UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-01897
`Patent No. 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2031
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 1 of 72
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`V.
`
`Page
`EXHIBIT LIST ....................................................................................................... iii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R.§42.8(B) .............................. 1
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ..................................... 3
`A. GROUND FOR STANDING ............................................................... 3
`B.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ............................................... 3
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 239 PATENT ............................................................. 5
`A.
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE 239 PATENT ......................................... 5
`B.
`SUMMARY OF THE 239 PATENT ................................................... 5
`C.
`THIS PETITION PRESENTS QUESTIONS OF
`PATENTABILITY THAT HAVE NOT BEEN BEFORE THE
`OFFICE .............................................................................................. 10
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................... 11
`D.
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................... 12
`E.
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE 239 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .................... 12
`A.
`THE CITED REFERENCES ARE PRIOR ART .............................. 12
`B.
`GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-20 AND 23-25 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C.§103(A) OVER
`REDDY AND HORNBACKER ........................................................ 13
`1.
`REDDY AND HORNBACKER SHOW THAT THE
`PURPORTED SOLUTIONS CLAIMED BY THE 239
`PATENT WERE NOT NOVEL IN THE TECHNICAL
`FIELD ...................................................................................... 14
`A POSITA WOULD HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO
`COMBINE REDDY AND HORNBACKER .......................... 20
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 24
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 42
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 43
`
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2031
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 2 of 72
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`6.
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 45
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 46
`7.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 46
`8.
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 46
`9.
`10. Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 48
`11. Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 48
`12. Claim 10 ................................................................................... 49
`13. Claim 11 ................................................................................... 50
`14. Claim 12 ................................................................................... 51
`15. Claim 13 ................................................................................... 51
`16. Claim 14 ................................................................................... 52
`17. Claim 15 ................................................................................... 52
`18. Claim 16 ................................................................................... 52
`19. Claim 17 ................................................................................... 53
`20. Claim 18 ................................................................................... 53
`21. Claim 19 ................................................................................... 53
`22. Claim 20 ................................................................................... 54
`23. Claim 23 ................................................................................... 54
`24. Claim 24 ................................................................................... 56
`25. Claim 25 ................................................................................... 57
`C. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 21-22 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C.§103(A) OVER REDDY, HORNBACKER
`AND LOOMANS............................................................................... 58
`1.
`Claim 21 ................................................................................... 62
`2.
`Claim 22 ................................................................................... 62
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 65
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2031
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 3 of 72
`
`

`

`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-01897
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2 to Levanon et al. (“the 239 Patent”)
`
`Ex.1001
`
`Ex.1002
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,924, 506 B2 to Levanon et al. (“the 506 Patent”)
`
`Ex.1003
`
`Ex.1004
`
`PCT Publication No. WO 99/41675 to Cecil V. Hornbacker, III
`(“Hornbacker”)
`
`Reddy et al., “TerraVision II: Visualizing Massive Terrain Databases
`in VRML,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications March/April
`1999, pp. 30-38 (“Reddy” with added paragraph numbers by
`Petitioner for ease of reference in the Petition)
`
`Ex.1005
`
`Declaration of Prof. William R. Michalson (“Michalson Decl.”)
`
`Ex.1006
`
`EP1070290 to Cecil V. Hornbacker, III
`
`Ex.1007
`
`Printout of IEEE Explore citations to Reddy et al. (Ex.1004)
`
`Ex.1008
`
`Printout of Google Scholar citations to Reddy et al. (Ex.1004)
`
`Ex.1009
`
`Cover page and authenticating declaration of Reddy et al. (Ex.1004)
`from British Library
`
`Ex.1010
`
`Cover page of Reddy et al. (Ex.1004) from Linda Hall Library
`
`Ex.1011
`
`First Amended Complaint Dated March 14, 2016 in Case No. 15-cv-
`00031-RGA, Bradium Technologies, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.
`
`Ex.1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,908,343 (“the 343 Patent”)
`
`Ex.1013
`
`File History of 239 Patent
`
`Ex.1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,728,960 (“Loomans”)
`
`Ex.1015
`
`Provisional App. No. 60/109,077 (“Loomans Provisional”)
`
`Ex.1016
`
`International Publication No. WO 98/15920 (“Austreng”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2031
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 4 of 72
`
`

`

`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-01897
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.§311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Microsoft Corporation
`
`(“Microsoft” or “Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of Claims 1-25
`
`of U.S. Patent No.9,253,239 (the “239 Patent,” Ex.1001), owned by Bradium
`
`5
`
`Technologies LLC (“Bradium” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`The 239 Patent attempts to broadly claim a well-known concept in the art of
`
`dividing large sets of imagery (such as geographic imagery) into “image parcels”
`
`at varying levels of detail to allow users to browse such imagery online. The cited
`
`Reddy and Hornbacker show how this concept was well-known and documented in
`
`10
`
`detail before the priority date of the 239 Patent.
`
`This Petition demonstrates that Claims 1-25 are unpatentable under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C.§103.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R.§42.8(B)
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST: Petitioner is the only real party in interest
`
`15
`
`and there are no other real parties in interest under 35 U.S.C.§312(a)(2) and 37
`
`C.F.R.§42.8(b)(1).
`
`RELATED MATTERS: The 239 Patent and three other patents in the same
`
`family, U.S. Patent Nos.7,139,794 B2, 7,908,343 B2, and 8,924,506 B2, are being
`
`asserted against Petitioner in an on-going patent infringement lawsuit brought by
`
`20
`
`Patent Owner in Bradium Techs. v. Microsoft, 1:15-cv-00031-RGA, filed January
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2031
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 5 of 72
`
`

`

`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-01897
`
`
`9, 2015. Patent Owner asserted the 239 Patent for the first time in the
`
`aforementioned litigation by filing an amended complaint on March 11, 2016, and
`
`served the Petitioner with the amended complaint on March 14, 2016. Ex.1011,
`
`¶¶3, 8, 13, 18 and 93-16. Hence, this Petition is timely filed within the 1-year
`
`5
`
`period under 35 U.S.C.§315(b). In the amended complaint, Bradium accused
`
`Microsoft of infringement of the 239 Patent because certain Microsoft products,
`
`including Bing Maps, allegedly divide large sets of geographic imagery into map
`
`tiles at varying zoom levels to allow users to browse such imagery online,
`
`something Microsoft and many others have publicly done since the mid-1990s.
`
`10
`
`Ex.1005, ¶43.1.
`
`Petitioner has previously filed IPR petitions against the other three patents:
`
`• 794 Patent: IPR2015-01432, instituted Dec. 23, 2015
`
`• 343 Patent:
`
`o IPR2015-01434, institution denied Dec. 23, 2015
`
`15
`
`o IPR2016-00448, instituted July 25, 2016
`
`• 506 Patent:
`
`o IPR2015-01435, institution denied Dec. 23, 2015
`
`o IPR2016, instituted July 27, 2016
`
`NOTICE OF COUNSEL AND SERVICE INFORMATION: Pursuant to 37
`
`20
`
`C.F.R.§§42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4) and 42.10(a), Petitioner appoints Bing Ai (Reg.
`
`-2-
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2031
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 6 of 72
`
`

`

`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-01897
`
`
`No.43,312) as its lead counsel, Matthew C. Bernstein (pro hac vice), Patrick J.
`
`McKeever (Reg. No.66,019), Vinay Sathe (Reg. No.55,595), and Evan S. Day
`
`(pro hac vice) as its back-up counsel. Petitioner also requests authorization to file a
`
`motion for Mr. Bernstein and Mr. Day to appear pro hac vice. The above attorneys
`
`5
`
`are all at the mailing address of Perkins Coie LLP, 11988 El Camino Real, Suite
`
`350, San Diego, CA 92130, contact numbers of 858-720-5700 (phone) and 858-
`
`720-5799 (fax), and the following email for service and communications:
`
`PerkinsServiceBradiumIPR@perkinscoie.com.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.§42.10(b), a Power of Attorney is concurrently filed.
`
`10
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`This Petition complies with all statutory requirements and requirements
`
`under 37 C.F.R.§§42.104, 42.105 and 42.15 and thus should be accorded a filing
`
`date as of the date of filing of this Petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R.§42.106.
`
`A. GROUND FOR STANDING
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.§42.104(a), Petitioner hereby certifies that the 239
`
`15
`
`Patent is available for IPR and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting IPR challenging claims of the 239 Patent.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`B.
`Claims Challenged: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.§§42.104(b) and 42.22, the precise
`
`20
`
`relief requested is that the Board institute an IPR trial on Claims 1-25 of the 239
`
`Patent, and that the Board cancel all of these claims.
`
`-3-
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2031
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 7 of 72
`
`

`

`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-01897
`
`
`The Prior Art: The prior art references relied upon are Reddy (Ex.1004),
`
`Hornbacker (Ex.1003), and Loomans (Exs.1014 and 1015) and are discussed in
`
`this Petition and the Declaration of Prof. William R. Michalson (Ex.1005).
`
`Supporting Evidence Relied Upon For The Challenge: The evidence
`
`5
`
`includes the Declaration of Prof. Michalson (Ex.1005) and other supporting
`
`evidence in the Exhibit List.
`
`Statutory Ground(s) Of Challenge And Legal Principles: Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R.§42.104 (b)(2), the review of patentability of Claims 1-25 is governed by
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.§§102 and 103. Further, statutory provisions of 35 U.S.C.§§311
`
`10
`
`to 319 and 325(d) govern this IPR.
`
`Claim Construction: The 239 Patent is an unexpired patent and each claim
`
`shall be given “its broadest reasonable interpretation [BRI] in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears” to one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(POSITA). 37 C.F.R.§42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131,
`
`15
`
`2142-46 (2016).
`
`How Claims Are Unpatentable Under Statutory Grounds: Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R.§42.104 (b)(4), Section VI provides an explanation of how Claims 1-25 are
`
`unpatentable and specifies where each claim element is found in the cited prior art.
`
`-4-
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2031
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 8 of 72
`
`

`

`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-01897
`
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 239 PATENT
`A.
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE 239 PATENT
`The 239 Patent was granted on February 2, 2016 from non-provisional
`
`Application No.14/547,148 filed November 19, 2014 and makes priority claims to
`
`5
`
`a chain of prior applications, including six earliest provisional applications, Nos.
`
`60/258,488, 60/258,489, 60/258,465, 60/258,468, 60/258,466, and 60/258,467
`
`filed December 27, 2000. Ex.1001, cover pages 1 and 2. Therefore, the earliest
`
`priority date of the 239 Patent is no earlier than December 27, 2000.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE 239 PATENT
`
`B.
`The 239 Patent discloses methods and systems for making requests from a
`
`10
`
`client computing device to retrieve images from one or more networked servers
`
`over one or more network communication channels, and to display the retrieved
`
`images on the user computing device. Ex.1001 at Abstract, 3:44-4:44;12:25-15:22;
`
`Ex.1005, ¶¶85-92. Such requests are based on user-controlled image viewpoints or
`
`15
`
`gaze points. The user navigation commands or inputs are used to select certain
`
`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. Id. at Abstract, 1:25-33
`
`and 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. All of these and other features in the 239
`
`20
`
`Patent were well documented in publications before the priority date of the 239
`
`Patent. Prof. Michalson explains in detail how the 239 Patent relied on several
`
`-5-
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2031
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 9 of 72
`
`

`

`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-01897
`
`
`basic technology concepts in networking, GIS, and computer graphics that were
`
`well-known to a POSITA. Ex.1005, ¶¶32-84.
`
`The “Background” of the 239 Patent acknowledges the “well recognized
`
`problem” of how to reduce the latency for transmitting full resolution images over
`
`5
`
`the Internet, so such images can be received at a user computing device on an “as
`
`needed” basis, 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. The 239 Patent admits that solutions for reducing the latency in
`
`10
`
`“transmitting the image in highly compressed formats that support progressive
`
`resolution build-up of the image within the current client field of view.” Id. at
`
`1:53-62. Such “conventional” solutions included the ones described in U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 4,698,689 (Tzou) and 6,182,114 (Yap). Id. at 2:40-3:9. According to the 239
`
`Patent, the conventional solutions did not work well for smaller, often dedicated or
`
`15
`
`embedded clients or under “very limited network bandwidth” situations. Id. at
`
`3:10-22. Claims 1-25, however, do not recite limitations relating to the bandwidth
`
`or processing power of the client or user device.
`
`To address these perceived issues, the 239 Patent purports to disclose “an
`
`efficient system and methods of optimally presenting image data on client systems
`
`20
`
`with potentially limited processing performance, resources, and communications
`
`-6-
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2031
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 10 of 72
`
`

`

`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-01897
`
`
`bandwidth.” Id. at 3:43-46. Fig.2 shows a network image server system 30 as part
`
`of a preferred embodiment of “the present invention.” Id., 5:56-6:41.
`
`
`
`The network image server system 30 stores a combination of source image
`
`5
`
`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, as
`
`10
`
`taught by (among others) Reddy. Ex.1004 at ¶¶19-23 and Figs.3 and 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 at 5:26-55,
`
`Fig.1. High-resolution source image data such as map imagery is pre-processed by
`
`15
`
`the image server 30 into “a series K1-N of derivative images of progressively lower
`
`-7-
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2031
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 11 of 72
`
`

`

`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-01897
`
`
`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 too, however, were well known
`
`5
`
`before the 239 Patent. Reddy, for example, teaches processing large sets of source
`
`image data to create a multiresolution image pyramid which can be viewed in three
`
`dimensions using an online web browser. Ex.1004, e.g., at Figs.1-4 and associated
`
`text. As Prof. Michalson discusses, it was also well-known in the industry at the
`
`time of the 239 Patent that multiple images at different resolutions could be stored
`
`10
`
`in the same file. Ex.1005, ¶¶78-84.
`
`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 viewing point is changed in response to a user
`
`navigation command, the client software “determines the ordered priority of image
`
`15
`
`parcels to be requested from the server . . . to support the progressive rendering of
`
`the displayed image.” Ex.1001 at 12:29-39 and 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. Like other features discussed above, this feature
`
`was also documented in the literature before the 239 Patent, something conceded in
`
`20
`
`the 239 Patent. For example, the 239 Patent concedes that zoom and pan functions
`
`-8-
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2031
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 12 of 72
`
`

`

`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-01897
`
`
`were well known (id. at 1:45-50) and such functions would necessarily require
`
`updated image data to be retrieved and displayed at the user device. In this regard,
`
`the 239 Patent concedes that the Tzou Patent discloses selective transmission of
`
`low resolution image data and subsequent updating of the prior transmission with
`
`5
`
`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). Additional evidence in this
`
`Petition proves that such concepts were not novel in 1999 and that 3D geographic
`
`browser software was known in the art for updating image data by using a
`
`10
`
`“progressive coarse-to-fine algorithm to load and display new data.” See, e.g.,
`
`Ex.1004, ¶¶21, 44, and 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.
`
`15
`
`According to the 239 Patent, after the needed parcels are requested and
`
`received, an algorithm (which is not specified in Claims 1-25) is used to select the
`
`image parcel for rendering and display. Ex.1001 at 9:17-22,9:26-31. Reddy
`
`discloses this operation in its tile caching features. Ex.1004, ¶¶44-45.
`
`The 239 Patent teaches using computer graphic techniques to render
`
`20
`
`received images, which may contain 2D or 3D objects or images or scenes in a 2D
`
`-9-
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2031
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 13 of 72
`
`

`

`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-01897
`
`
`or 3D space, onto a 2D screen of the user’s computing device. Id., 2:40-61, 5:46-
`
`6:2, 7:45-53, 9:17-33, 10:20-52, 11:35-56. Both Reddy and Hornbacker disclose
`
`this. Ex.1004 at Figs.4-5; Ex.1003 at 14:26-28.
`
`As shown in detail below, all of these and other features and their
`
`5
`
`combinations in Claims 1-25 were well known and were published prior to the 239
`
`Patent.
`
`C. THIS PETITION PRESENTS QUESTIONS OF
`PATENTABILITY THAT HAVE NOT BEEN BEFORE THE OFFICE
`
`All invalidity grounds in this Petition rely on prior art Reddy and were not
`
`10
`
`considered by the Examiner during the examination of the 239 Patent.
`
`Petitioner cited Reddy in IPR2016-00448 and IPR2016-00449 on January 11,
`
`2016 before the issue notification for the 239 Patent was mailed on January 13,
`
`2016. Bradium was aware of Reddy and its material teachings to the claimed
`
`subject matter of the 239 Patent, and in fact the Board later instituted review of
`
`15
`
`similar claims in IPR2016-00448 and IPR2016-00449 based in part on Reddy.
`
`Bradium, however, did not withdraw the application from issuance under 37
`
`C.F.R.§1.313 for further examination in light of Reddy and waited until the day
`
`before issuance of the 239 Patent to list Reddy in an Information Disclosure
`
`Statement to the Office. Ex.1013 at 100, 76. This filing of Reddy was untimely and
`
`20
`
`ineffective under 37 C.F.R.§1.97, and thus Reddy could not be, and was not,
`
`considered by the Office. The file history in Ex.1013 does not show any record of
`
`-10-
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2031
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 14 of 72
`
`

`

`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-01897
`
`
`the Office’s consideration of Reddy.
`
`Therefore, the Examiner relied on an incomplete prior art record and thus
`
`did not recognize that the full subject matter of the issued Claims 1-25 was well
`
`known before its filing date.
`
`5
`
`The file history of the 239 Patent and its related patents show that Bradium
`
`has aggressively used continuation practice in order to expand the scope of its
`
`patent claims. For example, the sole independent claim of the 239 Patent contains
`
`similar limitations but overall broader scope than either the 343 Patent or 506
`
`Patent (as well as the 794 Patent), yet the file history of the 239 Patent contains no
`
`10
`
`record of a substantive rejection. As noted previously, the Board has already
`
`instituted IPRs of the narrower claims in the 343 and 506 Patents based on Reddy
`
`and Hornbacker.
`
`D. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`As Prof. Michalson explains, based on the pertinent technical field and
`
`15
`
`problems described in the 239 Patent, particularly the 239 Patent’s recitation of
`
`applications specific to Geographic Information Systems (“GIS”), a POSITA for
`
`the technology in the 239 Patent 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
`
`-11-
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2031
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 15 of 72
`
`

`

`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-01897
`
`
`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.
`
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`E.
`Petitioner proposes constructions for certain claim terms pursuant to the BRI
`
`5
`
`standard only to comply with 37 C.F.R.§§42.100(b) and 42.104(b)(3), and solely
`
`for purposes of this Petition. Thus, the proposed constructions do not necessarily
`
`reflect appropriate claim constructions in litigation and other proceedings where a
`
`different claim construction standard applies.
`
`“Data Parcel” in all claims: In light of the specification, Petitioner
`
`10
`
`proposes that the term “data parcel” be construed under the BRI as “data that
`
`corresponds to an element of a source image array.” e.g., Ex.1001 at 6:6-57 and
`
`Fig.2. Ex.1005, ¶99. This construction is identical to the Board’s construction in
`
`IPR2016-00448 for the related 506 Patent (Paper 9 at 11, July 25, 2016).
`
`All remaining claim terms: The proposed construction of all remaining
`
`15
`
`claim terms under BRI is their corresponding plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Ex.1005, ¶100.
`
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE 239 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`A. THE CITED REFERENCES ARE PRIOR ART
`Reddy(Ex.1004) was published in the March/April 1999 issue of IEEE
`
`20
`
`Computer Graphics and Applications and thus is a self-authenticating periodical on
`
`-12-
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2031
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 16 of 72
`
`

`

`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-01897
`
`
`its face and is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C.§102(b). Ex.1005, ¶95. See, e.g.
`
`Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures, IPR2014-00527, Paper 41 at 10-13 (PTAB May
`
`18, 2015) (taking Official Notice of reliability of IEEE publications). The Board
`
`previously determined, notwithstanding Bradium arguments to the contrary, that
`
`5
`
`Reddy was prior art to the 343 and 506 Patents, which share a common earliest
`
`claimed priority date with the 239 Patent, in IPR2016-00448, Paper 9 at 12-14, and
`
`IPR2016-00449, Paper 9 at 12-13. Prof. Michalson explains that a POSITA would
`
`rely on the IEEE publication markings contained in Reddy as reliable evidence that
`
`Reddy was published in 1999. Ex.1005, ¶95. Reddy was also cited by several
`
`10
`
`publications prior to the priority date of the 239 Patent. Exs.1007, 1008.
`
`Hornbacker(Ex.1003) is a PCT Publication published on August 19, 1999,
`
`and thus is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C.§102(b).
`
`Loomans(Ex.1014) is U.S. Patent No.6,728,960 B1 based on a filing on
`
`November 17, 1999 which claims a priority from Provisional Application
`
`15
`
`No.60/109,077 (Ex.1015) filed November 18, 1998, and is prior art under at least
`
`35 U.S.C.§102(e).
`
`B. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-20 AND 23-25 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C.§103(A) OVER REDDY AND HORNBACKER
`
`The claimed subject matter as a whole in each of Claims 1-20 and 23-25 is
`
`20
`
`rendered obvious by Reddy in view of Hornbacker.
`
`-13-
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2031
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 17 of 72
`
`

`

`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-01897
`
`
`Reddy, the primary reference, teaches or suggests all elements of these
`
`claims regarding online browsing of large-scale geographic imagery in 3D by
`
`dividing images into tiles at varying resolutions. Reddy, however, does not specify
`
`explicitly how requests for image tiles would identify the locations and zoom
`
`5
`
`levels of image tiles. In this regard, Hornbacker teaches specific methods by which
`
`a POSITA could implement the teachings of Reddy to identify specific needed tiles.
`
`As discussed further below, a POSITA would have combined the teachings
`
`in Reddy and Hornbacker in the manner claimed by Claims 1-20 and 23-25 based
`
`on underlying trends and motivations in the art, as well as specific teachings in
`
`10
`
`both references.
`
`1.
`REDDY AND HORNBACKER SHOW THAT THE
`PURPORTED SOLUTIONS CLAIMED BY THE 239 PATENT WERE NOT
`NOVEL IN THE TECHNICAL FIELD
`a.
`Reddy describes the TerraVision II software system designed by SRI
`
`REDDY
`
`15
`
`International. Previous work at SRI, in connection with the MAGIC
`
`(Multidimensional Applications and Gigabit Internetwork Consortium) project,1
`
`had designed a TerraVision software program for three-dimensional visualization
`
`
`
` See Ex. 1005, ¶ 43, App. E.
`
` 1
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000816221959/http://www.ai.sri.com/~magic/.
`
`-14-
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2031
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 18 of 72
`
`

`

`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-01897
`
`
`of large terrain data sets (including aerial imagery) over a high-speed ATM
`
`network. Ex.1004, ¶38; Ex.1005, ¶108. TerraVision II improved on the
`
`TerraVision by (1) allowing the user to browse online geographic information in
`
`the standard Virtual Reality Markup Language (VRML), therefore allowing
`
`5
`
`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, ¶¶109-110. Reddy teaches the use of this capability on a
`
`standard computer and making the information available over the WWW to
`
`10
`
`provide geographic browsing capabilities which may be used in scenarios such as
`
`“distributed, time-critical conditions” such as military mission planning, battle
`
`damage assessment, and emergency relief efforts. Ex.1004, ¶48.
`
`Reddy teaches that the online VRML information accessed by the browser
`
`may include information such as digital elevation information, imagery such as
`
`15
`
`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 enables a user to visualize large geographic databases in 3D from a
`
`simulated user perspective. For example, a user can zoom on a 3D model of earth
`
`viewed from space and “fly” all the way down to see a particular building, with
`
`-15-
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2031
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 19 of 72
`
`

`

`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-01897
`
`
`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 given resolution or level of detail branches
`
`5
`
`off to four (2x2) tiles or nodes at the next higher level. The quad-tree structure
`
`links several types of data, including elevation data, terrain imagery and other
`
`features that may be overlaid on a map. Id., ¶¶19-26 and 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 given level of the pyramid
`
`10
`
`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
`
`15
`
`the tiles of differing resolutions to form a view when the user is positioned in the
`
`lower-right h