`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent No. 9,253,239
`____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. PEGGY AGOURIS
`IN SUPPORT OF
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE PURSUANT TO
`37 C.F.R. §42.120
`
`
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 1 of 84
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Background and Qualifications ...................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. Materials Considered ...................................................................................... 4
`IV. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) ........................................... 5
`V.
`Summary of Opinions ..................................................................................... 6
`VI. Legal Standards .............................................................................................. 8
`VII. The ’293 Patent ............................................................................................. 10
`A.
`The ’239 Patent .................................................................................. 10
`B.
`Claim 20 ............................................................................................. 15
`C.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 18
`1.
`“Data Parcel” (Claim 1) .......................................................... 18
`2.
`“User-Controlled Image Viewpoint” (Claim 1) ..................... 19
`VIII. Claim 20 is Not Unpatentable as Obvious Over the Asserted
`Combination of Reddy, Hornbacker and Rosasco ....................................... 20
`A.
`The Asserted Prior Art ....................................................................... 22
`1.
`Reddy ....................................................................................... 22
`a)
`TerraVision II’s “GeoTile” Nodes Provide Links
`to Image and Terrain Tiles ............................................. 25
`Distance-Based Level of Detail (LOD) ......................... 26
`QuadLOD: Loading and Display of Image Data ........... 31
`Additional “Coarse to Fine” Algorithm Asserted
`by Petitioner ................................................................... 32
`
`b)
`c)
`d)
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 2 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`“Flying” Mode ............................................................... 32
`e)
`Pre-Fetching ................................................................... 35
`f)
`Locally-stored Image Tile Set ....................................... 37
`g)
`Hornbacker ............................................................................... 37 
`2. 
`Rosasco .................................................................................... 39 
`3. 
`The Asserted Prior Art Combination Does Not Teach or
`Suggest the Elements of Claim 20 ..................................................... 43 
`1. 
`Reddy Does Not Teach or Suggest the Required
`Prioritization of Requests Based on a First and Second
`User-Controlled Image Viewpoint ........................................... 44 
`Rosasco Also Does Not Teach or Suggest the Required
`Prioritization of Requests Based on a First and Second
`User-Controlled Image Viewpoint ........................................... 49 
`The Combination of Reddy and Rosasco Does Not Teach
`or Suggest the Elements of Claim 20 ....................................... 51 
`A POSITA Would Not Combine Rosasco with Reddy and
`Rosasco to Achieve Claim 20 ............................................................ 54 
`IX.  Concluding Statement ................................................................................... 58 
`
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 3 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained by counsel for Bradium Technologies LLC
`
`I.
`
`(“Bradium” or “Patent Owner”) as an expert consultant in regards to inter partes
`
`review proceeding IPR2018-00952 for U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 (“the ’239
`
`Patent”). I previously provided a declaration for IPR2016-01897, which also
`
`involved claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239, which is Exhibit 2014 for that
`
`proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`In this proceeding (IPR No. IPR2018-00952), I understand that
`
`Unified Patents Inc. (“Unified” or “Petitioner”) filed a petition challenging the
`
`validity of Claims 1 through 25 of the ’239 Patent. I further understand that
`
`Bradium disclaimed all claimed except for Claim 20 (which depends from Claim
`
`1). Therefore, I understand that the only claim currently at issue in this proceeding
`
`is Claim 20 (which includes the elements of Claim 1 from which it depends).
`
`3.
`
`I further understand that Bradium filed a Preliminary Patent Owner
`
`Response on September 24, 2018. Although I understand that Bradium submitted
`
`a confidential Preliminary Patent Owner Response, I have reviewed only the
`
`publicly-available version. I understand that the confidential information at issue
`
`in this proceeding does not relate to technical matters. I have not received or
`
`considered confidential information in regards to this proceeding.
`
`1
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 4 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`I understand that, for this proceeding, IPR2018-00952, the Board has
`
`
`4.
`
`instituted a review as to claim 20.
`
`5.
`
`I understand that the Board has instituted an inter partes review on a
`
`on a single ground: whether Claim 20, which depends from Claim 1, is
`
`unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Reddy, Hornbacker, and
`
`Rosasco. I was asked to consider whether the Claim 20 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,253,239 (EX1001), would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSITA”) as of the date of the invention over this single asserted prior art
`
`ground.
`
`6.
`
`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.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`7.
`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.
`
`8.
`
`I am currently Dean of the College of Science at George Mason
`
`University. I am additionally the Director of the Center for Earth Observing &
`
`2
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 5 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`Space Research at George Mason University. I was previously employed as a
`
`Professor of Geoinformatics at the College of Science at George Mason
`
`University.
`
`9.
`
`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.
`
`10.
`
`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.
`
`11. 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.
`
`3
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 6 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`12. The materials I considered include the ’239 Patent (EX1001),
`
`materials incorporated by reference therein, the prosecution history for the ’239
`
`Patent (EX1013), the Petition from Unified for inter partes review (Paper No. 2),
`
`and the Wilson Declaration in support of the Petition (EX1005). I also considered
`
`the Board’s Institution Decision (Paper No. 31). 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 Mr. Wilson or the Petitioner.
`
`13.
`
`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.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that Bradium considers the date of invention for the ’239
`
`Patent to be October 1999. I understand that Mr. Wilson considered the date of
`
`invention to be December 2000 based on the ’239 patent’s discussion of the
`
`technology background. See EX1005 ¶5.
`
`15. Counsel for Bradium has asked me to assume that the asserted
`
`references, Reddy, Hornbacker, and Rosasco, 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.
`
`4
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 7 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”)
`16. 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.
`
`17. The Board previously stated that a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention (“POSITA”) of related 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.
`
`18. Petitioner in this proceeding stated that a POSITA would have a
`
`Master of Science or equivalent degree in electrical engineering or computer
`
`science, or a Bachelor of Science or equivalent degree in electrical engineering or
`
`computer science, with at least 5 years of experience in a field related to GIS or the
`
`transmission of digital image data over a computer network. Petition at 10-11.
`
`19.
`
`I have been asked to apply, and have applied, Petitioner’s
`
`understanding of the level of skill of a POSITA in my analysis herein.
`
`5
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 8 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`I have considered the issues on which I opine in this declaration under
`
`
`20.
`
`Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art, and also the level of skill of a
`
`POSITA that the Board previously stated (as I indicate above) and that I applied in
`
`my prior declaration (Exhibit 2014 for IPR2016-01897). My opinion would be not
`
`change whichever of these levels of ordinary skill in the art I apply in my analysis.
`
`21.
`
`It is also my opinion that the level of skill of a POSITA would not
`
`change substantially between October 1999 and December 2000 (the date of the
`
`provisional applications to which the ’239 Patent claims priority) for the purposes
`
`of my analysis of the claims and asserted prior art references.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`22.
`I disagree with what I understand is the Board’s broad interpretation
`
`of the scope of claim 20. While I understand that claims in this proceeding are
`
`construed under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard, the Board’s
`
`construction does not appear reasonable in light of the specification and claim
`
`language.
`
`23. The Board concluded that Claim 20 “broadly requires prioritizing
`
`requests for update data parcels.” Paper 31, 40. I disagree.
`
`24. A POSITA would read Claim 20 in the context of Claim 1 from which
`
`it depends. A POSITA would understand that Claim 1 requires steps for a first and
`
`a second request, and that the two requests for update data parcels must each be
`
`6
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 9 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`based on a different user-controlled viewpoint. Mr. Wilson does not appear to
`
`dispute this point, as he explained at deposition, a “user-controlled viewpoint” is a
`
`viewpoint that is controllable by the user, for example, by user navigational
`
`controls. EX2044 (Wilson Deposition) at 80:10-21.
`
`25.
`
`It is my opinion that the claim language “user-controlled image
`
`viewpoint” would have been understood by a POSITA at the time of the invention
`
`to mean a viewpoint that is controlled by the user, for example, by user
`
`navigational controls.
`
`26. Therefore, in my opinion, a POSITA would have understood that
`
`Claim 20 requires determining a priority for two requests that are each based on
`
`different user-controlled viewpoints. In other words, it is my opinion that Claim
`
`20 requires prioritization of two requests that are each based on a different
`
`viewpoint.
`
`27. Based on my understanding of the proper scope of Claim 20, it is also
`
`my opinion that Claim 20 is not unpatentable as obvious based on the asserted
`
`prior art combination: Reddy, Hornbacker, and Rosasco.
`
`28.
`
`I have considered the asserted references as a whole. In summary, the
`
`asserted combination of Reddy and Rosasco does not teach or suggest determining
`
`priority for two requests that are each based on different user-controlled
`
`viewpoints. And Petitioner does not assert that Hornbacker offers any teaching or
`
`7
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 10 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`suggestion regarding priority, and it is also my opinion that Hornbacker offers no
`
`such teaching or suggestion.
`
`29. For these reasons, and the reasons explained more fully in my
`
`declaration as a whole, it is my opinion that Claim 20 is not unpatentable as
`
`obvious over the
`
`VI. LEGAL STANDARDS
`30.
`I understand that an invention that would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention is not patentable. I understand
`
`that Petitioner has the burden in this proceeding to demonstrated that the patent
`
`claim is obvious by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not
`
`standard).
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the claimed invention as a whole must be considered
`
`in an obviousness analysis.
`
`32. To make a prima facie showing of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103, Petitioner must, among other requirements, fulfill the requirements set forth in
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). I understand that a prima facie
`
`showing of obviousness must demonstrate that the cited references, in
`
`combination, disclose each element of the claim.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that the obviousness inquiry also involves the following
`
`factual determinations:
`
`8
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 11 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`(A) Determining the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(B) Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art; and
`
`(C) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that secondary considerations of non-obviousness are
`
`also relevant to the obviousness determination where present, although I
`
`understand that Patent Owner has not presented particular evidence in this
`
`proceeding regarding secondary considerations, and I have therefore not
`
`considered secondary considerations in my analysis.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that Petitioner also has the burden to show whether there
`
`would have been a motivation to combine the asserted prior art, and whether the
`
`proposed combination would render the patented claims obvious.
`
`a. I understand that Petitioner must provide an explicit rationale to make
`
`proposed modifications to or combinations of the prior art references,
`
`despite the differences between the claimed invention and the prior
`
`art, without relying on the patent disclosure itself.
`
`b. I understand further that Petitioner must also explain why a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would simultaneously make multiple changes
`
`and implementation choices to arrive at a particular invention.
`
`9
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 12 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`I understand that the claims and specification of a patent must be read
`
`
`36.
`
`and construed through the eyes of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the priority date of the claims. I have also set forth my understanding of the
`
`applicable Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) standard and certain legal
`
`standards in the section of my declaration regarding claim construction.
`
`VII. THE ’293 PATENT
`A. The ’239 Patent
`37. As the patent explains, the inventors of the ’239 patent developed a
`
`method for the retrieval of large-scale images over limited bandwidth network
`
`communications channels or usable by small client devices. See, e.g., EX1001,
`
`3:10-39; 3:47-51; 4:4-12.
`
`38. The patent explains that the preferred operating environment for the
`
`invention includes, as shown in Figure 1 of the ’239 Patent, a server (12) which
`
`serves image data to client systems such as personal computers (18) and
`
`webphones (20) in response to requests received from the client.
`
`10
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 13 of 84
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`
`39. The patent explains that in a preferred embodiment, the server
`
`maintains source image data (e.g., based on high-resolution map or satellite
`
`imagery of geographic terrain) and overlap image data. EX1001, 5:56-6:2. The
`
`server preferably pre-processes the image data into a series of derivative images
`
`that are subdivided into a regular array, as shown in Figure 2 of the ’239 Patent:
`
`EX1001, 6:3-28.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 14 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`40. The patent explains that to support display of a portion of, for
`
`example, a large-scale two-dimensional image rendered in three-dimensional
`
`space, portions of the image (e.g., image parcels) are requested from the server and
`
`displayed on the client device. See, e.g., EX1001, 3:43-60. Requests for image
`
`parcels are prepared by selecting image parcels relative to particular operator-
`
`controlled image viewpoints selected on the client device. EX1001, Abstract.
`
`The client requests the image parcel, and the server provides it. EX1001, 3:43-60.
`
`The client displays the image parcel as a discrete portion of the predetermined
`
`image. EX1001, 3:43-60. The invention enables retrieval of large-scale images
`
`over a network. EX1001, Abstract.
`
`41. The patent explains that the client may display a two-dimensional
`
`image rendered in three-dimensional space based on “a viewing frustum placed
`
`within a three-dimensional space over the imaged displayed on the client 18, 20.”
`
`Client user navigational inputs are supported to control the x, y lateral, rotational
`
`and z height positioning of the viewing frustum over the image as well as the
`
`camera angle of incidence relative to the plane of the image.” EX1001, 5:46–55.
`
`42. The patent explains that the preferred architecture (40) of a client
`
`system for implementing the invention is shown in Figure 3. The architecture
`
`dynamically adapts to changes in viewing frustrum (i.e., the user-selected
`
`12
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 15 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`viewpoint at the client), re-prioritizing among requests that are associated with
`
`different viewpoints. EX1001, 7:54-62, 9:4-21, 10:20-52, 11:17-21.
`
`
`
`43. As the ’239 patent explains, “Changes in the viewing frustum are
`
`determined from user input navigation commands by a frustum navigation block
`
`50,” as shown by the “NAVIGATION COMMANDS” illustrated on Figure 3.
`
`EX1001, 7:45-47. “The effective change in viewing frustum as determined by the
`
`frustum navigation block 50 is provided to the control block 44.” Id., 7:51-53.
`
`The control block, in turn “based in part on changes in the viewing frustum,
`
`determines the ordered priority of image parcels to be requested from the server.”
`
`Id., 7:54-57 (emphasis added).
`
`44. The patent further states: “The image parcel requests are placed in a
`
`request queue 52 for issuance by the parcel request client 42. Preferably, the
`
`pending requests are issued in priority order, thereby dynamically reflecting
`
`13
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 16 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`changes in the viewing frustum with minimum latency.” Id., 7:57-63 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`45. As Figure 5 of the patent shows, “an image parcel management
`
`process 80 implements a loop that determines image parcels subject to update 82
`
`and creates corresponding image parcel download requests 84.” Id., 8:31-35. Four
`
`image parcel download requests are placed into a request queue at a time, and each
`
`of these image parcel requests is assigned a download priority based its importance
`
`for the current viewpoint. Id., 10:4-52. When the user changes the viewing
`
`frustrum via navigational input, the system will evaluate and add new image parcel
`
`requests to the request queue based on the new viewpoint. Id.. 9:18-21.
`
`46. A POSITA would understand from the disclosure of the patent
`
`specification that download requests for prior viewpoints may or may not be
`
`removed from the queue, for example depending on the memory available at the
`
`
`
`14
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 17 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`client. Id., 8:57-62. A POSITA would further understand that requests from prior
`
`viewpoints that remain in the queue are prioritized against new requests that may
`
`be based on a different user-selected viewpoint. Id., 9:3-16.
`
`B. Claim 20
`47.
`Independent claim 1 and its dependent claim 20 are reproduced
`
`below. I have inserted claim element designations (the same ones used in the
`
`Petition) and also bolded certain claim terms that I consider particularly relevant to
`
`my analysis.
`
`[1 PREAMBLE] A method of retrieving images over a
`network communication channel for display on a user
`computing device, the method comprising steps of:
`[1A] 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, [1B] 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;
`[1C] receiving the first update data parcel at the user
`computing device from the one or more servers over the
`
`15
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 18 of 84
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`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;
`[1D] 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;
`[1E] 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;
`[1F] 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 second update data parcel being
`performed after the step of issuing the second request;
`
`16
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 19 of 84
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`[1G] 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;
`[1H] 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, [1I] series image K0
`being subdivided into a regular array [1J] wherein each
`resulting image parcel of the array has a predetermined
`pixel resolution and a predetermined color or bit per pixel
`depth, [1K] 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.
`20. A method as in claim 1, further comprising a
`step for determining priority of the first request and the
`second request.
`
`48. The “first request” and the “second request” recited in Claim 20 refer
`
`back to Claim 1.
`
`17
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 20 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`C. Claim Construction
`49.
`I understand that the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI)
`
`standard applies in this proceeding. I have applied the BRI standard in my
`
`analysis. I have considered the language of the claims, the teachings of the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history.
`
`50.
`
`I understand that BRI does not mean the broadest possible
`
`interpretation. In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`51.
`
`I understand that in accordance with the BRI standard, the claim
`
`should be interpreted in a manner that is reasonable in light of the specification.
`
`Id.
`
`52. A further understand that BRI interpretation is “an interpretation that
`
`corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the
`
`specification, i.e., an interpretation that is ‘consistent with the specification.’” Id.
`
`(citation omitted). I have been informed that claim construction under BRI
`
`“cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence.” Sophos Ltd.
`
`v. Iancu, 727 F. App’x 656, 661 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).
`
`1.
`“Data Parcel” (Claim 1)
`I have reviewed and agree with the understanding that “data parcel”
`
`53.
`
`should be construed as “data that corresponds to an element of a source image
`
`18
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 21 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`array.” See Paper 31 at 29 (noting that this construction was applied in IPR2016-
`
`00448 and IPR2015-01434).
`
`2.
`“User-Controlled Image Viewpoint” (Claim 1)
`In my opinion, this claim term require that the user control (i.e.,
`
`54.
`
`select) the viewpoint. As Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Wilson, explained at deposition,
`
`a “user-controlled viewpoint” is a viewpoint, is a viewpoint that is controllable by
`
`the user, for example, by user navigational controls. EX2044 at 80:10-21. The
`
`plain language of the claim, a “user-controlled” viewpoint, requires that the user
`
`exercise control to select the viewpoint.
`
`55. The specification consistently identifies that the viewpoint is selected
`
`and controlled by the user’s actions, which supports Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`construction. The patent explains that the user at the client device selects a
`
`viewing frustrum (i.e., viewpoint) within a three-dimensional space, including a
`
`location and angle of view. EX1001, 5:45-55. The patent also provides for
`
`retrieval of large-scale images by selecting and requesting update image parcels
`
`relative to an operator controlled image viewpoint to display via the client device.
`
`EX1001, Abstract, 3:47-51. The current field of view is determined by checking
`
`for navigation events that alter the viewing frustrum. EX1001, 8:35-40, 9:18-21.
`
`56. Therefore, based on the plain language of the claim in the context of
`
`the specification, a “user-controlled” image viewpoint would have been understood
`
`19
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2054
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 22 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`by a POSITA as a viewpoint that is controlled by the user, for example, by user
`
`navigational controls.
`
`VIII. CLAIM 20 IS NOT UNPATENTABLE AS OBVIOUS OVER THE
`ASSERTED COMBINATION OF REDDY, HORNBACKER AND
`ROSASCO
`57.
`It is my opinion that Claim 20 is not obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103
`
`based on the sole asserted prior art combination: Reddy, Hornbacker, and
`
`Rosasco. See Paper 31, 41.
`
`58. The asserted prior art combination does not teach or suggest
`
`dependent claim 20. See Section VIII.B. I note that Petitioner relies only on
`
`disclosures of Reddy and Rosasco for the additional limitation in Claim 20.
`
`Petition, 68-71. The combination of features from Reddy and Rosasco, in my
`
`opinion, does not teach or suggest determ