`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 CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND PURSUANT TO
`37 C.F.R. §42.121
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 1 of 82
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Background and Qualifications ...................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. Materials Considered ...................................................................................... 3
`IV. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) ........................................... 4
`V.
`Summary of Opinions ..................................................................................... 6
`VI. Legal Standards .............................................................................................. 7
`A.
`Resolving the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art. ................ 8
`VII. The ’239 Patent ............................................................................................... 9
`A.
`Substitute claims ................................................................................. 14
`B.
`Support of amended claim 20 in the ’468 Provisional ....................... 20
`C.
`Support of new dependent claim 21 in the ’468 Provisional ............. 30
`D.
`Claim Construction and Patentability ................................................ 33
`E.
`The Prior Art ...................................................................................... 35
`1.
`Reddy ....................................................................................... 35
`a)
`Distance-Based Level of Detail (LOD) ......................... 38
`b)
`QuadLOD: Loading and Display of Image Data ........... 43
`c)
`Additional “Coarse to Fine” Algorithm Alleged the
`by Petitioner ................................................................... 43
`“Flying” Mode ............................................................... 45
`Pre-Fetching ................................................................... 47
`Locally-stored Image Tile Set ....................................... 49
`
`d)
`e)
`f)
`
`ii
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 2 of 82
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`2.
`
`Hornbacker ............................................................................... 49
`a)
`FlashPix ......................................................................... 51
`Rosasco .................................................................................... 51 
`3. 
`VIII.  Concluding Statement ................................................................................... 55 
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 3 of 82
`
`

`

`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).
`
`3.
`
`I further understand that Bradium is seeking to amend claim 20 in the
`
`alternative, and, should original claim 20 be invalidated, amended claim 20 and
`
`new claim 21 may be considered by the Board.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that, for this proceeding, IPR2018-00952, the Board has
`
`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.
`
`1
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 4 of 82
`
`

`

`
`I was asked to consider whether amended Claim 20 and new claim 21, are
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`supported by the written description and where those claims would have been
`
`patentable as of the date of the invention.
`
`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 &
`
`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
`
`2
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 5 of 82
`
`

`

`
`2006 respectively. During my time as associate professor, I was also the Chief
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`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.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`12. The materials I considered include amended claim 20 and new claim
`
`21, 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,
`
`3
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 6 of 82
`
`

`

`
`and, to the extent that I considered them relevant, the materials provided by
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`Mr. Wilson or the Petitioner. I have further considered the FlashPix reference
`
`(EX2051, letter from Mr. Lasker (EX2050) at Apple Corporation and two Office
`
`Actions from currently pending Bradium patent applications (EX2052 and 2053).
`
`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, and FlashPix 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.
`
`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
`
`4
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 7 of 82
`
`

`

`
`of the ’239 Patent (which I will treat as the latter of the two dates for
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`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 the 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.
`
`20.
`
`I have considered the issues on which I opine in this declaration under
`
`Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art, and also the level of skill of a
`
`5
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 8 of 82
`
`

`

`
`POSITA that the Board previously stated (as I indicate above) and that I applied in
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`my prior declaration (EX2014 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 find that all the claim elements recited in the substitute claims
`
`(amended claim 20 and new claim 21) are fully disclosed by U.S. provisional
`
`application 60/258468 (the ‘468 application) which is incorporated into the
`
`specification of the ‘239 patent by reference. Therefore, the substitute claims are
`
`entitled to a priority date of no later than December 24, 2000. No new matter has
`
`been added by the substitute claims
`
`23. Based on my understanding of the proper scope of the substitute
`
`claims, it is also my opinion they are not unpatentable based on the following
`
`references alone or in combination: Reddy, Hornbacker, and Rosasco and
`
`FlashPix. The substitute claims are patentable over Reddy alone or in combination
`
`with other art relied on in the Petition at least because fails to teach prioritization
`
`6
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 9 of 82
`
`

`

`
`amongst tiles having different resolution and overlap selected and pending retrieval
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`for the same viewpoint.
`
`24. Petitioner does not assert that Hornbacker offers any teaching or
`
`suggestion regarding priority, and it is also my opinion that Hornbacker offers no
`
`such teaching or suggestion.
`
`25. For these reasons, and the reasons explained more fully in my
`
`declaration as a whole, it is my opinion that the substitute claims are not
`
`unpatentable in view of the prior art cited in Patent Owner's Contingent Motion to
`
`Amend.
`
`VI. LEGAL STANDARDS
`26.
`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 the claimed invention as a whole must be considered in an obviousness
`
`analysis.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the obviousness inquiry involves the following
`
`factual determinations:
`
`(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.
`
`7
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 10 of 82
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`A. Resolving the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art.
`28.
`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.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that a prima facie showing of obviousness must
`
`demonstrate that the cited references, in combination, disclose each element of the
`
`claim.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the entirety of the disclosures of the asserted prior art
`
`references must be considered as part of the obviousness analysis. I further
`
`understand that non-obviousness cannot be shown by merely attacking the
`
`references individually where obviousness is based on a combination of references.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
`
`results.
`
`32.
`
`I further understand that a patent that simply arranges old elements
`
`with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields
`
`no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, is obvious.
`
`8
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 11 of 82
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`I further understand that the following are examples of rationale that
`
`
`33.
`
`may support a conclusion of obviousness:
`
`(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way; and
`
`(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
`
`34.
`
`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. 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 ’239 PATENT
`35. 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.
`
`9
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 12 of 82
`
`

`

`
`36. The patent explains that the preferred operating environment for the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`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.
`
`
`
`37. 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:
`
`10
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 13 of 82
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`
`EX1001, 6:3-28.
`
`38. 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.
`
`39. The patent explains that the client may display a two-dimensional
`
`image rendered in three-dimensional space based on “a viewing frustum placed
`
`11
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 14 of 82
`
`

`

`
`within a three-dimensional space over the imaged displayed on the client 18, 20.”
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`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.
`
`40. 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 frustum (i.e., the user-selected 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.
`
`
`
`41. 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
`
`12
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 15 of 82
`
`

`

`
`frustum navigation block 50 is provided to the control block 44.” Id., 7:51-53.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`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).
`
`42. 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
`
`changes in the viewing frustum with minimum latency.” Id., 7:57-63 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`43. 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
`
`frustum 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.
`
`13
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 16 of 82
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`
`44. 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
`
`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.
`
`A.
`Substitute claims
`45. Amended claim 20 and new claim 21 are reproduced below. I have
`
`inserted claim element designations and also bolded certain claim terms that I
`
`consider particularly relevant to my analysis.
`
`[20 PREAMBLE] A method of retrieving images over a
`network communication channel for display on a user
`computing device, the method comprising steps of:
`[20A] issuing a first request from the user
`
`14
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 17 of 82
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`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,
`[20B] the predetermined image corresponding to
`source image data, the first update data parcel uniquely
`forming a first discrete portion of the predetermined
`image,
`[20C] 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;
`[20D] 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;
`[20E] 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;
`[20F] 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
`
`15
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 18 of 82
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`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,
`[20G] wherein the second update data parcel is
`selected based on the first user-controlled image
`viewpoint on the user computing device relative to the
`predetermined image; the first and the second discrete
`portions have a first non-empty overlap area; the
`second update data parcel has a greater resolution than
`the first update data parcel;
`[20H] 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;
`[20I] 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 and after the step of displaying the
`first discrete portion;
`[20J] issuing a second third request from the user
`computing device to the one or more servers, over the
`one or more network communication channels, the
`second third request being for a second third update data
`
`16
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 19 of 82
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`parcel corresponding to a second third derivative image
`of the predetermined image, the second third update data
`parcel uniquely forming a second third discrete portion of
`the predetermined image, wherein the second third
`update data parcel is selected based on a second user-
`controlled image viewpoint on the user computing device
`relative to the predetermined image,
`[20K] the second user-controlled image viewpoint
`being different from the first user-controlled image
`viewpoint;
`[20L] receiving the second third 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 third update
`data parcel being performed after the step of issuing the
`second third request;
`[20M] displaying the second discrete portion on
`the user computing device using the second third update
`data parcel, the step of displaying the second third
`discrete portion being performed after the step of
`receiving the second third update data parcel;
`[20N] determining priority of the first, request and
`the second, and the third requests such that the first
`update data parcel has a greater priority and requested,
`received, and displayed before the second data parcel,
`
`[20O] whereby
`enabling
`local
`resolution
`
`17
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 20 of 82
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`enhancement in the first non-empty overlap area for
`the display according
`to
`the first user-controlled
`viewpoint on the user computing device; wherein:
`[20P] 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, [20N] 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.
`
`
`[21 PREABLE] The method of claim 21, further
`comprising the steps of:
`[21A] issuing an additional request from the user
`computing device to the one or more servers, over the
`one or more network communication channels, the
`additional request being for an additional update data
`parcel corresponding to an additional derivative image
`of the predetermined image, the additional update data
`parcel uniquely forming an additional discrete portion of
`the predetermined image, wherein the additional update
`
`18
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 21 of 82
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`data parcel is selected based on the first user-controlled
`image viewpoint on the user computing device relative
`to the predetermined image; the additional discrete
`portion and the first non-empty overlap area have a
`second non-empty overlap area; the additional update
`data parcel has a greater resolution than the second
`update data parcel;
`[21B] receiving the additional 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 additional update data
`parcel being performed after the step of issuing the
`additional request;
`[21C] displaying the additional discrete portion on
`the user computing device using the additional update
`data parcel, the step of displaying the additional discrete
`portion being performed after the step of receiving the
`additional update data parcel and after the step of
`displaying the second discrete portion;
`[21D] determining priority of
`the additional
`request such that the second update data parcel has a
`greater priority and requested, received, and displayed
`before the additional data parcel, whereby enabling
`progressive local resolution enhancement in the second
`non-empty overlap area for the display according to the
`
`19
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 22 of 82
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`first user-controlled viewpoint on the user computing
`device.
`Support of amended claim 20 in the ’468 Provisional
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`
`
`B.
`46.
`
`the ’468 application provides support for the preamble of amended claim 20, “A
`
`method of retrieving images over a network communication channel for display.”
`
`For example, the ’468 application discloses that: “The present invention is
`
`generally related to the delivery of high-resolution highly featured graphic images
`
`over limited and narrowband communications channels.” EX1019 at 1:14-16;
`
`Further the ’468 application provides support for “on a user computing device, the
`
`method comprising steps of” disclosing “image as presented by the client system
`
`and viewed by the user.” EX1019 at 3:1-2.
`
`47.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`the ’468 application provides support for element [20A] of the ’468 application for
`
`“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” as recited in amended
`
`claim 20. Specifically, the ’468 application discloses that: “The system and
`
`methods of the present invention are designed to, on demand, select, process and
`
`immediately transfer data parcels to the client system, which immediately
`
`20
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2055
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 23 of 82
`
`

`

`
`processes and displays a low-detail representation of the image requested by the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`client system” EX1019 at 3:8-11 and 6:14-21.
`
`48.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`the ’468 application provides support for element [20B] “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,” as recited in amended claim 20. Specifically, the ’468 application
`
`discloses that: “To optimize image