UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Unified Patents Inc.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Bradium Technologies, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER WILSON
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
`
`II. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .............................................................................. 3
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE .................................................. 5
`III.
`A. Education and Work Experience ..................................................................... 5
`
`B. Compensation.................................................................................................. 9
`
`C. Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon ................................................ 9
`
`STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ................................................. 11
`IV.
`A. Claim Construction ....................................................................................... 11
`
`B. Anticipation ................................................................................................... 11
`
`C. Obviousness .................................................................................................. 12
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 13
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND OF THE 239 PATENT ...................... 15
`VI.
`A. Data Communications Over the Internet ...................................................... 17
`
`B. Data Communications in Wireless Mobile Systems ..................................... 20
`
`C.
`
`Image Tiles and Image Pyramids .................................................................. 22
`
`D. Compression of Image Tiles ......................................................................... 27
`
`E. Progressive Image Resolution Enhancement ................................................ 28
`
`F. Three-Dimensional Graphics ........................................................................ 30
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Overview of 3D Computer Graphics principles ...................................... 30
`
`Texture ..................................................................................................... 36
`
`Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML) ......................................... 40
`
`G. Mip-Maps ...................................................................................................... 41
`
`H. Storage of Image data ................................................................................... 47
`
`VII.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE 239 PATENT ......................................................... 50
`
`IDENTIFICATIONS OF THE PRIOR ART AND SUMMARY OF
`VIII.
`OPINIONS .............................................................................................................. 56
`
`ii
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`A. Reddy ............................................................................................................ 56
`
`B. Hornbacker .................................................................................................... 57
`
`C. Loomans ........................................................................................................ 58
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 59
`IX.
`A. “Data Parcel” ................................................................................................. 59
`
`B. Other Claim Terms ........................................................................................ 60
`
`UNPATENTABILITY OF THE 239 PATENT CLAIMS ......................... 61
`X.
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-20 and 23-25 are unpatentable under 36 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as being obvious over Reddy in view of Hornbacker .......................................... 61
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Asserted References ........................................................... 63
`
`2. Motivations to Combine Reddy and Hornbacker .................................... 70
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 1 is Rendered Obvious by Reddy in view of Hornbacker ............ 77
`
`Claim 2 .................................................................................................. 108
`
`Claim 3 .................................................................................................. 112
`
`Claim 4 .................................................................................................. 115
`
`Claim 5 .................................................................................................. 116
`
`Claim 6 .................................................................................................. 117
`
`Claim 7 .................................................................................................. 117
`
`10. Claim 8 .................................................................................................. 119
`
`11. Claim 9 .................................................................................................. 120
`
`12. Claim 10 ................................................................................................ 122
`
`13. Claim 11 ................................................................................................ 123
`
`14. Claim 12 ................................................................................................ 123
`
`15. Claim 13 ................................................................................................ 124
`
`16. Claim 14 ................................................................................................ 125
`
`17. Claim 15 ................................................................................................ 126
`
`18. Claim 16 ................................................................................................ 126
`
`19. Claim 17 ................................................................................................ 129
`
`20. Claim 18 ................................................................................................ 129
`
`iii
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`21. Claim 19 ................................................................................................ 130
`
`22. Claim 20 ................................................................................................ 130
`
`23. Claim 23 ................................................................................................ 132
`
`24. Claim 24 ................................................................................................ 136
`
`25. Claim 25 ................................................................................................ 138
`
`B. Ground 2: Claims 21-22 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Reddy in view of Hornbacker and further in view of Loomans......................... 139
`
`1. Claim 21 ................................................................................................ 147
`
`2. Claim 22 ................................................................................................ 148
`
`C. Ground 3: Claim 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Reddy in
`view of Hornbacker and further in view of Rosasco .......................................... 153
`
`1. Claim 20 ................................................................................................ 154
`
`XI.
`
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 159
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`I, Christopher Wilson, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Christopher Wilson. I am a consultant in the fields of mapping,
`
`navigation systems, and telematics. I have been engaged by Unified Patents Inc.
`
`(“Unified”) to investigate and opine on certain issues relating to U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,253,239 B2 (the “239 Patent”) entitled “System and methods for network image
`
`delivery with dynamic viewing frustum optimized for limited bandwidth
`
`communication channels” in Unified’s petition for Inter Partes Review of the 239
`
`Patent (“Unified’s IPR Petition”) which requests the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”) to review and cancel all claims of the 239 Patent—claims 1-25
`
`(“Challenged Claims”).
`
`2.
`
`I understand that the 239 Patent was purportedly assigned from the inventors
`
`Isaac Levanon and Yoni Lavi to Inovo Limited on April 3, 2011, and assigned from
`
`Inovo Limited to Bradium on June 17, 2013. Bradium is therefore referred to as the
`
`“Patent Owner” in this declaration.
`
`3.
`
`This declaration is a modified version of the declaration of William R.
`
`Michalson for the previous IPR petition IPR2016-01897, executed on September 30,
`
`2016. That petition resulted in a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to
`
`institute a review of most of the claims of the 239 Patent, but the review never
`
`occurred due to settlement of the case. I have fully reviewed the declaration of Mr
`
`
`
`1
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`Michalson, and all of the opinions in this review reflect my opinions. In this
`
`declaration, I will first discuss the technology background related to the 239 Patent
`
`and then provide my analyses and opinions regarding claims 1-25 of the 239 Patent.
`
`The discussion of the technology background includes an overview of that
`
`technology as it was known before December 2000, which I understand as the
`
`earliest priority date claimed by the 239 Patent. This overview provides some of the
`
`bases for my opinions with respect to the 239 Patent.
`
`4.
`
`This declaration is based on the information currently available to me. To the
`
`extent that additional information becomes available, I reserve the right to continue
`
`my investigation and study, which may include a review of documents and
`
`information that may be produced, as well as testimony from depositions that may
`
`not yet be taken.
`
`5.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied on information and evidence identified
`
`in this declaration, including the 239 Patent, the prosecution history of the 239
`
`Patent, and prior art references listed as Exhibits to the Unified IPR Petition and
`
`listed as appendices of this declaration. The Appendices to this declaration include
`
`a number of references known to those in the art to describe technical concepts
`
`relevant to the subject matter of this declaration, and include (for example) patents,
`
`technical publications, and industry standards. In my opinion, an expert or a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in the subject matter relevant to this declaration would
`
`
`
`2
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`consider each of the Appendices to this declaration relevant to the subject matter of
`
`this declaration and would reasonably rely on such materials to form an opinion as
`
`to the state of the art prior to December 27, 2000, the interpretation of the prior art
`
`references relied upon in Unified’s petition, and the obviousness of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition. I have also relied on my own personal experience in the
`
`field of mapping and navigation systems, which includes the design and
`
`development of map rendering hardware, software, and display systems.
`
`II.
`
`6.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`Claims 1-25 of the 239 Patent relate to a system and method for dynamic
`
`visualization of image data transferred through a communications channel. For the
`
`reasons explained below, none of the features described in Claims 1-25 of the 239
`
`Patent were novel as of October 1999, nor does the 239 Patent teach a novel and
`
`non-obvious way of combining these known features.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1-25 of the 239 Patent relate to well-known technologies in the
`
`computer industry such as multi-resolution hierarchical maps, image compression,
`
`packetized data transmission, and three-dimensional (3D) graphics rendering. No
`
`element of Claims 1-25 is novel, and Claims 1-25 do not bring these elements
`
`together in a way that brings any benefit beyond what a person of ordinary skill in
`
`art would expect from the known functions of the individual components. Claims 1-
`
`25 describe techniques that were well-known in the field, and combine them in ways
`
`
`
`3
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`that would have been readily apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art with
`
`predictable results.
`
`8.
`
`It is my opinion that each of Claims 1-25 is unpatentable under the
`
`patentability standard of 35 U.S.C. § 103 as I understand it and as explained to me
`
`by Unified’s counsel. Within this declaration I discuss specific grounds of
`
`unpatentability of Claims 1-25; however, my opinion that Claims 1-25 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not limited to these specific grounds, and
`
`indeed, it is my opinion that Claims 1-25 would have been unpatentable in light of
`
`the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention.
`
`9.
`
`For purposes of my analyses in this declaration only, I provide my proposed
`
`construction of certain terms in Claims 1-25 in detail in a later part of this
`
`declaration.
`
`10. The subsequent sections of this declaration will first provide my qualifications
`
`and experience and then describe details of my analyses and observations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`
`A. Education and Work Experience
`
`11.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Arts degree in physics from Princeton University in
`
`1981 and completed one year of graduate school at the University of California, San
`
`Diego.
`
`12.
`
`I have more than 35 years of experience developing systems for
`
`communications, navigation, mapping, data management and processing, as well as
`
`sensors for optical, IR and radar.
`
` My experience includes the design,
`
`implementation and use of geographic information systems (“GIS”), as well as the
`
`design, implementation and use of navigation systems relying on GPS and other
`
`positioning system technologies. I also have extensive experience in wireless
`
`communication and data processing systems as well as systems for the efficient
`
`collection and processing of digital images and other data. Additionally, I have
`
`experience in the design and implementation of hardware and software systems used
`
`to create and render image data for display.
`
`13.
`
`I am currently an independent consultant to the transportation industry
`
`focused on the creation and use of map databases to support various safety and
`
`efficiency applications, as well as the deployment of automated vehicles. My work
`
`includes the collection of georeferenced source materials, including ground based,
`
`airborne and satellite image data, processing of those materials, in conjunction with
`
`
`
`5
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`other sources, to develop high quality maps, and the distribution of these maps to
`
`vehicles for use by both drivers and machines. I have been working on various
`
`aspects of this mapping problem since the early 1990s, and working on image
`
`processing systems as early as 1986.
`
`14. Prior to working on automotive systems, I worked for GTE and TRW on
`
`systems for communications and control of various aerospace systems, in particular
`
`on satellite and aircraft based reconnaissance systems. I developed image sensor
`
`processing algorithms both for use in the platforms and for use by analysts on the
`
`ground. I also developed GIS systems for land use analysis, vehicle tracking and
`
`mission planning, as well as systems and algorithms for image perspective
`
`transformations in order to recreate 3D structures from sets of 2D images.
`
`15. Around or about 1993, while at TRW, I began working on various automotive
`
`projects. I developed one of the first “off-board” vehicle navigation systems that
`
`utilized communications technology to provide map information to the vehicle, and
`
`could also provide vehicle location information to the infrastructure to aid in traffic
`
`operations and traffic assessment, which was performed using various GIS systems.
`
`This system also supported emergency responders in the event of airbag
`
`deployments by providing location information to the 911 GIS response systems.
`
`My final title at TRW was Program Manager.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`16.
`
`In 1995 I joined Information Access Inc. as the Director of Product
`
`Development. In this role I developed systems for providing real time maps over a
`
`wireless network to PDAs for use both on personal devices and devices embedded
`
`in vehicles. These maps provided both navigation and traffic information to users.
`
`17.
`
`In 1996 and the years following, while at Daimler-Chrysler Research and
`
`Technology, N.A., Inc. I developed various map-enabled telematics systems for
`
`Mercedes and Chrysler vehicles, as well as Freightliner trucks and other company
`
`brands. Telematics systems generally utilize vehicle computers wirelessly
`
`networked with infrastructure servers. Systems I developed included various safety
`
`systems, some of which could actively control the vehicle; as such, they required
`
`very high quality maps, and I became an expert on the development and maintenance
`
`thereof. Map making relies extensively on the use of large scale imagery and the
`
`presentation of this data on displays for evaluation and annotation. Another
`
`significant problem I addressed was the distribution of up-to-date maps to vehicles
`
`where communications efficiency was critical to keeping communication costs
`
`manageable. The performance of systems for display of maps in vehicles are within
`
`the class of “mobile platforms” described in the ‘239 patent. My final title at
`
`Daimler was the Vice President of ITS Strategy and Programs for Mercedes Benz
`
`Research and Development North America.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`18.
`
`In 2008 I began work as the Research Director at TomTom, at the time, one
`
`of two map suppliers to the automotive industry. There, I developed several aspects
`
`of high quality maps to support the automotive industry, including various tools for
`
`creation and validation of the map database which used many different imagery
`
`sources, as well as other information. My title when I left TomTom in 2011 was
`
`the Director of Programs and Product Management, Advanced Driver Assistance
`
`Systems.
`
`19.
`
`In 2011 I left TomTom to begin my current consulting practice. Since 2011 I
`
`also held part time positions with two start-up companies, Vehicle Data Science, a
`
`mapping company where I was the CEO, and with ATG Risk Solutions where I was
`
`VP of Business Development and worked on algorithm and business development.
`
`As CEO of Vehicle Data Science, and in my consulting, I worked with vehicle
`
`manufactures on defining and building map databases to support automated vehicles
`
`and incorporating map data into various vehicle systems. My work with ATG, as
`
`well as consulting for insurance companies, focused on observing drivers (primarily
`
`in commercial vehicles), assessing their skills and choices, and providing feedback
`
`on ways they can improve safety and efficiency. Assessments were generally based
`
`on a comparison with peers at similar locations, selecting the best traits and trying
`
`to get others to replicate them.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`20.
`
`I am a senior member of IEEE and several of the automotive related groups
`
`within that organization. I am currently the Vice Chair of the IEEE Consultant's
`
`Network of Silicon Valley. I am also a member of the Society of Automotive
`
`Engineers and the Institute of Navigation. I hold 7 U.S. patents in the fields of GPS
`
`(Global Positioning System), mapping applications, and applications of these
`
`technologies to vehicle safety and efficiency problems.
`
`21. My curriculum vitae, which provides a detailed summary of my education and
`
`work experience is attached to this declaration as Appendix A.
`
`B. Compensation
`
`22.
`
`I am being compensated for the services I am providing in this petition. The
`
`compensation is not contingent upon my performance, the outcome of this inter
`
`partes review or any other proceedings, or any issues involved in or related to this
`
`inter partes review or any other proceedings.
`
`C. Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon
`
`23. The documents on which I rely for the opinions expressed in this declaration
`
`are documents and materials identified in this declaration, including the 239 Patent,
`
`the prosecution history for the 239 Patent, and other patents and provisional patents
`
`related to the 239 Patent, the prior art references and information discussed in this
`
`declaration, including the references attached as exhibits of the IPR Petition for the
`
`
`
`9
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`239 Patent: WO 99/41675 to Cecil V. Hornbacker, III (“Hornbacker”) (Ex. 1003),
`
`TerraVision II: Visualizing Massive Terrain Databases in VRML by M. Reddy et
`
`al., IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, March/April 1999 (Ex. 1004), U.S.
`
`patent No. 6,728,960 to Jeffrey Loomans (“Loomans”) (Ex. 1014) and its
`
`provisional application 60/109,077 (“Loomans Provisional”) (Ex. 1015), U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,317,137 to John D. Rosasco (“Rosasco”) (Ex. 1018), and any other references
`
`specifically identified in this declaration, in their entirety, even if only portions of
`
`these documents are discussed here in an exemplary fashion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`24. Unified’s counsel has advised that, when construing claim terms of an
`
`unexpired patent, a claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.”
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`25. Unified’s counsel has advised that in order for a patent claim to be valid, the
`
`claimed invention must be novel. Unified’s counsel has further advised that if each
`
`and every element of a claim is disclosed in a single prior art reference, then the
`
`claimed invention is anticipated, and the invention is not patentable according to pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 effective before March 16, 2013. In order for an invention in
`
`a claim to be anticipated, all of the elements and limitations of the claim must be
`
`shown in a single prior reference, arranged as in the claim. A claim is anticipated
`
`only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
`
`inherently described, in a single prior art reference. In order for a reference to
`
`inherently disclose a claim limitation, that claim limitation must necessarily be
`
`present in the reference.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`26. Unified’s counsel has also advised me that obviousness under pre- AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 effective before March 16, 2013 is a basis for invalidity. I understand
`
`that where a prior art reference does not disclose all of the limitations of a given
`
`patent claim, that patent claim is invalid if the differences between the claimed
`
`subject matter and the prior art reference are such that the claimed subject matter as
`
`a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the relevant art. Obviousness can be based on a single prior
`
`art reference or a combination of references that either expressly or inherently
`
`disclose all limitations of the claimed invention. In an obviousness analysis, it is not
`
`necessary to find precise teachings in the prior art directed to the specific subject
`
`matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would employ can be taken into account.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`27.
`
`I understand from Unified’s counsel 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 been advised that to
`
`determine the appropriate level of a person having ordinary skill in the art, the
`
`following factors may be considered: (a) the types of problems encountered by those
`
`working in the field and prior art solutions thereto; (b) the sophistication of the
`
`technology in question, and the rapidity with which innovations occur in the field;
`
`(c) the educational level of active workers in the field; and (d) the educational level
`
`of the inventor.
`
`28. The “Background” section of the 239 Patent describes a “well recognized
`
`problem” of how to reduce the latency for transmitting full resolution images over
`
`the Internet on an “as needed” basis, particularly for “complex images” such as
`
`“geographic, topographic, and other highly detailed maps.” Ex. 1001 at 1:29-46.
`
`29. To solve this problem and to address some perceived issues in the existing art,
`
`the 239 Patent discloses a system capable of “optimally presenting image data on
`
`client systems with potentially limited processing performance, resources, and
`
`communications bandwidth.” Id. at 3:46-49. The 239 Patent states that the disclosed
`
`technology can achieve faster image transfer by (1) dividing the source image into
`
`parcels/tiles, (2) processing the parcels/tiles into a series of progressively lower
`
`
`
`13
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`resolution parcels/tiles, and (3) requesting and transmitting the parcels/tiles needed
`
`for a particular viewpoint in a priority order, generally lower- resolution tiles first.
`
`30.
`
`In light of the disclosed technology of the 239 Patent, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art for the 239 Patent would need education or work experience in
`
`computer network communications. Because a “common application” of the 239
`
`Patent is to transmit “geographic, topographic, and other highly detailed maps,” id.
`
`at 1:41-43, a person of ordinary skill in the art would require some knowledge and
`
`experience with geographic information systems (“GIS”).
`
`31. Based on the above considerations and factors, it is my opinion that a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art should have a Master of Science or equivalent degree
`
`in electrical engineering or computer science, or alternatively a Bachelor of Science
`
`or equivalent degree in electrical engineering or computer science, with at least 5
`
`years of experience in a technical field related to geographic information system
`
`(“GIS”) or the transmission of image data over a computer network. This description
`
`is approximate and additional educational experience could make up for less work
`
`experience and vice versa.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`VI. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND OF THE 239 PATENT
`
`32.
`
`It is my opinion that the 239 Patent recites an obvious and predictable
`
`combination of elements that were well-known in the art at the time the 239 Patent
`
`was filed and at the time of alleged invention. In this section of my declaration, I
`
`provide an overview of some general principles that were understood in the art at the
`
`time of filing of the 239 Patent, and therefore would be within the knowledge of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. I use certain references (including both patents
`
`and non-patent literature) to illustrate the background knowledge of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, but the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time regarding the claimed features would not have been limited to these specific
`
`references.
`
`32.1 The 239 Patent recites that the “preferred operational environment of the
`
`present invention is generally shown in Fig. 1” and links a network server with a
`
`client system “through a communications network, such as the Internet 14 generally
`
`and various tiers of Internet service providers (ISPs) including a wireless
`
`connectivity provider.” Ex. 1001 at 5:26-38; Fig. 1:
`
`
`
`15
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`
`
`32.2 Based on my review of the entire specification of the 239 Patent, it appears to
`
`me that the inventors describe a system that relied on conventional network
`
`connections, including conventional wireless networking methods, and that the
`
`underlying means of transmitting data over the Internet or over a wireless network
`
`are not emphasized as a point of novelty. In other words, in order to implement the
`
`alleged invention in the 239 Patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`to rely on existing methods already known in the art of connecting to the Internet
`
`and sending data over a wireless connection, since the 239 Patent does not provide
`
`any novel teachings about this aspect of the alleged system. This fact is particularly
`
`relevant to certain claim limitations which relate to, e.g., the bandwidth of the
`
`communications channel, whether the communications channel is wireless, and the
`
`
`
`16
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`type of client device which operates the 239 Patent’s user software, because the
`
`ability to connect to the Internet, or connect to the Internet via a wireless channel or
`
`on a “small” client device such as a PDA or vehicle navigation system, is something
`
`that the 239 Patent assumes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would already
`
`know how to do. I considered this relevant to my analysis later in this declaration
`
`that these claim limitations are obvious over the references discussed and that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success
`
`implementing the system described by Reddy (which itself describes a laptop
`
`computer) on, for example, a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) or via a wireless
`
`connection.
`
`32.3 I provide below a general description of the underlying technology of
`
`transmitting data over the Internet and via wireless connections as it existed in 2000
`
`and in before.
`
`A. Data Communications Over the Internet
`
`33. The predominant
`
`computer networking
`
`technology
`
`and
`
`set of
`
`communications protocols used for most online communications today and prior to
`
`the filing of the application for the 239 Patent is known as the Internet Protocol (IP)
`
`suite including TCP/IP, named after its two main component protocols: the
`
`Transmission Control Protocol and the Internet Protocol. While other protocols, such
`
`
`
`17
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1005 Part 1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00095
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`as the User Datagram Protocol, or UDP, are also part of the IP suite of protocols, the
`
`239 Patent teaches at 8:7-28 that its preferred embodiment uses TCP/IP to send data
`
`packets. In this declaration I do not provide a detailed description of all
`
`characteristics of the very well-known TCP/IP protocols, but focus on a few specific
`
`aspects of TCP/IP that are pertinent to the claims at issue in the 239 Patent. TCP/IP
`
`transmits data between computers in a network using data packets, which are
`
`formatted units of data carried by the network as suitably sized blocks. Packets are
`
`composed of a header and a payload. The “payload” is the information which the
`
`packet is actually intended to convey. The header refers to supplemental data placed
`
`at the beginning of a block, and contains information in a standard format such as
`
`the sender’s and recipient’s Internet Protocol addresses, a sequence number
`
`indicating where in a sequence of packets being transmitted the packet falls, an offset
`
`(how far into the data the payload begins) and the protocol governing the format of
`
`the payload. The addresses are used to route the packet to