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
`____________________
`
`
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC’s
`PATENT OWNER CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND PURSUANT TO
`37 C.F.R. §42.121
`
`
`____________________
`
`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
`____________________
`
`
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC’s
`PATENT OWNER CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND PURSUANT TO
`37 C.F.R. §42.121
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Statement of Relief Requested ........................................................................ 2
`II.
`III. The Substitute Claims Meet All the Requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.121 ........................................................................................................... 2
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 5
`V.
`The Original Provisional Application Supports Each Limitation
`of the Proposed Substitute Claims ................................................................... 5
`A. Amended Independent Claim 20 ........................................................... 7
`B. New Dependent Claim 21 .................................................................... 16
`VI. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 18
`VII. The Substitute Claims Are Patentable Over the Prior Art ............................. 19
`A.
`The Substitute Claims Are Patentable Over the Art At
`Issue In this Proceeding ....................................................................... 20
`1.
`Reddy ........................................................................................ 20
`2.
`Hornbacker ................................................................................ 22
`3.
`FlashPix ..................................................................................... 23
`4.
`Rosasco ..................................................................................... 23
`B. Other Prior Art ..................................................................................... 24
`VIII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Bosch Auto. Serv. Sols., LLC v. Matal,
`878 F.3d 1027 (Fed Cir. 2017) ........................................................................ 2, 19
`In re Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal,
`872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 2, 19
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(d) ..................................................................................................... 1
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.11 .............................................................................................. 19, 24
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121 ........................................................................................ 1, 2, 3, 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`2006
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`Exhibit Description
`2001
`USPTO Public PAIR screen capture for Correspondence Address
`and Attorney/Agent Information for Application No. 14/547,148
`(’293 Patent)
`Notice of Acceptance of Power of Attorney, Date Mailed
`03/11/2016, for Application No. 14/547,148 (’293 Patent)
`Declaration of Michael N. Zachary in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL: Transcript of Deposition of
`Unified Patents CEO, Kevin Jakel dated September 10, 2018
`Team, Unified Patents, https://www.unifiedpatents.com/team/#
`Join, Unified Patents, https://www.unifiedpatents.com/join/
`Join, Unified Patents (May 17, 2018),
`https://web.archive.org/web/20180517015601/https://www.unifiedp
`atents.com/join/
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL: Unified Patents Membership
`Agreement
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL: Exhibit A:
`Internet of Things (IoT) Zone
`Belcher, Marta, et al., “Hacking the Patent System: A guide to
`Alternative Patent Licensing for Innovators,” Juelsgaard Intellectual
`Property & Innovation Clinic Stanford Law School, dated May 2014
`Protected Zones, Excerpt of United Patents (Oct. 27, 2016),
`https://web.archive.org/web/20161027135832/http://www.unifiedpat
`ents.com:80/zones/
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239, “Optimized Image Delivery Over
`Limited Bandwidth Communication Channels,” issued Feb. 2, 2016
`(“’239 Patent”) (Not filed)
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL: Petitioner’s Voluntary
`Interrogatory Response
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2015
`2016
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`2014
`Bradium Technologies LLC, Unified Patents (August 3, 2015),
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150803044103/http://bradiumtechnol
`ogies.com/
`Docket Navigator of Unified Patents dated Jun. 17, 2015
`Bradium Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint, filed
`Jan. 9, 2015
`Bradium Technologies and Microsoft Settle Patent Lawsuit,
`Bradium Technologies (Oct. 17, 2017),
`http://www.bradiumtechnologies.com/bradium/bradium-
`technologies-and-microsoft-settle-patent-lawsuit
`Unified Patents, backed by Google, takes fight to patent trolls, Don
`Reisinger, CNET (Apr. 8, 2013)
`Don Clark, New Venture Enters Patent Fray, Wall Street Journal,
`published Apr. 7, 2013
`The Gloves are Off: Unified Patents Inc. Unveils Its ‘NPE
`Deterrent’ Strategy, Unified Patents (September 23, 2013),
`http://justdemo. in/unified/2013/09/23/the-gloves-are-off-unified-
`patents-inc-unveils-its-npe-deterrent-strategy//
`Unified Patents Challenges Clouding IP Patent Seeks to Push Patent
`Trolls Out of Cloud Storage, Unified Patents (September 23, 2013),
`http://unifiedpatents.com/2013/09/23 unified-patents-challenges-
`clouding-ip-patent-seeks-to-push-patent-trolls-out-of-cloud-storage/
`Unified has challenged almost all of 2017’s most prolific NPEs,
`United Patents (Jul. 5, 2017),
`https://www.unifiedpatents.com/news/2017/7/5/according-to-rpx-
`datea-has-challenged-almost-all-of-2017s-most-prolific-npes
`Email from Unified Patents to Michael Zachary re “Unified reaches
`100 challenges,” dated Nov. 15, 2017
`Unified Patents (January 1, 2014),
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140101033720/http://unifiedpatents.c
`om/
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`v
`
`
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`2026
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2027
`2028
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`2025
`Eric Coe, Unified Patents Adds AIA Reviews to Anti-‘Troll’ Arsenal,
`Law360 (Jun. 23, 2015),
`https://www.law360.com/articles/668619/print?section=ip
`Declaration of C. Coulson in support of Bradium Technologies
`LLC’s Preliminary Patent Owner’s Response
`Bradium Technologies LLC’s Disclaimer of Claims 1-19, 21-25
`Orthogonality, Wikipedia,
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality
`IPRs, Balancing Effectiveness vs. Cost, RPX (June 17, 2016)
`https://www.rpxcorp.com/2016/06/17/iprs-balancing-effectiveness-
`vs-cost/
`How Much does IPR Cost?, Patent Trademark Blog,
`http://www.patenttrademarkblog.com/how-much-does-ipr-cost/
`2031 Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Techs. LLC, IPR2016-01897 (U.S. Pat.
`No. 9,253,239), Paper 2 (Petition) (P.T.A.B. Sept. 30, 2016)
`2032 Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Techs. LLC, IPR2016-01897 (U.S. Pat.
`No. 9,253,239), Paper 17 (Institution Decision) (P.T.A.B. April 5,
`2017)
`NPE Zones: Deter bad NPE conduct, Unified Patents (Sept. 20,
`2018), https://www.unifiedpatents.com/npe/
`Bradium Technologies LLC v Iancu, No. 17-2579, USPTO
`Director’s Opposition to Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File
`Supplemental Brief, Dkt No. 74 (Filed Sept. 4, 2018)
`Declaration of L. Quan in support of Bradium Technologies LLC’s
`Preliminary Patent Owner’s Response
`“Summary of Findings: Search Results Using Unified Patents
`Portal,” prepared by L. Quan.
`Declaration of M. Shanahan in support of Bradium Technologies
`LLC’s Preliminary Patent Owner’s Response
`Unified’s Real-Party-in-Interest PTAB Panel Decisions, Unified
`Patents (July 5, 2016), https://www.unifiedpatents.com/news/real-
`party-in-interest-panel-decisions
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`2038
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`2040
`
`2041
`
`2048
`
`2049
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`2039
`Belcher, Marta, et al., “Hacking the Patent System: A guide to
`Alternative Patent Licensing for Innovators,” Juelsgaard Intellectual
`Property & Innovation Clinic Stanford Law School, updated January
`2016
`PDF Copy of https://www.unifiedpatents.com/join/ (downloaded
`October 9, 2018)
`PDF Copy of https://www.unifiedpatents.com/join-1/ (downloaded
`October 9, 2018) (not filed)
`Declaration of C. Coulson (not filed)
`2042
`Declaration of L. Quan (not filed)
`2043
`Transcript of Deposition of Christopher K. Wilson (March 8, 2019)
`2044
`2045 Wilson Deposition Ex. 2038: Unified Patents Inc. v. Location Based
`Services, LLC, IPR2017-01965, Declaration of Christopher K.
`Wilson (Excerpted)
`2046 Wilson Deposition Ex. 2039: U.S. Patent Publication No.
`2012/0095682
`2047 Wilson Deposition Ex. 2040: U.S. Patent Publication No.
`2002/0014979
`Notarized Affidavit of Christopher Butler, Internet Archive
`(www.archive.org), dated November 27, 2018
`Exhibits to Notarized Affidavit of Christopher Butler, Exhibit A
`(Unified Patents “Join” Webpage) and Exhibit B (Belcher, Marta, et
`al., “Hacking the Patent System: A guide to Alternative Patent
`Licensing for Innovators,” Juelsgaard Intellectual Property &
`Innovation Clinic Stanford Law School, updated January 2016)
`Dec. 8, 2016 J. Lasker Letter to M. Shanahan
`June 17, 1996 FlashPix Format and Architecture White Paper
`Application No. 15/457,816, Oct. 4, 2017 Non-Final Rejection, IDS,
`List of References
`Application No. 15/457,816, Oct. 4, 2018 Final Rejection
`Declaration of Dr. Agouris in Support of Patent Owner Response
`
`2050
`2051
`2052
`
`2053
`2054
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`2056
`
`2057
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`2055
`Declaration of Dr. Agouris in Support of Contingent Motion to
`Amend
`Declaration of Jessika Sprague in Support of Patent Owner
`Response
`“Summary of Findings: Search Results Using Unified Patents
`Portal,” prepared by J. Sprague
`PDF copy of
`https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/caselist?patent_owners=bradiu
`m (downloaded April 1, 2019)
`
`2058
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`Introduction
`Patent Owner Bradium Technologies LLC (“Bradium” or “Patent Owner”)
`
`I.
`
`respectfully moves under 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 to amend
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 (“the ’239 patent”), contingent on the outcome of this
`
`trial. In the event the Board finds original independent claim 20 unpatentable,
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board grant this motion to amend and
`
`issue the corresponding substitute claims presented herein.
`
`As the motion and the accompanying declaration of Dr. Agouris
`
`demonstrate, this motion and the substitute claims meet all of the requirements of
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.121. Namely, each contingent amendment is responsive to a ground
`
`of unpatentability involved in this proceeding, none of the amendments seeks to
`
`enlarge the scope of the claims or introduce new subject matter, and the
`
`amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims (two; amended
`
`claim 20 and new claim 21) for the conditionally canceled claim (original claim
`
`20). The motion clearly shows the changes sought and the support in the original
`
`disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended.
`
`Moreover, Patent Owner does not bear the burden of either persuasion or
`
`production regarding the patentability of the amended claims as a condition of
`
`allowance, and further believes that the Board may not sua sponte question the
`
`patentability of the proposed amended claims, see Bosch Auto. Serv. Sols., LLC v.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Matal, 878 F.3d 1027 (Fed Cir. 2017), In re Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The instant motion and supporting declaration of
`
`Dr. Agouris demonstrate that the proposed amended claims are patentable over the
`
`references at issue in this proceeding and the material prior art known to Patent
`
`Owner at this time.
`
`II.
`
`Statement of Relief Requested
`To the extent the Board finds original claim 20 unpatentable in this
`
`proceeding, Bradium respectfully requests that the Board grant this motion to
`
`amend with respect to the substitute claims presented herein. The Board should
`
`not consider this motion if original claim 20 is determined to be patentable.
`
`III. The Substitute Claims Meet All the Requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`As shown in the attached claims appendix, proposed amended claim 20 and
`
`new dependent claim 21 (the substitute claims) retain all features of original claim
`
`20 and do not enlarge the scope of the claims in any way. Rather, the contingent
`
`amendments add only narrowing features. Specifically, the substitute claims add
`
`features to original claim 20 related to the “coarse to fine” progressive resolution
`
`enhancement methods to ensure efficient retrieval of tiles for the same single user-
`
`selected map viewpoint.
`
`The proposed substitute claims are further responsive to one or more
`
`grounds of unpatentability at issue in this proceeding. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`§ 42.121(a)(2)(i). Specifically, Petitioner in this proceeding contends that the
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`asserted prior art references disclose all aspects of the original independent claim
`
`20, which this motion conditionally seeks to amend. Because amended claim 20
`
`and new dependent claim 21 are based on original claim 20, they are also
`
`responsive to those and grounds and are allowable for at least the same reason
`
`amended claim 20 is allowable. Furthermore, dependent claim 21 should be
`
`allowed as it more particularly points out and defines the aspects Patent Owner
`
`regards and the invention by merely further defining the “coarse to fine”
`
`progressive resolution enhancement methods for a single viewpoint, including
`
`prioritization techniques already introduced in amended claim 20.
`
`Moreover, Patent Owner points out that the '239 patent originally included
`
`25 claims; 24 of which Patent Owner voluntarily disclaimed at the outset of this
`
`proceeding in an effort to streamline deliberations and adjudication of this matter.
`
`EX2027. Patent Owner should not now be penalized for such actions by
`
`disallowing a second substitute claim, which is reasonable under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.121(a)(3) given the scope and number of claims (25) in the original ’239
`
`patent challenged by Unified.
`
`In addition, the number of proposed claims is reasonable in view of the
`
`extensive and contentious history of this patent. For example, the validity of the
`
`’239 was challenged in the Microsoft litigation (EX. 2016) and numerous (10)
`3
`
`
`
`
`previous IPRs. EX2058. Further, even in view of those proceedings, the
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`sophisticated technology company involved in that matter chose to take a license
`
`rather than further litigate the matter, indicating that they had some belief that
`
`certain valid subject matter remained in the portfolio. EX. 2017. Accordingly,
`
`Patent Owner should be entitled to seek reasonable protection for its innovative
`
`ideas given the extensive resources brought to bear in attempting to invalidate it
`
`and the level of sophistication of its opponent, which were ultimately unsuccessful.
`
`Another reason Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend should be accepted is in
`
`view of the very limited amount of term remaining in ’239. The ’239 patent is set
`
`to expire on December 24, 2021. Thus, Patent Owner has a little over a year and a
`
`half within which it can defend any invalidity challenge through amendment.
`
`Because of the short period of time remaining, this proceeding, which will not
`
`conclude until next year, represents the last chance Patent Owner will have to
`
`amend its claims and have any patent term remain. Failure to allow this Motion
`
`would unnecessarily deprive patent Owner of that opportunity.
`
`Further reasons include the actions of potential infringers such as Google
`
`and Apple which continue to contend the claims of the ’239 are invalid citing both
`
`specific and non-specific art as a basis for refusal to enter into license negotiations.
`
`EX2037. Accordingly, Patent Owner should be given an opportunity through the
`
`amendment process to obtain the best claim it can in view of these veiled
`4
`
`
`
`
`accusations in view of the short term remaining.
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`Lastly Petitioner Unified, which is essentially a “patent-busting” non-
`
`practicing entity, is not prejudiced by the proposed amendment in any way
`
`whatsoever. Regardless of the outcome, they have no infringement exposure and
`
`therefore nothing at stake. The parties that do are their beneficiary members, such
`
`as Google who have willfully chosen not to participate in this proceeding directly,
`
`in the hope of getting another “bite at the apple” in the PTAB should the ’239
`
`survive yet another onslaught of invalidity attacks that inure to their benefit.
`
`However, at that time, there will not be enough term left in the ’239 patent for
`
`Bradium to propose the amendment it presented herein.
`
`And as demonstrated in the next section, the proposed substitute claims are
`
`supported by the original provisional application to which the ’239 patent claims
`
`priority, so they do not introduce any new subject matter. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.121(a)(2)(ii).
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`For purposes of this Motion to Amend, Patent Owner applies the level of a
`
`practitioner of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. Petition, 10-11. The
`
`Board did not explicitly address the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`V. The Original Provisional Application Supports Each Limitation of the
`Proposed Substitute Claims
`The ’239 Patent issued from application No.: 14/547,148 which is a
`5
`
`
`
`
`continuation of application No. 13/027,929, filed on Feb. 15, 2011, now Pat. No.
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`8,924,506, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 12/619,643, filed on
`
`Nov. 16, 2009, now Pat. No. 7,908,343, which is a continuation of application No.
`
`10/035,987, filed on Dec. 24, 2001, now Pat. No. 7,644,131 which claims priority
`
`from provisional application No. 60/258,465, filed on Dec. 27, 2000, provisional
`
`application No. 60/258,466, filed on Dec. 27, 2000, provisional application No.
`
`60/258,467, filed on Dec. 27, 2000, provisional application No. 60/258,468, filed
`
`on Dec. 27, 2000, provisional application No. 60/258,488, filed on Dec. 27, 2000,
`
`provisional application No. 60/258,489, filed on Dec. 27, 2000.
`
`The substitute claims (amended claim 20 and new claim 21) are attached to
`
`this paper as Appendix A. A claim chart version of substitute claims 20-21
`
`illustrating written description support for the claims and added and deleted
`
`elements is appended to this motion for the convenience of the Board as
`
`Appendix B.
`
`For purposes of this Motion to Amend, Bradium identifies the following
`
`portions of provisional application 60/258,468 (the ’468 application) (EX1019)
`
`that provide § 112 support for the proposed substitute claims. As demonstrated
`
`below and in the accompanying Declaration of Dr. Agouris (EX2055), one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood based on the disclosures of the ’468
`
`provisional, that the inventors possessed the subject matter of the substitute claims
`6
`
`
`
`
`at the time of the application. EX2055 ¶22.
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`No new matter has been added. Substitute claim 20, as amended, is fully
`
`supported, for example, by the ’468 application, which is incorporated in the
`
`specification of the ’239 patent by reference (see EX1001, 1:20-23). The ’468
`
`application is available in EX1019 beginning page 52.
`
`A. Amended Independent Claim 20
`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; EX2055 ¶46. 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; EX2055, ¶46.
`
`The ’468 application also provides support 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
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`transfer data parcels to the client system, which immediately processes and
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`displays a low-detail representation of the image requested by the client system”
`
`EX1019 at 3:8-11 and 6:14-21; EX2055, ¶47.
`
`The ’468 application also provides support for “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 quality build-up over limited and narrowband communication
`
`links, the target image, as requested by the client system, is represented by multiple
`
`grids of 64x64 image pixels (Figure 4) with each grid having some corresponding
`
`level of detail. That is, each grid is treated as a sparse data array that can be
`
`progressively revised to increase the resolution of the grid and thereby the level of
`
`detail presented by the grid.” EX1019 at 3:21-4:1; EX2055, ¶48.
`
`The ’468 application also provides support for “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,” as recited in amended
`
`claim 20. Specifically, the ’468 application discloses that: “The client system is
`
`also responsible for managing navigational and other interaction with the user. In
`
`identifying the parcel data to be requested, the client system operates to select grids
`
`within the coordinate system, corresponding to portions of the target image, for
`8
`
`
`
`
`which to request a corresponding data parcel.” EX1019 at 6:20-24; EX2055, ¶49.
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`
`The ’468 application also provides support for “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,” as recited in amended claim 20.
`
`Specifically, the ’468 application discloses that: “rendering performed
`
`asynchronously as data parcels are received.” EX1019 at 6:25-7:1; EX2055, ¶50-
`
`51.
`
`The ’468 application also provides support for “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,” as recited in amended claim 20. Specifically, the ’468
`
`application discloses that: “The server of the present invention supports the
`
`download of parcel data to a client system by providing data parcels in response to
`
`network requests originated by client systems. Each requested data parcel is
`9
`
`
`
`
`identified within a grid coordinate system relative to an image stored by the server.
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`A client system implementing the process of the present invention is responsible
`
`for identifying and requesting parcel data, then rendering the parcel data into the
`
`target image at the correct location.” EX1019, 6:14-20; EX2055, ¶52.
`
`The ’468 application also provides support for “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,” as recited in amended
`
`claim 20. Specifically, the ’468 application discloses that: “The task at hand is
`
`now to determine, given the viewing frustum and the list of previously downloaded
`
`image cells
`
`, downloading which grids will improve the quality of the display as
`
`fast as possible, considering the download rate as fixed. The scheme used to
`
`implement the downloading sequence of these cells is by constructing a tree,
`
`starting from
`
` and expanding a quadtree towards the lower mip-map levels.
`
`(Quadtrees are data structures in which each node can have up to four child nodes.
`
`As each 64x64 pixel image in the grid has exactly four matching 64x64 pixel
`
`images on the grid
`
`, covering the same area, the data structure is built
`
`accordingly.).” EX1019, 6:1-10; EX2055, ¶53.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`The ’468 application also provides support for “receiving the second update
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`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; 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,” as recited in amended claim 20.
`
`Specifically, the ’468 application discloses that: “If this operation attempts
`
`to draw over areas that do not yet have image cells at a low enough mip-map level
`
`to use with them, the recursion stops. If the principle mip-map level is equal or
`
`higher than the level of the cell, then the cell is rendered using the cell of the
`
`principle mip-map level, which is the parent of that cell in the Quad-tree, at the
`
`appropriate level. Then download the cells in which the difference between the
`
`principle mip-map level to the mip-map level of the image cell actually used is the
`
`highest. Downloading is asynchronous; the renderer maintains a priority queue of
`
`download requests, and separate threads are downloading images. Whenever a
`
`download is complete, another download is initiated immediately, based on the
`
`currently highest-priority request.” EX1019, 8:15-24; EX2055, ¶54.
`
`The ’468 application also provides support for “issuing a third request from
`11
`
`
`
`
`the user computing device to the one or more servers, over the one or more
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`network communication channels, the third request being for a second third update
`
`data parcel corresponding to a second third derivative image of the predetermined
`
`image, the third update data parcel uniquely forming a second third discrete portion
`
`of the predetermined image, wherein the third update data parcel is selected based
`
`on a second user-controlled image viewpoint on the user computing device relative
`
`to the predetermined 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 processes and
`
`displays a low-detail representation of the image requested by the client system...”
`
`Further support includes “The server of the present invention supports the
`
`download of parcel data to a client system by providing data parcels in response to
`
`network requests originated by client systems. Each requested data parcel is
`
`identified within a grid coordinate system relative to an image stored by the server.
`
`A client system implementing the process of the present invention is responsible
`
`for identifying and requesting parcel data, then rendering the parcel data into the
`
`target image at the correct location.” EX1019, 3:8-11 and 6:14-20; respectively
`
`EX2055, ¶55.
`
`The ’468 application also provides support for “the second user-controlled
`12
`
`
`
`
`image viewpoint being different from the first user-controlled image viewpoint,” as
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`recited in amended claim 20. Specifically, the ’468 application discloses that: The
`
`server of the present invention supports the download of parcel data to a client
`
`system by providing data parcels in response to network requests originated by
`
`client systems. Each requested data parcel is identified within a grid coordinate
`
`system relative to an image stored by the server. A client system implementing the
`
`process of the present invention is responsible for identifying and requesting parcel
`
`data, then rendering the parcel data into the target image at the correct location.”
`
`EX1019, 5:20-24; EX2055, ¶56.
`
`The ’468 application also provides support for “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, the step of receiving the third update
`
`data parcel being performed after the step of issuing the third request; displaying
`
`the second discrete portion on the user computing device using the third update
`
`data parcel, the step of displaying the third discrete portion being performed after
`
`the step of receiving the second third update data parcel,” as recited in amended
`
`claim 20. Specifically, the ’468 application discloses: “rendering performed
`
`asynchronously as data parcels are received.” EX1019, 6:25-7:1; EX2055, ¶57.
`
`
`
`The ’468 application also provides support for “determining priority of the
`
`first, the second, and the third requests such that the first update data parcel has a
`13
`
`
`
`
`greater priority and requested, received, and displayed before the second data
`
`Motion to Amend, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`parcel,” as recited in amended claim 20. Specifically, the ’468 application
`
`discloses: “Progressive transmission of image parcels is performed in an iterative
`
`process involving selection of an image data grid within the target image of the
`
`client system, which is a portion of a potentially multi-layered source image stored
`
`by the server. The selection parameters are preferably dependent on the client
`
`navigation viewpoint, effective velocity, and height, and the effective level of
`
`detail currently presented in each grid.” EX1019, 5:20-25; EX2055, ¶58.
`
`The ’468 application also provides support for “whereby enabling local
`
`resolution enhancement in the first non-empty overlap area for the display
`
`according to the first user-controlled viewpoint on the user computing device,” as
`
`recited in amended claim 20. Specifically, the ’468 application discloses: “The
`
`order of data parcel requests is defined as a sequence t
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
