trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432, Paper No. 50
`November 30, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`____________
`
`Held: September 19, 2016
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday,
`September 19, 2016, commencing at 1:28 p.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432, Paper No. 50
`November 30, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`____________
`
`Held: September 19, 2016
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday,
`September 19, 2016, commencing at 1:28 p.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`MATTHEW C. BERNSTEIN, ESQUIRE
`BING AI, Ph.D., ESQUIRE
`EVAN S. DAY, ESQUIRE
`Perkins Coie
`11988 El Camino Real
`Suite 350
`San Diego, California 92130-2594
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`CHRIS J. COULSON, ESQUIRE
`Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, New York 10004-1007
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Good afternoon, everyone.
`This is the oral hearing in Microsoft Corporation versus Bradium
`Technologies, IPR2015-01432. The patent at issue is 7,139,794.
`I'm Judge McNamara. With me here is Judge Moore. And Judge
`Chung is participating remotely. So I would ask each of you to
`speak into the microphones from the podiums to make sure that
`he can hear you and to identify any slides or demonstratives by
`number so that he can refer to them, because he may not be able
`to see the screens here.
`Let me ask the parties first, beginning with petitioner, to
`introduce themselves.
`MR. AI: Your Honor, this is Bing Ai. With me is Matt
`Bernstein and Evan Day from Perkins Coie on behalf of
`petitioner, Microsoft.
`MR. COULSON: Good afternoon, Your Honors. My
`name is Chris Coulson representing Bradium Technologies, LLC.
`With me is my colleague, Ian Moore, and client representative,
`Mike Shanahan is also present.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Welcome to the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board. Each party will have 45 minutes of total
`argument time. The petitioner, Microsoft, who has the burden of
`proof that the claims are unpatentable, will go first. And I believe
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`you also have a motion to exclude evidence that you may want to
`argue. After that we'll hear from Bradium Technologies. And
`then after that the petitioner can use any time it's reserved to rebut
`the patent owner's opposition. I presume everybody is ready to
`proceed. So we will begin with the petitioner.
`MR. BERNSTEIN: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I
`am Matt Bernstein and I will be arguing as well as I'll be getting
`some assistance from my colleagues, Mr. Ai and Mr. Day.
`I think we intend on using approximately 25 minutes,
`possibly 30 of our time in this opening presentation. And we
`reserve the remainder of our time.
`In this trial Microsoft has the burden of proof by a
`preponderance of the evidence. And the totality of the evidence
`in this case --
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Did you say you are going to
`reserve 20 minutes?
`MR. BERNSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: I apologize. I thought I was
`listening more closely.
`MR. BERNSTEIN: Give or take a couple of minutes,
`Your Honor. The totality of the evidence in this case, Your
`Honors, demonstrates Microsoft has met this preponderance of
`the evidence burden. This is an interesting case because there are
`more things that are not disputed than actually are disputed.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`There is no challenge by Bradium as to the prior art status of any
`of Microsoft's references. There's no evidence in this case of any
`secondary considerations of nonobviousness, no commercial
`success or praise or long-felt need or licensing of the '794 patent.
`And when you look at demonstrative 16 through 19, Your
`Honors, and I'll pull up demonstrative 16 right now, the color
`coding on these four slides, what you see is the items in red are
`the only disputed limitations. So most, not all, but most of the
`limitations are undisputed. Undisputedly met.
`It's also not disputed that the inventors of the '794 patent
`were concerned with reducing latency of images transferred over
`the Internet. The patent says this at column 1, lines 32
`through 47. And likewise, there is no dispute that Microsoft's
`prior art references address this. So based on the preponderance
`of the evidence, especially our starting point, Microsoft has met
`its burden of proof.
`I want to address a few things in the '794 patent
`relatively briefly, Your Honors, simply because there's a dispute
`as to the level of ordinary skill in the art and there's also at least a
`little dispute, maybe more, as to the motivation to combine.
`As discussed in the Board's institution decision, that's
`paper 15 at page 3, the '794 patent concerns reducing latency and
`transmitting full resolution images over the Internet on an
`as-needed basis particularly for complex images. And when
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`images are stored on a network, Your Honors, somewhere in the
`cloud the need to reduce latency or send better images as quickly
`as possible, that applies regardless of the type of imagery.
`Whether you are talking about 2D imagery or 3D imagery, a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would want to send those
`images as quickly as possible as well as possible.
`I'm going to turn to demonstrative 5 now. Another
`important point in the '794 patent is that the invention
`unequivocally relates to geographic imagery and imagery such as
`satellite imagery. This is something that is important. And this
`type of map satellite imagery, the area of technology is known as
`geographic information systems or GIS. I want to talk about one
`more point, specifically in the '794 patent or a few points. And
`that's we can't forget the actual claim language of claims 1 and 2.
`For example, neither of the challenged claims specify any
`particular way to prioritize requests for images or image data.
`Neither claim says anything about specific limitations to
`bandwidth or processing power.
`So now I want to turn briefly to the level of skill in the
`art. And really the dispute from Microsoft's perspective is, Your
`Honors, whether it was appropriate for Bradium and their expert,
`Dr. Bajaj, to ignore, completely ignore GIS art, to completely
`ignore the state of the art and what a person of ordinary skill in
`the art, whether they would look to GIS art in deciding whether
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`to -- what they were deciding to do, whether they were deciding
`to motivate to combine certain references. And it's Microsoft's
`position that based on the specification, it would be completely
`inappropriate to ignore this entire area of relevant art, and it's
`Microsoft's position that Bradium's failure and their expert's
`failure to address this art taints their entire validity case.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Is this actually a question,
`though, as to the level of skill in the art or is it a question as to
`what's appropriate art that could be relied on to be combined?
`MR. BERNSTEIN: I think it's both, Your Honor. I
`actually think it influences both things. I mean, there is not
`actually a challenge as to whether it was appropriate in the first
`instance, I don't think, to use certain references. I think they
`argue as to whether those references should be combined. And so
`I do think it does influence that issue, though, because they are
`not using the background of those GIS references, the GIS
`references that specifically talk about combining elements of 2D
`and 3D imagery. Because their starting point was, well, GIS is
`not relevant or at least they didn't consider it, I think that -- or
`Microsoft thinks that taints kind of their analysis going forward.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. I'm just not sure how
`that related -- I think you related that to being a dispute over the
`level of skill in the art, and I'm still not quite sure I see how that
`goes to the level of skill in the art.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MR. BERNSTEIN: I apologize, Your Honor. I
`answered something not specific to what you asked. So if you
`look at the level of ordinary skill in the art, they don't mention
`geographic information systems as what one of ordinary skill in
`the art, part of the experience that that person may have. So there
`is a dispute as to the level of ordinary skill in the art as well, Your
`Honor.
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay.
`MR. BERNSTEIN: With that, Your Honor, I'm going
`to turn things over to Mr. Ai for a while.
`MR. AI: This trial is about evidence. And when we
`look at the subject matter of the '794 patent, we look at claims 1
`and 2, we see a network. We see image and data is stored on the
`network. We see there's a need to retrieve this image to a local
`client machine, and we see that there is a concern about the
`resolution at the client side. And all these features described in
`the claimed '794 patents were old, were well established many
`years before they filed their patent.
`And we can look at the four references Microsoft has
`presented and. Let me point to some of the common themes
`between the '794 patent and the four references we have
`presented. Then we'll go into some specific features in the
`teachings to see how they are relevant to the issues and the
`dispute here.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`First, for all the references and the '794 patent, it is
`about displaying images on a two-dimensional screen. The state
`of technology as today, every computer has a 2D screen, and the
`references discuss that. And the basic technology underlying all
`the four references we have presented and also the '794 patent is
`computer graphics, how to present one-dimensional,
`two-dimensional or three-dimensional images on a
`two-dimensional screen. We can look at Figure 1 of Rutledge
`which is Exhibit 1004. We can look at Ligtenberg and look at
`Figure 1 and the Monitor 45. We can look at Cooper. And
`Cooper specifically talks about how to transform 3D object
`parameters into XY coordinates on a two-dimensional screen.
`Furthermore, let's look at the fourth reference Microsoft presents,
`Migdal. Migdal, in the same way, presented in Figure 10 and
`also in Figure 2 that how to present all these images in a
`two-dimensional screen. So this is common. This is well known.
`There's no magic about 1D, 2D or 3D computer graphic
`technologies has long established, well-known techniques to
`resolve this issue.
`The problems are how can we do this better. And that's
`where I think '794 falls short. Their claims are poor. Their
`specification is very general. They do not provide specific
`implementations more than the references we have presented on
`each one of the features.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`The second common theme in the four references and
`also in the '794 patent is the problem of limited network
`bandwidth. Images are large. Data is enormous. They are stored
`on a network and need to be retrieved to the client side on a
`mobile device, desktop or other devices. Every single one of
`those references address all this. This is -- GIS actually
`developed specific protocols for this, and the '794 patent itself
`even describes that that's one of the ways you can get data out of
`the network storage.
`Number 3, images are large. Every single of these
`references recognize that problem. They have too much data.
`What they do is divide images into smaller pieces and then
`transmit the smaller size data-corresponding small pieces through
`the network. That's a common theme of all the references.
`Number 4, priority. Not all image's files are equally
`important particular to a particular user. We can look at each
`every of the four references. In every way they talk about how to
`provide an enhanced user experience based on the particular point
`of view of the user when the user is navigating through that
`image we are seeing and to provide needed data to give that user
`proper high-resolution images while compromise resolution at
`other places, for example, in the direction of the view versus off
`the center. In some other places the things are closer to the
`viewer's view and the things that are further away from the
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`viewer's view. Sometimes you need to do this in a timely
`fashion. And we can see that Ligtenberg and other reference also
`describes you display a fuzzy image first to give a full image to
`the user and later on you progressively enhance the images. So
`those are the examples of common themes that are in all four
`references, and those are some of the issues that are at dispute in
`this trial.
`Now let's look at some of the specific examples how we
`actually use all these references in combination under the two
`instituted grounds at trial. The first one is on claim 1. It's a
`combination of three references. We have Rutledge, we have
`Ligtenberg and we have Cooper. For Rutledge we use that
`reference to teach the database which is the 140 geographic
`database in Figure 1 that provides the map data that needs to be
`transmitted at the request of the client over the network. We also
`use that reference, as illustrate in Figure 3, to show that a large
`image is divided into a smaller map tiles and all this data then
`transmitted through the network. We also specifically talk about
`user reference to show that satellite images, maps and a scan of
`the digital images are part of the image transmission and
`rendering issues addressed by Rutledge. This is closely related to
`GIS in other digital image transmission and rendering.
`Ligtenberg addressed all the main issues that are
`addressed by Rutledge, further provide very specific file format
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`for handling processing and rendering all these divided image
`files or tiles. And they talk about how to render these cases and
`how do you go through the process for downloading and storing
`them on the local memory.
`The third reference, Cooper, goes further on the priority
`issues. Both Rutledge and Ligtenberg talking about display
`selected image tiles in response to viewer's point, viewer's
`selections. But Rutledge and Ligtenberg do not provide a specific
`algorithm or processes to prioritize different image tiles. Cooper
`provides very specific way of doing this based on the user's
`preference, the viewpoint, the turn angle while navigating
`through images. And Cooper, just like both Ligtenberg and
`Rutledge, also further address the efficiency, the speed issue
`while you were doing this storage on the network.
`Now turning to the second combination, and that's the
`Box 3 reference in additional in combining with Migdal for the
`claim number 2. Migdal is very specific about presenting images
`in a 3D environment. As I mentioned before, all the references
`including '794 patent talking about representing images on a
`two-dimensional computer screen, Migdal very specific about the
`2D and the 3D textures can be rendered with efficiency on a
`two-dimensional computer screen. Migdal talks about dividing
`the large image into smaller tiles. Either 3D or two-dimensional,
`it can be divided. Then processing them. Then render them.
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`Therefore, Migdal in combination with the other three references
`provide the ground for us to invalidate claim number 2.
`And with that, I'm going to turn this to my colleague,
`Mr. Day, regarding the disputed claim elements in claims 1 and 2.
`MR. DAY: We seem to have lost the display screen for
`the slides, but what our slides at 16 through 19 shows, again,
`there's only a handful of claim elements that are actually disputed.
`And there's a common flaw in the way that Bradium has
`responded to those claim elements which is that they effectively
`tried to respond -- instead of responding to the full analysis based
`on the combination of the references that we cited, they basically
`tried to pick apart individual references and say this aspect isn't
`taught by this reference and this aspect isn't taught by this
`reference. But breaking the references apart that way doesn't
`actually address the full scope of what we cited. And we noted
`some case law in the reply. There's an Amazon.com case that's
`cited on page 15 of the reply that says that that's not a proper way
`to respond to an invalidity grounds based on nonobviousness.
`Some of these challenged claim elements are fairly
`similar between the two asserted independent claims. Both
`claim 1 and claim 2 have a claim element in which we labeled on
`our chart in slide 16 as Element 1A and on slide 18 is Element
`2B. That has to do with requesting image parcels in priority
`order. Now, what the petition says is that a person of ordinary
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`skill in the art would use the priority algorithm of Cooper or some
`portion of that priority algorithm to request map tiles. And map
`tiles are described in both the Rutledge and the Ligtenberg
`reference. Now, what Bradium doesn't actually dispute is they
`don't dispute that Cooper teaches a priority algorithm. They also
`don't dispute that Rutledge and Ligtenberg teach map tiles which
`meet the Board's construction of image parcel. And we
`understand through the Board's institution decision that the Board
`found that that element was met even after it posed that
`construction. So it's our position that on that claim Bradium
`simply hasn't addressed the actual teaching.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Let me stop you there. It
`sounds to me a little like you've said, well, they have this element
`and they have this element and then Cooper has this element. But
`the question is, how do you get to the combination?
`MR. DAY: Sure, Your Honor. So with regard to the --
`and I can address this. I think Mr. Bernstein is going to address
`the overall combination, but I'll address the specific elements
`when requesting image parcels in a priority order. So our
`position is that the additional image data that's being requested by
`Cooper is analogous and that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would view as analogous to requesting additional information in
`the form of a map tile, of a map that's broken down into tiles of
`varying levels of detail. So the application, the combination that
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`we would view is requesting additional detail from that hierarchy
`of tiles within the map to build up the detail of the image being
`viewed by the viewer according to which elements of the image
`contribute most to the quality of the image.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: I guess the question I'm getting
`at is, one of the references discloses tiles and zooming, and the
`other reference discloses some other elements. And as I
`understand it, you are relying on Cooper primarily for its
`disclosure of a priority system. So the question really comes
`down to why, given the disclosures in the other two references,
`would one aware of those two references be inclined to look for a
`priority system or why would they look to the priority system as
`disclosed in Cooper?
`MR. DAY: Well, Your Honor, part of that is it's not
`just the disclosure specifically in those references. It's also what's
`known and understood in the art. And Cooper itself talks about
`using a -- creating a virtual environment that generates a realistic
`perspective for the user as well as some of the background art
`also describes using three-dimensional systems to use
`two-dimensional tiles as the display. So when you look at those
`things together, and the person of ordinary skill in the art is
`always going to look at these certain references as well as the
`background art together, they have a reason to want to use the
`three-dimensional teaching of Cooper to try and generate a
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`realistic three-dimensional virtual environment to visualize
`something like a map or a large-scale satellite or photographic
`imagery in order to create a virtual view of the world.
`I'm not going to address the other claim elements
`specifically unless Bradium addresses them. We will address
`those on rebuttal if necessary. I'm going to turn it over to -- those
`are addressed in our reply. So I'm going to turn it over to
`Mr. Bernstein.
`MR. BERNSTEIN: I think what Your Honor was
`getting at was the specific facts that Microsoft points to, to show
`that there was a motivation to combine.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Yeah, I looked at Rutledge and
`I see Rutledge sort of -- we said this in the decision to institute.
`We looked at Rutledge, and Rutledge disclosed a zoom layer
`system that you can -- a user can display maps at various levels.
`Each zoom layer is a particular scale. Ligtenberg decomposes an
`image into a number of images at various resolutions. I think
`both Rutledge and Ligtenberg speak in terms of tiles and such.
`So the question is, what is the motivation to combine with
`Cooper?
`MR. BERNSTEIN: So I think the specific facts, just for
`the record, Your Honor, are set forth in slides 14 and 15 where
`we just set forth all of our evidence, specific facts of secondary
`considerations. I think one way that we've looked at this is that
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`all three of the references, Rutledge, Ligtenberg and Cooper, all
`address the problem of getting images to the user as quickly as
`possible by breaking down imagery into various levels of
`resolution instead of sending all the images at once. So they all
`take that same approach in getting images quicker and getting
`better images quicker. All three of the references, and Dr. Ai
`talked about this as well, they focus on the user's viewpoint. It's a
`big part of this invention. All three references focus on
`specifically their prioritizing -- the systems are set up to be based
`on the user's viewpoint as opposed to, you know, anything else.
`That's another thing that's critical for all three references and why
`one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine
`those references.
`Just briefly on one more point with respect to
`motivation to combine, there's just this concept that Bradium sets
`forth that you would never combine or a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would never combine 3D references and 2D references.
`I mean, that's just wrong from our standpoint. KSR teaches
`against taking any sort of such narrow, rigid approach. It ignores
`all of the testimony of Dr. Michalson that's in his initial
`declaration, Exhibit 1008, paragraphs 44, 52 to 60, 66 through 68
`and pretty much the entirety of his rebuttal declaration at
`Exhibit 1015. And you know, you don't even have to take
`Dr. Michalson's word for it. I mean, there's just a lot of
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`references in the record that a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`at the time of the invention, could look to see that 2D and 3D
`imaging systems were already in existence, and those include the
`Migdal reference which is very explicit as well as the Fuller,
`DeJong, Dawson and Microsoft references that are discussed in
`our petitions and expert declarations.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Let's assume for a moment that
`we agree with you that there is no distinction between 2D and 3D
`references and such. I'm still not sure I have gotten a clear
`answer to the question on the motivation to combine Cooper with
`the other two references. Claim 1 talks about a partial request
`subsystem, a partial rendering subsystem, a partial rendering
`subsystem prioritizes partial requests. There's a lot of priority
`that's going on in claim 1. And the same thing is going to happen
`in claim 2, because claim 2 says you are going to request images
`in a priority order to provide progressive regional resolution
`enhancement. So there's a lot of priority that's going on in those
`two things.
`I look at Rutledge which has, as I said, zoom levels and
`it has tiles and zoom layers. Ligtenberg has array tiles and tile
`blocks. And the question is, what in the art would suggest to one
`of ordinary skill in the art to use Rutledge and Ligtenberg and go
`to a prioritized system such as that in Cooper? And I need the
`answer from you. Not from you, Mr. Ai.
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MR. BERNSTEIN: So I think that you can look to the
`teachings of Rutledge and Cooper -- Rutledge and Ligtenberg
`actually do talk about showing a blurrier image first and then
`upping that with additional imagery. It just doesn't tell you
`exactly how you do it. So it's Microsoft's position that there is
`actual some sort of priority being used in those two references.
`But the reason we added Cooper is because there was nothing
`specific as to how you would actually do that or how you could
`possibly do that.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: And then just to avoid the
`potential of someone arguing that that's a new argument, can you
`tell me where in the record you said anything about Rutledge or
`Ligtenberg having any kind of priority system?
`MR. BERNSTEIN: Can I look for that while --
`JUDGE McNAMARA: You can tell me on rebuttal.
`MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Thank you.
`MR. AI: Your Honor, may I spend two more minutes
`talking about specific references?
`JUDGE McNAMARA: It's your time. And as you can
`see, we are counting down.
`MR. AI: Thank you, Your Honor. I think
`Mr. Bernstein pointed out one reference about the priority in the
`time domain. That's in Ligtenberg, the further image that's in
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`column 10 on the top portion. However, there are other
`references in either Rutledge or Ligtenberg talking about priority
`in some other context. For example, let's look at Ligtenberg
`again. You look at in column 1 from line 57 through line --
`column 2, line 8. Here we are talking about the local treatment of
`certain image files. So that means certain locations are giving
`priority over others. They are talking about pyramid and the
`encoding, that also provides the priority.
`Furthermore, if you go on the column 2, look at lines
`from 25 through 29, here they talk about the storage formatting
`according to the invention allows desired portion of the image
`data to be retrieved at the desired resolutions. They talk about
`selectivity here talking about priority over a certain data portion
`over others.
`Let me just point you, go to Rutledge, because this is
`the reference that also provides similar suggestions about priority
`in terms of data retrieval and data rendering. Here one example,
`as you point out about zooming, zooming we are talking about at
`different locations in a thing. And that is a spatial priority. The
`later you zoom down, that's taking priority over others.
`Similarly, if you look at the column number 6, you look
`at that that's starting from line 37 through line 50, and this is an
`introduction section regarding the Figures 4A through 4D, this
`viewer commence in terms of changing viewing parameters and
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`the directions. All this require prioritize what is to be transmitted
`rendered first and what's to do next. I think that's very clear when
`we look at this in that context. I completely agree with you, Your
`Honor, that priority, that particular term used in the '794 patent is
`nowhere to be found in the Rutledge or in Ligtenberg. But the
`spirit of it, the technical issue is well presented. Let me give you
`another example --
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Before you give me another
`example, one of these things we are going to be asking you for
`when we are done here is where all this is in the petition and
`where all these examples are in the petition.
`MR. AI: Yes, Your Honor. In column 8 and 7 starting
`from the line 37 all the way to the column 8, line 6, here again we
`are talking about spatial direction, the preference, that provides
`priority in terms of selecting what data to be transmitted and to be
`rendered through the network and on the client side.
`With that, we turn this back to the patent owner. Thank
`
`you.
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: You'll have about 12 minutes
`remaining. Thank you.
`MR. COULSON: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`Again, Chris Coulson for patent owner, Bradium. Would Your
`Honors like to have hard copies of the exhibits?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`JUDGE McNAMARA: If you have them, that would
`be great. Does the court reporter have a hard copy?
`THE REPORTER: Yes.
`MR. COULSON: May we approach, Your Honor?
`JUDGE McNAMARA: Yes.
`MR. COULSON: Mr. Moore will approach with those.
`Apologies to Judge Chung, we can't hand you one, but I will use
`the ELMO, Your Honor, to try to demonstrate the slides.
`JUDGE CHUNG: Not a problem.
`MR. COULSON: Your Honors, I will begin by
`addressing the question posed by Judge McNamara during the
`presentation. The reason that -- although I'll answer it in the
`opposite way that Microsoft answered it. The reason that Cooper
`would not be combined with Rutledge or Ligtenberg is that no
`useful benefit would be obtained. The Rutledge reference is a
`flat -- and I believe this point is undisputed, a flat reference.
`There's no particular viewpoint being shown. It's a flat 2D
`reference of tiles.
`And I would like to address by putting up slide 16 to get
`more specific. I heard regarding Rutledge/Ligtenberg, I heard a
`couple different things regarding Rutledge and Ligtenberg about
`whether priority was shown. I heard first Mr. Ai's presentation
`state that there is no specific prioritization of image tiles being
`disclosed in Rutledge or Ligtenberg. And in the last presentation
`
` 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`by Mr. Ai, I heard that there is a vibe or penumbra around the
`zooming that provides prioritization. Your Honors, referring to
`slide 16 of our demonstratives, there is no prioritization in this
`zoom level.
`This is the selection -- I'm showing the Rutledge
`Figure 4D. And I cover
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
