`____________________
`
`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