are contained in the
`
`appropriate sections of my declaration. I give this summary, however, for the
`
`convenience of the reader.
`
`36.
`
`For the reasons set forth in this declaration, and based on my analysis
`
`of the ’239 Patent, my knowledge and experience, my understanding of the state of
`
`the art in 1999 (and 2000), my analysis of the Petition and accompanying materials
`
`and of the Board’s institution decision, it is my opinion that:
`
`37.
`
`First, the challenged claims 21 and 22 would not have been obvious to
`
`a POSA as of the date of the invention because a POSA the asserted references do
`
`not teach or suggest the claimed method of using concurrent threads to request and
`
`receive update data parcels.
`
`38.
`
`Second, all of the challenged claims 1–19 and 21–25 would not have
`
`been obvious to a POSA as of the date of the invention because a POSA would not
`
`have combined the references in the manner asserted by Petitioner.
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`39.
`
`I understand that the Board has recently issued Final Written
`
`Decisions in IPR2016-00448 and IPR2016-00449 in which the Board concluded
`
`that claims of the ’343 patent and ’506 patent were unpatentable as obvious over
`
`the combination of Reddy and Hornbacker, but I also understand that the Board
`
`had not yet reached a final determination as to whether references would have been
`
`combined to achieve the subject matter claimed in the ’239 patent.
`
`III. MY ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS 1–19 AND 21–25
`
`A.
`
`Disclosures of Reddy, Hornbacker, and Loomans
`
`1.
`
`Reddy
`
`40.
`
`The Reddy reference is directed to a specialized client workstation
`
`image viewing software operating on a conventional, fixed site computer system
`
`over a high bandwidth internet connection.
`
`41.
`
`Funded by the DARPA Multidimensional Applications Gigabit
`
`Internet Consortium II contract (Ex. 1004 at 37 (Acknowledgements)), Reddy
`
`describes the generation of VRML terrain files from geographic data and a
`
`specialized client-side VRML browser TerraVision II for viewing these files (see
`
`generally Ex. 1004).
`
`42.
`
`TerraVision II is disclosed as a real-time, distributed terrain
`
`visualization system that was designed to enable interactive visualization of
`
`massive terrain databases that can be distributed over a high-speed wide-area
`
`network. Ex. 1004, ¶38. TerraVision relies on a complex, interlaced hierarchy of
`
`13
`
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`17
`
`

`

`tree files that include a hierarchy of Geotiles that further contain links to terrain tile
`
`files, as well as satellite, aerial, and map imagery and features. E.g., Ex. 1004,
`
`p.33 (figure).
`
`43.
`
`TerraVision II can be
`
`implemented on graphics workstations
`
`connected to gigabit-per-second ATM networks with high-speed disk servers as
`
`well as desktop PCs connected to the Internet. See Ex. 1004, ¶48. Reddy requests
`
`images tiles through the VRML ImageTexture node, which has a URL saved for
`
`that particular object. E.g., Ex. 1004 at ¶¶25-26.
`
`2.
`
`Hornbacker
`
`44. Hornbacker is directed to a “Network Image View Server,” which is
`
`designed to eliminate the problem of requiring “specialized client workstation
`
`image view software,” the very type of system described in Reddy. Ex. 1003, Title;
`
`Abstract. Hornbacker thus avoids a specific client-side application, in favor of a
`
`server architecture that can efficiently distribute image tiles to a web browser at a
`
`URL through HTTP requests. Ex. 1003, p.3. Hornbacker does not describe the
`
`client system beyond noting that the workstation will connect with the server
`
`through a web browser. See Ex. 1003, p.5. The client-side features described in
`
`Hornbacker are implemented via HTML. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, p.3.
`
`45. Hornbacker touts the avoidance of client-side applications as a benefit,
`
`(Ex. 1003, 14:17–28), and the disclosed system maintains this benefit even to the
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`14
`
`

`

`extent of including URL request for tiles at a specific angle of rotation. Ex. 1003,
`
`p.9. In other words, tiles are custom-calculated for each user by the server at
`
`whatever specific angle the user happens to request, and served via URL so that the
`
`client system does not need to do the work of rotating the image.
`
`46.
`
`Specifically, Hornbacker requests image tiles by specifying at least
`
`SCALE and TILE_NUMBER in the URL name, using the URL nomenclature to
`
`specify viewing characteristics such as angle, X mirror, Y mirror, and inversion.
`
`Ex. 1003, p.9.
`
`3.
`
`Loomans
`
`47.
`
`Loomans is directed to a “general purpose e-commerce application,”
`
`specifically a “browser resident in a client computer that is typically used to
`
`execute a highly interactive e-commerce application.” Ex. 1014, 1:46–55, 2:61–63,
`
`3:1–3, 6:15–17.
`
`48.
`
`Loomans attempts to improve upon conventional approaches to
`
`delivering general purpose e-commerce applications by eschewing server-side
`
`processing as much as possible, finding that “the performance of a server side
`
`application will always be generally slower than an equivalent client side
`
`application” and that “it is difficult to find a general solution to scaling the server
`
`side facility since every time a new user is added, additional processing capabilities
`
`must be provided by the server.” See Ex. 1014, 3:1–20.
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`49. Accordingly, Loomans relies on a downloadable application engine
`
`kernel, which downloads a larger kernel, and so on until user requests can be
`
`processed. See Ex. 1014, 5:9–31. The application runs client-side through an
`
`HTML page, minimizing server-side processing. See id. Loomans describes a
`
`preferred embodiment of this browser environment application, which provides
`
`thread management routines to improve user interaction in an asynchronous
`
`environment, i.e. the browser. See Ex. 1014, Title, 3:52–62 (Summary of the
`
`Invention).
`
`B.
`
`The Asserted References Do Not Teach or Suggest All Elements of
`Claims 21 or 22 (Ground 2) of the ’239 Patent
`
`50. As to Ground 2, in my opinion the asserted combination of Reddy,
`
`Hornbacker, and Loomans does not teach or suggest the use of concurrent threads
`
`to request and retrieve update data parcels as recited in claim 21 or claim 22.
`
`Therefore, these claims would not have been obvious to a POSA at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`51. Claim 1 recites
`
`“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 . . . for a first update data parcel
`corresponding to a first derivative image of a
`predetermined image . . . corresponding to source image
`data . . . .;
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`“receiving the first update data parcel . . . after the step of
`issuing the first request;
`
`“issuing a second request from the user computing device
`to one or more servers . . . for a second update data parcel
`corresponding to a second derivative image of a
`predetermined image . . . .;
`
`“receiving the second update data parcel . . . after the step
`of issuing the second request;
`
`. . .
`
`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 . . . .”
`
`Ex. 1001 (’239 Patent) at 12:26 - 13:18.
`
`52. Claim 21 recites:
`
`“A method as in claim 1, wherein:
`
`the steps of issuing the first request and receiving the first
`update data parcel are part of a first thread;
`
`the steps of issuing the second request and receiving the
`second update data parcel are part of a second thread; and
`
`the first thread and the second thread are executed at least
`in part concurrently”
`
`Ex. 1001 (’239 Patent) at 14:44 - 14:51.
`
`53. Claim 22 recites:
`
`“A method as in claim 1, further comprising: . . .
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`“issuing a third request from the user computing device .
`. . for a third update data parcel . . .;
`
`receiving the third update data parcel at the user
`computing device from the one or more servers over the
`one or more network communication channels;
`
`issuing a fourth request from the user computing device .
`. . for a fourth update data parcel . . .;
`
`receiving the fourth update data parcel at the user
`computing device from the one or more servers over the
`one or more network communication channels;
`
`the steps of issuing the first request and receiving the first
`update data parcel are part of a first thread;
`
`the steps of issuing the second request and receiving the
`second update data parcel are part of a second thread;
`
`the steps of issuing the third request and receiving the
`third update data parcel are part of a third thread;
`
`the steps of issuing the fourth request and receiving the
`fourth update data parcel are part of a fourth thread; and
`
`the first thread,(cid:3)the second thread(cid:3)the third thread,(cid:3)and
`the fourth
`thread are executed at
`least
`in part
`concurrently.”
`
`Ex. 1001 (’239 Patent) at 14:52 - 15:16.
`
`1.
`
`The generic disclosures of multi-threading relied on by Dr.
`Michalson would not have led a POSA to the claimed
`invention
`
`54.
`
`In my opinion, Petitioner and Dr. Michalson rely on a generic
`
`disclosure of multi-threading in the asserted references, as a general concept, and
`
`thus I disagree with the opinion expressed by Petitioner and Dr. Michalson that
`
`claims 21 and 22 would have been obvious to a POSA at the time of the invention.
`
`18
`
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`22
`
`

`

`In my opinion, the concept of multi-threading in general and of multi-threaded
`
`applications would not have rendered claims 21 and 22 obvious.
`
`55. Claims 21 and 22 are not directed to general multithreading. The
`
`claims require concurrent issuance of requests (and receipt of responses) for data
`
`parcels, which the Board has construed as meaning “data that corresponds to an
`
`element of a source image array.” Paper 17 at 8. The claim would be interpreted
`
`by a POSA, for example, as “issuing a third request from the user computing
`
`device . . . for a third update [data that corresponds to an element of a source image
`
`array] . . .;”
`
`56. While the concept of multi-threading in general was part of the
`
`understanding of a programmer at the time of the invention, the user of multi-
`
`threading as claimed required more—an understanding of the problem of the
`
`impact of network latency on the transmission of data parcels, and the availability
`
`of a priority queue to manage requests for data parcels shared by concurrent
`
`threads. The POSA would not have had this understanding, and the asserted prior
`
`art on which Dr. Michalson relies does not disclose this understanding.
`
`57.
`
`Petitioner incorrectly characterizes Reddy as disclosing more than the
`
`generic concept of multi-threading. Petition at 59:9–11. Reddy merely discloses
`
`that TerraVision II is “a multi-threaded application” (Ex. 1004 at ¶41) and that
`
`“[m]ost VRML browsers perform nonblocking network reads so that the user can
`
`
`
`
`NY01:4369357.2
`
`19
`
`23
`
`

`

`still interact with the scene while higher resolution imagery and elevation loads.”
`
`Ex. 1004 at ¶21. As Dr. Michalson reports, “While Reddy mentions multi-
`
`threading, it does not explicitly state how multiple threads are employed.” Ex.
`
`1005 at ¶224. These general disclosures regarding multi-threading would not
`
`direct a POSA to the claimed invention.
`
`58. Dr. Michalson relies for one on the mere possibility of modifying
`
`Reddy to achieve the invention, as explained below. E.g., Ex. 1005 at ¶¶221, 222.
`
`59. Dr. Michalson suggests that a POSA would “recognize” the
`
`application of Loomans to Red