UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent No. 9,253,239
`____________________
`
`SECOND DECLARATION OF DR. PEGGY AGOURIS IN SUPPORT OF
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S PATENT OWNER CONTINGENT
`MOTION TO AMEND PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.121
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent No. 9,253,239
`____________________
`
`SECOND DECLARATION OF DR. PEGGY AGOURIS IN SUPPORT OF
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S PATENT OWNER CONTINGENT
`MOTION TO AMEND PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.121
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 2
`II.
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 2
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”) ..................... 3
`V.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 4
`VI. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 5
`A.
`Resolving the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art. ................. 6
`B.
`THE ’239 PATENT ............................................................................... 8
`C.
`Substitute claims .................................................................................. 12
`D. How A POSITA would understand Displaying step 20M .................. 17
`VII. Claim Construction and Patentability ............................................................ 20
`A.
`The New Prior Art Reference Yaron ................................................... 22
`VIII. CONCLUDING STATEMENT .................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained by counsel for Bradium Technologies LLC
`
`(“Bradium” or “Patent Owner”) as an expert consultant in regards to inter partes
`
`review proceeding IPR2018-00952 for U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 (“the ’239
`
`Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I understand that Bradium is seeking to amend claim 20 in the
`
`alternative, and, should original claim 20 be invalidated, amended claim 20 and
`
`new claim 21 may be considered by the Board.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that, for this proceeding, IPR2018-00952, the Board has
`
`instituted a review as to claim 20.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that the Board has instituted an inter partes review on a
`
`on a single ground: whether Claim 20, which depends from Claim 1, is
`
`unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Reddy, Hornbacker, and Rosasco.
`
`5.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether amended Claim 20 and new
`
`claim 21, are indefinite, are supported by the written description and if those
`
`claims are patentable as of the date of the invention over the reasons and prior art
`
`set forth in Petitioner’s Opposition.
`
`6.
`
`For time spent in connection with this case, I am being compensated
`
`at my customary rate. My compensation is not dependent upon the outcome of this
`
`petition or any issues involved in or related to the ’239 Patent, and I have no other
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`financial stake in this matter. I have no financial interest in, or affiliation with, any
`
`of the real parties in interest or the patent owner.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`7.
`I previously supplied a summary of my education, work experience in
`
`the Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris (EX2054). In addition, my curriculum vitae,
`
`which provides a detailed summary of my education and work experience is
`
`attached to the Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris (EX2054) as Appendix A.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`8.
`The materials I considered include amended claim 20 and new claim
`
`21, the ’239 Patent (EX1001), materials incorporated by reference therein, the
`
`prosecution history for the ’239 Patent (EX1013), the Petition from Unified for
`
`inter partes review (Paper No. 2) Unified’s Motion Opposing amendment (Paper
`
`XX, and the first Wilson Declaration in support of the Petition (EX1005) and the
`
`second Wilson declaration in Support of Unified’s Opposition (EX 1027). I also
`
`considered the Board’s Institution Decision (Paper No. 31) and U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,496,189 to Yaron et al. (“Yaron”) (EX1028). Further, I also considered the
`
`materials that I refer to and that I cite in this declaration.
`
`9.
`
`In addition, I have drawn on my experience and knowledge, as
`
`discussed above and described more fully in my CV, in the areas of image
`
`processing, geographic information systems, interactive computer graphics, and
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`dynamic visualization, among other areas.
`
`10.
`
`I understand that Bradium considers the date of invention for the ’239
`
`Patent to be October 1999. I understand that Mr. Wilson considered the date of
`
`invention to be December 2000 based on the ’239 patent’s discussion of the
`
`technology background. See EX1005 ¶5.
`
`11. Counsel for Bradium has asked me to assume that the asserted
`
`references, Reddy, Yaron, Hornbacker, and Rosasco, are prior art for the purposes
`
`of my analysis. I have further been asked to consider both asserted dates of
`
`invention. My analysis would not change based on which of these dates I assume.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”)
`12. The opinions I express herein are given from the point of view of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, as described above, at the time of the invention
`
`of the ’239 Patent (which I will treat as the latter of the two dates for
`
`consideration). Even if I do not repeat this explicitly, this is the perspective that I
`
`applied in my analysis and in this declaration, unless I indicate otherwise.
`
`13. Petitioner in this proceeding stated that a POSITA would have a
`
`Master of Science or equivalent degree in electrical engineering or computer
`
`science, or a 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. Petition at 10-11.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`14.
`
`I have been asked to apply, and have applied, Petitioner’s
`
`understanding of the level of skill of a POSITA in my analysis herein.
`
`15.
`
`I have considered the issues on which I opine in this declaration under
`
`Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art, and also the level of skill of a
`
`16. POSITA that the Board previously stated (as I indicate above) and
`
`that I applied in my prior declaration (EX2014 for IPR2016-01897). My opinion
`
`would be not change whichever of these levels of ordinary skill in the art I apply in
`
`my analysis.
`
`17.
`
`It is also my opinion that the level of skill of a POSITA would not
`
`change substantially between October 1999 and December 2000 (the date of the
`
`provisional applications to which the ’239 Patent claims priority) for the purposes
`
`of my analysis of the claims and asserted prior art references.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`18.
`I find that all the claim elements recited in the substitute claims
`
`(amended claim 20 and new claim 21) are fully disclosed by U.S. provisional
`
`application 60/258,468 (the ‘468 application) which is incorporated into the
`
`specification of the ’239 patent by reference. Therefore, the substitute claims are
`
`entitled to a priority date of no later than December 24, 2000. No new matter has
`
`been added by the substitute claims.
`
`19. Based on my understanding of the proper scope of the substitute
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`claims, it is also my opinion they are not unpatentable based on the following
`
`references alone or in combination: Reddy, Yaron, Hornbacker, and Rosasco and
`
`FlashPix. The substitute claims are patentable over Reddy alone or in combination
`
`with other art relied on in the Petition at least because the combination fails to
`
`teach or suggest any prioritization which involves both image parcels involving
`
`different resolutions with respect to different viewpoints as required by the claims.
`
`20. Petitioner does not assert that Hornbacker offers any teaching or
`
`suggestion regarding priority, and it is also my opinion that Hornbacker offers no
`
`such teaching or suggestion.
`
`21. Based on my understanding of the definiteness requirement under 35
`
`U.S.C. section 112, it is also my opinion that amended claim 20 and new claim 21
`
`are not indefinite.
`
`22. For these reasons, and the reasons explained more fully in my
`
`declaration as a whole, it is my opinion that the substitute claims are not
`
`unpatentable in view of the prior art cited Petitioner Unified.
`
`VI. LEGAL STANDARDS
`23.
`I understand that an invention that would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention is not patentable. I understand
`
`that the claimed invention as a whole must be considered in an obviousness
`
`analysis.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the obviousness inquiry involves the following
`
`factual determinations:
`
`(A) Determining the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(B) Ascertaining the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art; and
`
`(C) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`A. Resolving the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art.
`25.
`I understand that secondary considerations of non-obviousness are
`
`also relevant to the obviousness determination where present, although I
`
`understand that Patent Owner has not presented particular evidence in this
`
`proceeding regarding secondary considerations, and I have therefore not
`
`considered secondary considerations in my analysis.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a prima facie showing of obviousness must
`
`demonstrate that the cited references, in combination, disclose each element of the
`
`claim.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the entirety of the disclosures of the asserted prior art
`
`references must be considered as part of the obviousness analysis. I further
`
`understand that non-obviousness cannot be shown by merely attacking the
`
`references individually where obviousness is based on a combination of references.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the combination of familiar elements according to
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
`
`results.
`
`29.
`
`I further understand that a patent that simply arranges old elements
`
`with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields
`
`no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, is obvious.
`
`30.
`
`I further understand that the following are examples of rationale that
`
`may support a conclusion of obviousness:
`
`(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to
`yield predictable results;
`(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results;
`(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods,
`or products) in the same way; and
`(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
`
`31.
`
`I understand 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 set forth my understanding of the
`
`applicable Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) standard and certain legal
`
`standards in the section of my declaration regarding claim construction.
`
`32. Counsel for Bradium has advised me that patent claims must be
`
`definite. I understand that the claims, when read in light of the patent’s
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`specification and file history, must inform those skilled in the art of the scope of
`
`the invention with a reasonable degree of certainty. The purpose is to inform the
`
`public of the scope of the invention so that others can understand what actions
`
`constitute infringement.
`
`B.
`THE ’239 PATENT
`33. As the patent explains, the inventors of the ’239 patent developed a
`
`method for the retrieval of large-scale images over limited bandwidth network
`
`communications channels or usable by small client devices. See, e.g., EX1001,
`
`3:10-39; 3:47-51; 4:4-12.
`
`34. The patent explains that the preferred operating environment for the
`
`invention includes, as shown in Figure 1 of the ’239 Patent, a server (12) which
`
`serves image data to client systems such as personal computers (18) and
`
`webphones (20) in response to requests received from the client.
`
`
`
`
`
`35. The patent explains that in a preferred embodiment, the server
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`maintains source image data (e.g., based on high-resolution map or satellite
`
`imagery of geographic terrain) and overlap image data. EX1001, 5:56-6:2. The
`
`server preferably pre-processes the image data into a series of derivative images
`
`that are subdivided into a regular array, as shown in Figure 2 of the ’239 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`EX1001, 6:3-28.
`
`
`
`
`36. The patent explains that to support display of a portion of, for
`
`example, a large-scale two-dimensional image rendered in three-dimensional
`
`space, portions of the image (e.g., image parcels) are requested from the server and
`
`displayed on the client device. See, e.g., EX1001, 3:43-60. Requests for image
`
`parcels are prepared by selecting image parcels relative to particular operator-
`
`controlled image viewpoints selected on the client device. EX1001, Abstract. The
`
`client requests the image parcel, and the server provides it. EX1001, 3:43-60. The
`
`client displays the image parcel as a discrete portion of the predetermined image.
`
`EX1001, 3:43-60. The invention enables retrieval of large-scale images over a
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`network. EX1001, Abstract.
`
`37. The patent explains that the client may display a two-dimensional
`
`image rendered in three-dimensional space based on “a viewing frustum placed
`
`within a three-dimensional space over the imaged displayed on the client 18, 20.”
`
`Client user navigational inputs are supported to control the x, y lateral, rotational
`
`and z height positioning of the viewing frustum over the image as well as the
`
`camera angle of incidence relative to the plane of the image.” EX1001, 5:46–55.
`
`38. The patent explains that the preferred architecture (40) of a client
`
`system for implementing the invention is shown in Figure 3. The architecture
`
`dynamically adapts to changes in viewing frustum (i.e., the user-selected viewpoint
`
`at the client), re-prioritizing among requests that are associated with different
`
`viewpoints. EX1001, 7:54-62, 9:4-21, 10:20-52, 11:17-21.
`
`
`
`
`39. As the ’239 patent explains, “Changes in the viewing frustum are
`
`determined from user input navigation commands by a frustum navigation block
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`50,” as shown by the “NAVIGATION COMMANDS” illustrated on Figure 3.
`
`EX1001, 7:45-47. “The effective change in viewing frustum as determined by the
`
`frustum navigation block 50 is provided to the control block 44.” Id., 7:51-53. The
`
`control block, in turn “based in part on changes in the viewing frustum, determines
`
`the ordered priority of image parcels to be requested from the server.” Id., 7:54-57
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`40. The patent further states: “The image parcel requests are placed in a
`
`request queue 52 for issuance by the parcel request client 42. Preferably, the
`
`pending requests are issued in priority order, thereby dynamically reflecting
`
`changes in the viewing frustum with minimum latency.” Id., 7:57-63 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`41. As Figure 5 of the patent shows, “an image parcel management
`
`process 80 implements a loop that determines image parcels subject to update 82
`
`and creates corresponding image parcel download requests 84.” Id., 8:31-35. Four
`
`image parcel download requests are placed into a request queue at a time, and each
`
`of these image parcel requests is assigned a download priority based its importance
`
`for the current viewpoint. Id., 10:4-52. When the user changes the viewing
`
`frustum via navigational input, the system will evaluate and add new image parcel
`
`requests to the request queue based on the new viewpoint. Id., 9:18-21.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`42. A POSITA would understand from the disclosure of the patent
`
`specification that download requests for prior viewpoints may or may not be
`
`removed from the queue, for example depending on the memory available at the
`
`client. Id., 8:57-62. A POSITA would further understand that requests from
`
`immediately prior viewpoints that remain in the queue are prioritized against new
`
`requests that may be based on a different user-selected viewpoint. Id., 9:3-16.
`
`C.
`Substitute claims
`43. Amended claim 20 and new claim 21 are reproduced below. I have
`
`inserted claim element designations and also bolded certain claim terms that I
`
`consider particularly relevant to my analysis. I have highlighted the typographical
`
`errors pointed out by Unified’s counsel to aid in the understanding of the written
`
`description support for the claim terms as intended.
`
`[20 PREAMBLE] A method of retrieving images over a
`network communication channel for display on a user computing
`device, the method comprising steps of:
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[20A] issuing a first request from the user computing device to
`one or more servers, over one or more network communication
`channels, the first request being for a first update data parcel
`corresponding to a first derivative image of a predetermined
`image,
`
`[20B] the predetermined image corresponding to source image
`data, the first update data parcel uniquely forming a first discrete
`portion of the predetermined image,
`
`[20C] wherein the first update data parcel is selected based on a
`first user-controlled image viewpoint on the user computing
`device relative to the predetermined image;
`
`[20D] receiving the first update data parcel at the user computing
`device from the one or more servers over the one or more
`network communication channels, the step of receiving the first
`update data parcel being performed after the step of issuing the
`first request;
`
`[20E] displaying the first discrete portion on the user computing
`device using the first update data parcel, the step of displaying
`the first discrete portion being performed after the step of
`receiving the first update data parcel;
`
`[20F] issuing a second request from the user computing device
`to the one or more servers, over the one or more network
`communication channels, the second request being for a second
`update data parcel corresponding to a second derivative image of
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the predetermined image, the second update data parcel uniquely
`forming a second discrete portion of the predetermined image,
`
`[20G] wherein the second update data parcel is selected based
`on the first user-controlled image viewpoint on the user
`computing device relative to the predetermined image; the first
`and the second discrete portions have a first non-empty overlap
`area; the second update data parcel has a greater resolution
`than the first update data parcel;
`
`[20H] receiving the second update data parcel at the user
`computing device from the one or more servers over the one or
`more network communication channels, the step of receiving the
`second update data parcel being performed after the step of
`issuing the second request;
`
`[20I] displaying the second discrete portion on the user
`computing device using the second update data parcel, the step
`of displaying the second discrete portion being performed after
`the step of receiving the second update data parcel and after the
`step of displaying the first discrete portion;
`
`[20J] issuing a second third request from the user computing
`device to the one or more servers, over the one or more network
`communication channels, the second third request being for a
`second third update data parcel corresponding to a second third
`derivative image of the predetermined image, the second third
`update data parcel uniquely forming a second third discrete
`portion of the predetermined image, wherein the second third
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`update data parcel is selected based on a second user- controlled
`image viewpoint on the user computing device relative to the
`predetermined image,
`
`[20K] the second user-controlled image viewpoint being
`different from the first user-controlled image viewpoint;
`
`[20L] receiving the second third update data parcel at the user
`computing device from the one or more servers over the one or
`more network communication channels, the step of receiving the
`second third update data parcel being performed after the step of
`issuing the second third request;
`
`[20M] displaying the second discrete portion on the user
`computing device using the second third update data parcel, the
`step of displaying the second third discrete portion being
`performed after the step of receiving the second third update
`data parcel;
`
`[20N] determining priority of the first, request and the second,
`and the third requests such that the first update data parcel
`has a greater priority and requested, received, and displayed
`before the second data parcel,
`
`[20O] whereby enabling local resolution enhancement in the
`first non-empty overlap area for the display according to the
`first user-controlled viewpoint on the user computing device;
`wherein:
`
`[20P] wherein: a series of K1-N derivative
`15
`
`images of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`progressively lower image resolution comprises the first
`derivative image and the second derivative image, the series of
`K1-N of derivative images resulting from processing the source
`image data, series image K0 being subdivided into a regular array
`wherein each resulting image parcel of the array has a
`predetermined pixel resolution and a predetermined color or bit
`per pixel depth, [20N] resolution of the series K1-N of derivative
`images being related to resolution of the source image data or
`predecessor image in the series by a factor of two, and the array
`subdivision being related by a factor of two.
`
`[21 PREABLE] The method of claim 21, further comprising the
`steps of:
`
`[21A] issuing an additional request from the user computing
`device to the one or more servers, over the one or more network
`communication channels, the additional request being for an
`additional update data parcel corresponding to an additional
`derivative image of the predetermined image, the additional
`update data parcel uniquely forming an additional discrete
`portion of the predetermined image, wherein the additional
`update data parcel is selected based on the first user-controlled
`image viewpoint on the user computing device relative to the
`predetermined image; the additional discrete portion and the
`first non-empty overlap area have a second non-empty overlap
`area; the additional update data parcel has a greater resolution
`than the second update data parcel;
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`[21B] receiving the additional update data parcel at the user
`computing device from the one or more servers over the one or
`more network communication channels, the step of receiving the
`additional update data parcel being performed after the step of
`issuing the additional request;
`
`[21C] displaying the additional discrete portion on the user
`computing device using the additional update data parcel, the
`step of displaying
`the additional discrete portion being
`performed after the step of receiving the additional update data
`parcel and after the step of displaying the second discrete portion;
`
`[21D] determining priority of the additional request such that
`the second update data parcel has a greater priority and
`requested, received, and displayed before the additional data
`parcel, whereby enabling progressive local resolution
`enhancement in the second non-empty overlap area for the
`display according to the first user-controlled viewpoint on the
`user computing device.
`
`D. How A POSITA would understand Displaying step 20M
`44.
`I recognize and agree there is a minor typographical error in claim
`
`element [20M]. In particular, that the first recitation of third update data parcel in
`
`element [20M] should in fact be the second update data parcel.
`
`45.
`
`I recognize and agree there is a minor typographical error in claim
`
`element [20P]. In particular, that the first recitation of second derivative image in
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`element [20P] should in fact be the third derivative image.
`
`46. However, these are minor typographical errors and a POSITA would
`
`understand with a high degree of certainty and clarity that third was intended to be
`
`second for element 20M and vice versa for element 20P for at least several reasons.
`
`47. The first reason is that a POSITA, under the controlling legal
`
`standard, would consult the written description in order to ascertain the proper
`
`meaning of the claim. Such inspection clearly shows that there is no description at
`
`all of displaying the second discrete portion… using the third update data parcel…
`
`as pointed out by Unified’s Opposition. Rather, that only displaying the second
`
`discrete portion… using the second update data parcel is disclosed for element
`
`[20M].
`
`48. Similarly, that a third derivative image is used and not a second in
`
`element [20P]. Therefore, a POSITA would reject this recitation as flawed as not
`
`supported by the disclosure and understand third to mean second in this context.
`
`EX1019, 6:25-7:1.
`
`49. Moreover, in consulting the disclosure, (the ‘239 specification and the
`
`‘468 provisional) it is apparent that the specification essentially discloses one
`
`image parcel deployment embodiment, in which the displaying the second discrete
`
`portion… must be done using the second update data parcel and not the third for
`
`element [20M]. For example, see Ex 1019 at 6:25-7:1.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`50. Similarly, that a third derivative image is used and not a second for
`
`element [20P]. Therefore, any other interpretation would read out the preferred
`
`embodiment of the invention and render it inoperable. Accordingly, a POSITA
`
`would reject this recitation as flawed as not supported by the disclosure and
`
`understand third to mean second in this context as the only operable and described
`
`embodiment.
`
`51. Moreover, a POSITA would also consult the prosecution history in
`
`determining claim scope. From consideration of the amendment to claim 20 and
`
`the associated remarks, it would be clear to POSITA that, throughout the claim, the
`
`term second was frequently being changed to third for legitimate technical reasons
`
`in order to further define and point out the metes and bounds of the invention and
`
`the update of element [20M] made no sense as pointed out by Petitioner. This
`
`pattern, and its underlying intentions and logic of the amendment would be
`
`recognized by a POSITA and would inform his understanding of the claim.
`
`52. Thus, when viewing the claim in view of this logic and the written
`
`description as articulated above, a POSITA would be informed with reasonable
`
`certainty and clarity the displaying the second discrete portion…is done using the
`
`second update data parcel and not the third. Accordingly, a POSITA would
`
`understand what the claim was intended to mean despite the typographical errors
`
`on its face.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`53. Lastly, another factor in determining a POSITA’s understanding is the
`
`treatment and understanding of the claim term afforded by others, including
`
`opposing counsel. Unified’s Opposition brief at 6-7 indicates that they clearly
`
`understood that the displaying of the second discrete portion…is done using the
`
`second update data parcel and not the third by recognizing the other way around
`
`renders the claim inoperable. Similarly, that a third derivative image is used and
`
`not a second for element [20P].
`
`54.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim need not be absolutely perfect but
`
`rather convey its subject matter with reasonable certainty. In view of sections 44-
`
`53 above, I conclude that claim 20, although somewhat imperfect as now written,
`
`would be clearly understandable by a POSITA and therefore meets this standard.
`
`VII. Claim Construction and Patentability
`55.
`I understand that the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI)
`
`standard applies in this proceeding. I have applied the BRI standard in my analysis.
`
`I have considered the language of the claims, the teachings of the specification, and
`
`the prosecution history.
`
`56.
`
`I understand that BRI does not mean the broadest possible
`
`interpretation. In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`57.
`
`I understand that in accordance with the BRI standard, the claim
`
`should be interpreted in a manner that is reasonable in light of the specification. Id.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`58. A further understand that BRI interpretation is “an interpretation that
`
`corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the
`
`specification, i.e., an interpretation that is consistent with the specification. I have
`
`been informed that claim construction under BRI cannot be divorced from the
`
`specification and the record evidence.” Sophos Ltd. V. Iancu, 727 F.3d App’x 656,
`
`661 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).
`
`59.
`
`In arriving at my opinion, I have not relied on any specific claim
`
`construction to demonstrate patentability of the proposed substitute claims over the
`
`prior art. Rather, I have determined patentability based on the new limitations of
`
`the proposed substitute claims, which are absent from the prior art. The plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of the new limitations—taken as a whole—is discernible from
`
`their context and would be readily understood by those of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`60.
`
`In my opinion, none of the references of record, and the art cited by
`
`others, either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests at least the patentable
`
`features set forth in [20D], [20J], [21A], [21D] which include: determining a
`
`priority for the first and the second request for updated image parcels which
`
`involves both image parcels having different resolutions with respect to different
`
`viewpoints wherein respective parcels’ areas are non- empty overlap areas,
`
`whereby enabling resolution enhancement in the non-empty overlap area for the
`
`same first user-controlled viewpoint on the user computing device as specified in
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`the substitute claims. And, accordingly, they are patentable at least on this basis
`
`alone.
`
`A. The New Prior Art Reference Yaron
`61. Yaron is alleged to disclose “a system for displaying terrains in a
`
`progressive manner. EX1028, 1:11-13, 3:13-24, 4:29-46, 5:1-4, 8:59-9:21, 9:48-54,
`
`11:19-39, 12:58-13:7, 13:65-14:9, 14:47-53.
`
`62. Yaron teaches that when a new area is requested for display, first a
`
`single low resolution “block” is requested for that area and displayed. Then,
`
`subsequent requests for higher resolution blocks are sent, and when those higher
`
`resolution blocks are received, they are inserted in the appropriate place within the
`
`low-resolution block until the entire image is filled with the high-resolution blocks.
`
`Id., 3:40-53.”
`
`63. Yaron, however, discloses that, when the viewpoint is changed, the
`
`prior queue is abandoned in view of a new queue based on the new viewpoint.
`
`Consequently, Yaron does not teach or suggest any prioritization which involves
`
`both image parcels involving different resolutions with respect to the same
`
`viewpoint, let alone different viewpoints as required by the claims.
`
`64.
`
`Indeed, as admitted by Petitioner, “Yaron discloses multiple requests
`
`for the same viewpoint such that the second request is a higher resolution, is
`
`displayed after the first request, and is overlapping the first request. EX1027, ¶¶77-
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`78.”
`
`65. Petitioner appears to further agree with this assessment, stating in
`
`Paper 42, pages 19-20, “Furthermore, as discussed in the Petition (pp. 67-71), a
`
`POSITA would have understood that for another viewpoint a similar prioritization
`
`would occur with respect to the lower-resolution requests and the higher resolution
`
`requests.
`
`66. Therefore, in addition to prioritizing multiple overlapping images
`
`requested from a single viewpoint (i.e., the claimed first request (lower resolution
`
`tiles) and second request (higher resolution tiles)), Reddy also describes a
`
`prioritization for images requested from a second viewpoint (i.e., the claimed third
`
`request). Id.”; “A POSITA would have understood that for another viewpoint a
`
`similar prioritization would occur with respect to the lower-resolution requests and
`
`the higher resolution requests. EX1027, ¶85.”
`
`67. Thus, Petitioner admits that according to the teachings
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
