`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`Unified Patents Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 2
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ...................................... 2
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................... 3
`
`D.
`
`Service Information .............................................................................. 3
`
`III. STANDING CERTIFICATION .................................................................. 4
`
`IV.
`
`IPR REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................ 4
`
`E.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) .................... 4
`
`V. U.S. Patent 9,253,239 .................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`Priority .................................................................................................. 5
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Summary ............................................................................................... 5
`
`Prosecution History............................................................................. 10
`
`D.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 10
`
`E.
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 11
`
`VI. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY .................................................... 12
`
`A.
`
`The References are Prior Art .............................................................. 12
`
`B.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-19 and 23-25 are Unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Reddy and Hornbacker ..................................... 13
`
`1. Reddy and Hornbacker show that the claims of the 239
`Patent were obvious ....................................................................... 13
`
`2. A POSA would have been motivated to combine Reddy and
`Hornbacker .................................................................................... 18
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`3. Claim 1 .......................................................................................... 22
`
`4. Claim 2 .......................................................................................... 41
`
`5. Claim 3 .......................................................................................... 43
`
`6. Claim 4 .......................................................................................... 45
`
`7. Claim 5 .......................................................................................... 46
`
`8. Claim 7 .......................................................................................... 47
`
`9. Claim 7 .......................................................................................... 47
`
`10. Claim 8 .......................................................................................... 49
`
`11. Claim 9 .......................................................................................... 49
`
`12. Claim 10 ........................................................................................ 51
`
`13. Claim 11 ........................................................................................ 51
`
`14. Claim 12 ........................................................................................ 52
`
`15. Claim 13 ........................................................................................ 53
`
`16. Claim 14 ........................................................................................ 53
`
`17. Claim 15 ........................................................................................ 53
`
`18. Claim 16 ........................................................................................ 54
`
`19. Claim 17 ........................................................................................ 54
`
`20. Claim 18 ........................................................................................ 55
`
`21. Claim 19 ........................................................................................ 55
`
`22. Claim 23 ........................................................................................ 55
`
`23. Claim 24 ........................................................................................ 57
`
`24. Claim 25 ........................................................................................ 58
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 21-22 are Unpatentable Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over Reddy, Hornbacker and Loomans .............. 59
`
`1. Claim 21 ........................................................................................ 63
`
`2. Claim 22 ........................................................................................ 64
`
`D. Ground 3: Claim 20 is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`Over Reddy, Hornbacker, and Rosasco .............................................. 67
`
`1. Claim 20 ........................................................................................ 68
`
`VII. CONCLUSION............................................................................................ 71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239 B2 to Levanon et al. (“the 239 Patent”)
`
`1002
`
`U.S. Patent 8,924, 506 B2 to Levanon et al. (“the 506 Patent”)
`
`1003
`
`PCT Publication WO 99/41675 to Cecil V. Hornbacker, III
`(“Hornbacker”)
`
`1004
`
`Reddy et al., “TerraVision II: Visualizing Massive Terrain
`Databases in VRML,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications
`March/April 1999, at 30-38 (“Reddy” with added paragraph
`numbers by Petitioner for ease of reference in the Petition)
`
`1005
`
`Declaration of Christopher Wilson (“Wilson Decl.”)
`
`1006
`
`EP1070290 to Cecil V. Hornbacker, III
`
`1007
`
`Printout of IEEE Explore citations to Reddy et al. (Ex. 1004)
`
`1008
`
`Printout of Google Scholar citations to Reddy et al. (Ex. 1004)
`
`1009
`
`Cover page and authenticating declaration of Reddy et al. (Ex. 1004)
`from British Library
`
`1010
`
`Cover page of Reddy et al. (Ex. 1004) from Linda Hall Library
`
`1011
`
`First Amended Complaint, Bradium Technologies, LLC v. Microsoft
`Corp., 15-cv-00031-RGA (filed March 14, 2016)
`
`1012
`
`U.S. Patent 7,908,343 (“the 343 Patent”)
`
`1013
`
`File History, 239 Patent
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Patent 6,728,960 (“Loomans”)
`
`1015
`
`Provisional App. 60/109,077 (“Loomans Provisional”)
`
`1016
`
`International Publication WO 98/15920 (“Austreng”)
`
`v
`
`

`

`1017
`
`Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis (“Hall-Ellis Declaration”)
`
`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`1018
`
`U.S. Patent 6,317,137 (“Rosasco”)
`
`1019
`
`Provisional Applications of 239 Patent
`
`1020
`
`U.S. Patent 6,119,179 (“Whitridge”)
`
`1021
`
`U.S. Patent 6,401,113 (“Lazaridis”)
`
`1022
`
`Garland et al, Implementing Distributed Server Groups for the
`World Wide Web, Sch. of Comp. Sci., Carnegie Mellon U., CMU-
`CS-95-114. Jan. 25, 1995
`
`1023
`
`Mac Addict Magazine, Issue 14 (Oct. 1997)
`
`1024
`
`Copy of Declaration of Professor William Michalson (“Wilson
`Decl.”) from Microsoft v. Bradium, IPR2016-01897
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Unified Patents Inc. (“Petitioner”) seeks inter partes review (IPR) of Claims
`
`1–25 of U.S. Patent 9,253,239 (the “239 Patent,” Ex. 1001).
`
`The 239 Patent claims the well-known concept of dividing large data sets of
`
`images (such as geographic imagery) into “image parcels” at varying levels of detail,
`
`allowing users to browse quickly online. Reddy and Hornbacker show this was well-
`
`known prior to the 239 Patent.
`
`An earlier challenge by Microsoft Corp. was instituted into IPR of claims 1–
`
`19 and 23–25 as obvious by Reddy and Hornbacker, and of claims 21–22 as obvious
`
`given Reddy, Hornbacker, and Loomans. IPR2016-01897, Paper 17. The review
`
`settled and terminated. IPR2016-01897, Paper 31. This Petition raises the same
`
`grounds, presenting one new ground of unpatentability regarding non-instituted
`
`claim 20: Reddy, Hornbacker, and Roscaco.
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that Petitioner is the real
`
`party-in-interest, and certifies that no other party exercised control or could exercise
`
`control over Petitioner’s participation in this proceeding, the filing of this Petition,
`
`or the conduct of any ensuing trial.
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`The 239 Patent was the subject of these closed proceedings:
`
`• Bradium Techs. LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 1-15-cv-00031, (D.Del. Jan.
`9, 2015) (dismissed Oct. 18, 2017)
`
`• Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Techs. LLC, IPR2016-01897 (filed Sept.
`30, 2016) (instituted) (terminated Dec. 21, 2017)
`
`Microsoft challenged three patents in the same family:
`
`• IPR2015-01432 (instituted Dec. 23, 2015) (FWD Dec. 21, 2016)
`
`• IPR2015-01434 (denied Dec. 23, 2015), & IPR2016-00448 (instituted
`July 25, 2016) (terminated July 24, 2017)
`
`• IPR2015-01435 (denied Dec. 23, 2015), & IPR2016-00449, (instituted
`July 27, 2016) (FWD July 26, 2017)
`
`Of these, IPR2015-01432 and IPR2016-00449 were appealed:
`
`• Bradium Techs. LLC v. Iancu, 17-2579 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`• Bradium Techs. LLC v. Iancu, 17-2580 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`Microsoft withdrew from the appeals, the court consolidated them, and they are
`
`pending, with Director Iancu as intervenor.
`
`Petitioner has not previously challenged this patent. No challenges are
`
`pending and there has not been a final written decision on any claims. Petitioner’s
`
`grounds should not be denied under the Board’s discretion. See General Plastic
`
`Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 9-10 (Sept. 6,
`
`2017).
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Jonathan Stroud (Reg. 72,518) is lead counsel; Roshan S. Mansinghani (Reg.
`
`62,429) is back-up counsel.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Petitioner consents to service at jonathan@unifiedpatents.com or at Unified
`
`Patents Inc., 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10, Washington, DC, 20009.
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`
`
`III. STANDING CERTIFICATION
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), the 239 Patent is available for IPR and Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the patent claims on the
`
`grounds identified.
`
`IV.
`
`IPR REQUIREMENTS
`
`E.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`
`Under §§ 42.104(a)(1) and 42.22, Petitioner requests IPR of Claims 1–25 of
`
`the 239 Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`The Prior Art: Reddy (Ex. 1004), Hornbacker (Ex. 1003), Loomans (Exs.
`
`1014 and 1015), and Rosasco (Ex. 1018).
`
`Grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Challenge
`
`1-19, 23-25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Reddy and Hornbacker
`
`21-22
`
`20
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Reddy, Hornbacker, and
`
`Loomans
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Reddy, Hornbacker, and
`
`Rosasco
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`V. U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`
`A.
`
`Priority
`
`The 239 Patent was granted from non-provisional Application 14/547,148,
`
`which claims priority to a chain of six provisional applications—60/258,488,
`
`60/258,489, 60/258,465, 60/258,468, 60/258,466, and 60/258,467—all filed
`
`December 27, 2000. Ex. 1001 at 1-2; Ex. 1019. The earliest priority date of the 239
`
`Patent is December 27, 2000.
`
`B.
`
`Summary
`
`The 239 Patent discloses methods and systems for making requests from a
`
`client computing device to retrieve images from networked servers over network
`
`communication channels, and displaying the images on a user computing device. Ex.
`
`1001 at Abstract, 3:44-4:44;12:25-15:22; Ex. 1005, ¶¶84-91. Requests are based on
`
`user-controlled image viewpoints or gaze points. The user uses navigation
`
`commands or inputs to select parts of an image in a scene, resulting in requests that
`
`the updated image data be retrieved and displayed on the user’s computing device.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Abstract, 1:25-33, 45-50, 2:23-39, 3:47-60, 4:13-20, 5:26-55, 7:45-62,
`
`8:29-40, 8:65-9:3, 9:17-51, 10:20-34, 10:65-11:16,12:25-15:22. The claimed
`
`features in the 239 Patent were well-documented in publications before the priority
`
`date. The 239 Patent relied on basic technology concepts in networking, GIS, and
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`computer graphics well-known to a person of ordinary skill (POSA). Ex. 1005, ¶¶32-
`
`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`83.
`
`The 239 Patent acknowledges the “well recognized problem” of how to reduce
`
`latency for transmitting full-resolution images over the Internet so they are received
`
`at a user computing device “as needed,” particularly for “complex images” such as
`
`“geographic, topographic, and other highly detailed maps” in geographic
`
`information system (GIS) and map applications. Ex. 1001 at 1:36-53; 2:53-61; 5:32-
`
`38 and 56-6:2; 6:58-67; 7:45-53 and 11:57-64. Conventional solutions for reducing
`
`the latency in “transmitting the image in highly compressed formats that support
`
`progressive resolution build-up of the image within the current client field of view”
`
`existed. Id. at 1:53-62; 2:40-3:9; U.S. Patents 4,698,689 (Tzou); 6,182,114 (Yap).
`
`They did not work well for smaller, dedicated, or embedded clients or those with
`
`“very limited network bandwidth.” Id. at 3:10-22.
`
`The 239 Patent discloses “an efficient system and methods of optimally
`
`presenting image data on client systems with potentially limited processing
`
`performance, resources, and communications bandwidth.” Id. at 3:43-46. Fig. 2
`
`shows a network image server system 30 as part of a preferred embodiment. Id.,
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`5:56-6:41.
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`
`
`The network image server system 30 stores a combination of source image
`
`data 32 and source overlay data 34. Id., 5:59-52, 6:3-57, 5:62-6:2 and 6:57-7:5. The
`
`source image data 32 is typically high-resolution bit-map raster map or satellite
`
`imagery of geographic regions. Id. “Preferably image data parcels are stored in
`
`conventional quad-tree data structures.” Id., 7:22-25 and Fig.3. Such quad-tree
`
`structures were conventional and well-known prior to the 239 Patent. Ex. 1004,
`
`¶¶19-23, Figs.3, 1(a).
`
`The network image server 30 responds to requests from a client system 18 or
`
`20, where a user can input navigational commands to adjust a 3D perspective
`
`(viewing frustum) to display images on the client system. Ex. 1001, 5:26-55, Fig.1.
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`High-resolution source image data such as map imagery is pre-processed by the
`
`image server 30 into “a series K1-N of derivative images of progressively lower image
`
`resolution[sic].” Id. at 6:3-41, Fig.2. The source image is subdivided into a regular
`
`array of 64-by-64 pixel resolution image parcels (a.k.a. image tiles). Each image
`
`parcel may be compressed to fit into a single TCP/IP packet for faster transmission.
`
`Id. at 6:8-18; 8:7-28. Those features were well-known before the 239 Patent. Reddy
`
`teaches processing large sets of source image data to create a multiresolution image
`
`pyramid, which is viewable in 3D using an online web browser. Ex. 1004 at Figs.1-
`
`4. It was well-known at the time of the 239 Patent that multiple images at different
`
`resolutions could be stored in the same file. Ex. 1005, ¶¶77-83.
`
`The 239 Patent discloses updating image data parcels based on a user-
`
`controlled image viewpoint on the user computing device relative to the
`
`predetermined image. When the user changes the viewing point, the client software
`
`“determines the ordered priority of image parcels to be requested from the server . .
`
`. to support the progressive rendering of the displayed image.” Ex. 1001, 12:29-39;
`
`7:54-57. Image parcel requests are placed in a request queue, to be issued according
`
`to each request’s assigned priority. Id. at 7:57-62; 9:4-16. This was also known
`
`before the 239 Patent, something it concedes. For example, zoom and pan functions
`
`were well known (id. at 1:45-50) and such functions would require updated image
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`data to be retrieved and displayed at the user device. The Tzou Patent discloses
`
`selective transmission of low-resolution image data and subsequent updating of the
`
`prior transmission with succeeding refined images (id. at 1:66-2:2), and the Yap
`
`Patent suggests an updated transmission of image data parcels based on the user gaze
`
`point as the user-controlled image viewpoint (id. at 2:23-39).
`
`Such concepts were not novel in 1999 and 3D geographic browser software
`
`was known for updating image data by using a “progressive coarse-to-fine algorithm
`
`to load and display new data.” See, e.g., Ex. 1004, ¶¶21, 44, 46; Ex. 1003, 12:24-27.
`
`3D geographic browser software was also known to progressively load new, higher
`
`resolution detail (i.e., updated data with more detail) as a user approaches an area of
`
`terrain on the display, and to predict a user’s future moves by extrapolating flight
`
`path and prefetching tiles. Id.
`
`According to the 239 Patent, after the needed parcels are requested and
`
`received, an algorithm (not specified in the claims) is used to select the image parcel
`
`for rendering and display. Ex. 1001, 9:17-22,9:26-31. Reddy discloses this in its tile
`
`caching features. Ex. 1004, ¶¶44-45.
`
`The 239 Patent teaches using computer graphic techniques to render received
`
`images, which may contain 2D or 3D objects or images or scenes in a 2D or 3D
`
`space, onto a 2D screen of the user’s computing device. Id., 2:40-61, 5:46- 6:2, 7:45-
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`53, 9:17-33, 10:20-52, 11:35-56. Both Reddy and Hornbacker disclose this. Ex.
`
`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`1004, Figs.4-5; Ex. 1003, 14:26-28.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`These grounds rely on prior art not considered during examination.
`
`Microsoft cited Reddy in IPR2016-00448 and IPR2016-00449 on January 11,
`
`2016 before the issue notification for the 239 Patent mailed on January 13, 2016.
`
`Bradium knew of Reddy, but did not withdraw the application from issue, instead
`
`waiting until the day before issuance to list Reddy in a late Information Disclosure
`
`Statement. Ex. 1013, 76, 100. The filing was untimely and ineffective under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.97; Reddy could not be, and was not, considered by the Office; the
`
`Examiner’s record was incomplete.
`
`The 239 Patent was never substantively rejected. The Board cancelled
`
`narrower claims in related patents based on Reddy and Hornbacker. IPR2016-
`
`00448, Paper 69; IPR2016-00449, Paper 67.
`
`D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Based on the technical field described in the 239 Patent, particularly the 239
`
`Patent’s recitation of applications specific to Geographic Information Systems
`
`(“GIS”), a POSA for the technology in the 239 Patent should have a Master of
`
`Science or equivalent degree in electrical engineering or computer science, or a
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`Bachelor of Science or equivalent degree in electrical engineering or computer
`
`science, with at least 5 years of experience in a field related to GIS or the
`
`transmission of digital image data over a computer network. Ex. 1005, ¶¶27-31.
`
`E. Claim Construction
`
`The 239 Patent is unexpired and the claims are given “their “broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation [BRI] in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`The earliest priority date of the 239 Patent is no earlier than December 27, 2000.
`
`The patent is unlikely to expire prior to December 27, 2020. The constructions
`
`proposed apply whether under Phillips or the “broadest reasonable interpretation”
`
`standard. Terms not discussed should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Ex. 1005, ¶99.
`
`“Data Parcel,” all claims: This term should be construed as “data that
`
`corresponds to an element of a source image array.” e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:6-57, Fig. 2.
`
`Ex. 1005, ¶98. This is identical to the Board’s construction in IPR2016-00448 for
`
`the related 506 Patent (Paper 9 at 11, July 25, 2016).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`VI. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`
`A. The References are Prior Art
`
`Reddy (Ex. 1004) was published in the March/April 1999 issue of IEEE
`
`Computer Graphics and Applications and is a self-authenticating periodical and prior
`
`art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Ex. 1005, ¶94. See Ericsson v. Intellectual
`
`Ventures, IPR2014-00527, Paper 41 at 10-13 (May 18, 2015) (taking Official Notice
`
`of reliability of IEEE publications). The Board determined Reddy was prior art to
`
`patents sharing the 239 priority date. IPR2016-00448, Paper 9 at 12-14; IPR2016-
`
`00449, Paper 9 at 12-13. A POSA would rely on the IEEE markings in Reddy as
`
`reliable evidence that Reddy was published in 1999. Ex. 1005, ¶94. Dr. Hall-Ellis
`
`confirms Reddy was both available and published prior to the critical date. Ex. 1017;
`
`see also Exs. 1007, 1008.
`
`Hornbacker (Ex. 1003), a PCT Publication published on August 19, 1999, is
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Loomans (Ex. 1014), U.S. Patent 6,728,960 B1 filed on November 17, 1999,
`
`claims priority to Provisional Application 60/109,077 (Ex. 1015) filed November
`
`18, 1998. It is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Rosasco (Ex. 1018), U.S. Patent 6,317,137 filed on December 1, 1998, is prior
`
`art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`B. Ground 1: Claims 1-19 and 23-25 are Unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Reddy and Hornbacker
`
`Reddy teaches or suggests the claims regarding online browsing of large-scale
`
`geographic imagery in 3D by dividing images into tiles at varying resolutions. Reddy
`
`does not specify how requests for image tiles would identify the locations and zoom
`
`levels of image tiles. Hornbacker teaches methods by which a POSA could
`
`implement the teachings of Reddy to identify needed tiles.
`
`A POSA would have combined the teachings in Reddy and Hornbacker as
`
`Claims 1-19 and 23-25 do based on specific teachings in both references and
`
`underlying trends and motivations in the art.
`
`1.
`
`Reddy and Hornbacker show that the claims of the 239 Patent
`were obvious
`
`a.
`
`Reddy
`
`Reddy describes the TerraVision II software system designed by SRI
`
`International. Previous work at SRI with
`
`the MAGIC (Multidimensional
`
`Applications and Gigabit Internetwork Consortium) project had designed a
`
`TerraVision software program for 3D visualization of large terrain data sets
`
`(including aerial imagery) over a high-speed ATM network. Ex. 1004, ¶38; Ex.
`
`1005, ¶106, ¶ 43, App’x E. TerraVision II bettered TerraVision by (1) allowing the
`
`user to browse online geographic information in the standard Virtual Reality Markup
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`Language (VRML), therefore allowing compatibility with data from other sources,
`
`and (2) enabling access from a standard personal computer, including a laptop, using
`
`a plug-in for a common internet browser over the Web rather than a specialized high-
`
`speed network. Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 9, 31, 39, 48; Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 105-108. Reddy teaches
`
`using this on a standard computer and providing the information over the WWW,
`
`making geographic browsing possible in “distributed, time-critical conditions,” e.g.,
`
`military mission planning, battle damage assessment, and emergency relief efforts.
`
`Ex. 1004, ¶ 48.
`
`Reddy teaches that the VRML information accessed by the browser may
`
`include digital elevation information, aerial, satellite, or map imagery, and
`
`information representing features such as place names, buildings, or roads. Id., ¶¶2,
`
`24-26. The TerraVision II online VRML browser lets a user visualize large
`
`geographic databases in 3D from a simulated user perspective. For example, a user
`
`can zoom in on a 3D model of earth viewed from space and “fly” down to see a
`
`building, with terrain and map imagery data appearing at increasingly higher
`
`resolutions as the user progressively gets closer to a point on the map. Id., ¶3.
`
`Reddy enables this resolution-dependent viewing by using a quad-tree
`
`structure in which one tile or node at a resolution or level of detail branches off to
`
`four (2x2) tiles or nodes at the next higher level. The quad-tree structure links several
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`types of data, including elevation data, terrain imagery and other features that may
`
`be overlaid on a map. Id., ¶¶19-26, Fig. 3. Image tiles are organized into a pyramid
`
`of a multiresolution hierarchy of image tiles in which (1) each tile has the same pixel
`
`dimensions, (2) a tile at a level of the pyramid maps onto four tiles at the next higher
`
`level, and (3) the resolution (area covered by one pixel) varies by a factor of two
`
`between subsequent levels. Id., ¶¶14-17. The resolution levels in the hierarchy
`
`facilitate a 3D perspective view by allowing higher resolution tiles to be selectively
`
`retrieved for locations closer to the viewpoint. For example, Fig. 1(a) depicts the
`
`image pyramid, while Fig. 1(b) shows the tiles of differing resolutions to form a
`
`view when the user is positioned in the lower-right hand corner of the map (id., ¶15-
`
`17):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`When the user’s simulated viewpoint approaches a region of terrain, the quad-
`
`tree structure is used to load and display more detail “progressively… in a coarse-
`
`to-fine fashion” which allows the user to “interact with the scene while higher
`
`resolution imagery and elevation loads.” Id., ¶¶21, 44. The tile pyramid structure in
`
`Reddy’s Fig. 1(a) is similar to Fig. 2 of the 239 Patent.
`
`Reddy illustrates that the industry recognized the challenges in disseminating
`
`“massive terrain data sets” and “many millions of polygons and many gigabytes of
`
`imagery” of 3D maps and spatial data over the Web in response to a user request by
`
`web browser. Reddy teaches using a web browser to navigate the VRML structures
`
`easily and efficiently, and acknowledges that the time required to download and
`
`render such a model would prohibit any real-time interaction using then-existing
`
`VRML browsers. Id., Title, Abstract, ¶¶5-7, 12.
`
`Reddy addresses the same problems purportedly addressed by the 239 Patent:
`
`“optimiz[ing] image delivery over limited bandwidth communication channels,” and
`
`“optimally presenting image data on client systems with potentially limited
`
`processing performance, resources, and communications bandwidth.” Ex. 1001,
`
`Title, 3:46-49. Reddy solves those problems, as embodied by the TerraVision II
`
`browser, making it “possible to represent massive, distributed terrain databases in
`
`VRML” and allowing users “to navigate efficiently around these structures using
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`either a standard VRML browser or our specialized TerraVision II browser.” Id.,
`
`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`¶49; Ex. 1005, ¶¶105–115.
`
`b. Hornbacker
`
`Hornbacker addresses issues similar to those of the 239 Patent: “Network and
`
`system performance problems that previously existed when accessing large image
`
`files from a network file server are eliminated by tiling the image view so that
`
`computation and transmission of the view data can be done in an incremental
`
`fashion.” Ex. 1003, Abstract, 2:15-3:30, 4:24-8:15; Figs. 1-2, 13:28-14:11, 14:26-
`
`28. Hornbacker does so by providing methods for requesting and delivering large
`
`image data sets for viewing by a client with limited resources. Id., Abstract, 2:15-
`
`3:30. Hornbacker seeks “efficient use of the network,” “greater speed of image
`
`display in response to requests from the workstations,” and “to minimize the
`
`computing resources required by a client workstation.” Id., 2:15-3:30.
`
`Like Reddy, Hornbacker teaches displaying portions of large images retrieved
`
`over a network from a server. Id. The images are divided by a tiling process on the
`
`server into 128x128 pixel view tiles, then organized into a hierarchy of tiles at
`
`differing resolutions spaced by factors of two. Id., 6:13-19; 7:11-15. Such image tiles
`
`are retrieved by client using HTTP requests targeted to particular URLs. Id., 5:3-8,
`
`5:16-25.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`Like Reddy, Hornbacker discloses requesting data on the network in response
`
`to user-controlled image viewpoints. When a user shifts the screen view, the system
`
`requests the new data of the shifted view and transmits the requested data to the Web
`
`browser to present the shifted view. Ex. 1003, 7:11-8:6, 8:16-23, 10:7-28; 13:11-16
`
`and 19:15-21.
`
`Hornbacker teaches that individual tiles are requested using a scheme that
`
`uniquely identifies the tile by scale and position (row and column) within the larger
`
`picture and incorporates that identifying information into the URL sent by the client
`
`to the server. Id., 8:30-9:19. By using image tiling and caching according thus, less
`
`data is transmitted when the user selects a new view. The server sends the requested
`
`image in the request format to the workstation and then allows its viewing from the
`
`local copy of the image file. Id., 13:17-14:28. Ex. 1005, ¶¶116–118.
`
`Hornbacker further teaches displaying retrieved image data on a user’s client
`
`workstation (id., 3:2-4, 7:11-8:23, 10:24-11:18, 12:17-14:16) and progressively
`
`displaying and updating the displayed images. Id., 12:24-27.
`
`2.
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine Reddy and
`Hornbacker
`
`A POSA, “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” would have
`
`been guided by the teachings in Reddy and Hornbacker to combine them as in claims
`
`1-19 and 23-25. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007); Belden v. Berk-Tek, 805
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`F.3d 1064, 1074-75 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Reddy teaches a system giving a computer
`
`(e.g., PC or laptop) access to large-scale geographic information databases
`
`(comprising multi-resolution “tiled” image pyramids like those described in the 239
`
`Patent) via the Web. Reddy teaches visualizing that information in 3D using
`
`progressive resolution enhancement to optimize the display quality and limit
`
`network bandwidth use.
`
`While Reddy describes browsing techniques for requesting tiles based on a
`
`user viewpoint and suggests that tiles may be located by HTTP requests directed to
`
`particular URLs (Ex. 1004, ¶¶21, 26, 52), Reddy does not explain how tiles are
`
`located. Hornbacker does. It explains techniques (such as the structure of HTTP
`
`requests for identifying a particular tile at a desired location and resolution, and how
`
`source images are processed into derivative images) that would allow a POSA to
`
`better implement the browsing techniques discussed by Reddy. Ex. 1003, 5:16-6:19,
`
`8:30-9:19, 11:19-28; Ex. 1005, ¶¶119-126.
`
`A POSA would have recognized that the system for specifying and locating
`
`tiles in Hornbacker would improve the similar system of Reddy, and the combination
`
`of techniques (requesting tiles in a 3D browser as taught by Reddy, with the
`
`identification scheme described by Hornbacker) would be well within the skill of a
`
`POSA. KSR, at 421; Belden, at 1074-75.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition, IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`A POSA would look to Hornbacker to improve the system of Reddy; they are
`
`analogous art. Both references address common technical issues in visualizing large
`
`data sets obtained over a network, using a client viewing device with much smaller
`
`memory than the databases storing the full data set. See Section V(B)(1) & Ex. 1005,
`
`¶119. Both references address similar problems (e.g., optimizing use of bandwidth,
`
`prioritizing use of bandwidth, determining which portions of a larger set