Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 67
`Entered: July 26, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 67
`Entered: July 26, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`In this inter partes review, instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314,
`Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) challenges the patentability of claims
`1–21 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,924,506 B2 (Ex. 1002,
`“the ’506 patent”), owned by Bradium Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”).
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written Decision
`is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. With
`respect to the grounds instituted in this trial, we have considered the papers
`submitted by the parties and the evidence cited therein. For the reasons
`discussed below, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of
`the evidence that claims 1–21 of the ’506 patent are unpatentable.
`A. Procedural History
`On January 11, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1–21 of the ’506 patent. Patent
`Owner filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”). On July 27,
`2016, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–21 of the ’506 patent
`based on the following specific ground (Paper 9, “Dec. on Inst.,” 44).
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Statutory Basis
`
`References
`
`Reddy1 and Hornbacker2
`
`§ 103(a)
`1–21
`
`1 Ex. 1004, M. Reddy, Y. Leclerc, L. Iverson, N. Bletter, TerraVision II:
`Visualizing Massive Terrain Databases in VRML, IEEE Computer Graphics
`and Applications, Vol. 19, No. 2, 30–38, IEEE Computer Society,
`March/April 1999 (“Reddy”).
`2 Ex. 1003, WO 99/41675 (Aug. 19, 1999) (“Hornbacker”).
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`(Paper 17, “PO Resp.”)3 and a confidential version (Paper 16), to which
`Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 31, “Pet. Reply”). Subsequently, Petitioner
`moved to exclude (Paper 42) certain exhibits submitted by Patent Owner;
`Patent Owner opposed (Papers 49 (confidential) and 50 (public)); and
`Petitioner replied (Paper 52). Patent Owner also moved to exclude (Paper
`44) certain evidence introduced by Petitioner; Petitioner opposed (Paper 46);
`and Patent Owner replied (Papers 55 (confidential) and 56 (public)).
`Petitioner and Patent Owner filed Motions to Seal their confidential
`information. Papers 15, 18, 48, 54. In addition, Patent Owner filed a
`Motion for Observations on certain cross-examination testimony of Dr.
`William R. Michalson (Paper 41, “Obs.”), to which Petitioner filed
`Responses (Paper 45, “Obs. Resp.”).
`A combined oral hearing in this proceeding and IPR2016-00448 was
`held on April 18, 2017. Transcripts of the hearing have been entered into
`the record as Papers 61 (“Hrg. Tr.” (public)) and 62 (“Confidential Hrg. Tr.”
`(confidential)).
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`According to Petitioner, the ’506 patent and two other patents in the
`same family, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,139,794 B2 (“the ’794 patent”) and
`7,908,343 B2 (“the ’343 patent”), are being asserted by Patent Owner in the
`following litigation: Bradium Techs. LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 1:15-cv-
`
`
`3 Unless otherwise indicated, we refer to public (including redacted) Papers
`and Exhibits.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`00031-RGA, filed on January 9, 2015 in the District of Delaware. See Pet.
`1. The ’506 patent was also the subject of IPR2015-01435, in which inter
`partes review was not instituted. In related proceedings before the Board,
`we instituted inter partes reviews of various claims of the ’343 patent in
`Case IPR2016-00448 and certain claims of the ’794 patent in Case IPR2015-
`01432. In addition, we instituted an inter partes review of various claims of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2 in Case IPR2016-01897.
`
`
`II. THE ’506 PATENT
`A. Described Invention
`The ’506 patent describes an image distribution system for retrieving
`high-resolution or large-scale images from a network image server over a
`limited-bandwidth communications channel for display on client devices,
`where a user may navigate over the images displayed on the client device by
`controlling a viewing frustum placed over the displayed images. See
`Ex. 1002, Abstract; col. 1, ll. 29–34; col. 5, ll. 31–59. The retrieval of large-
`scale or high-resolution images is achieved by selecting, requesting, and
`receiving update image parcels relative to an operator or user controlled
`image viewpoint. See id. at Abstract; col. 3, ll. 50–59. In an embodiment,
`when the viewing frustum is changed by user navigation commands, the
`client device determines the priority of the image parcels to be requested
`from the server “to support the progressive rendering of the displayed
`image,” and the image parcel requests are placed in a request queue to be
`issued in priority order. See id. at col. 7, ll. 50–65.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`On the server side, high-resolution source image data is pre-processed
`by the image server to create a series of derivative images of progressively
`lower resolution. See id. at col. 6, ll. 7–12. Figure 2 of the ’506 patent is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts preparation of pre-processed image parcels at the network
`image server. See id. at col. 4, ll. 60–63; col. 5, ll. 60–63; col. 6, ll. 7–10.
`As illustrated in Figure 2, source image data 32 is pre-processed to obtain a
`series K1-N of derivative images of progressively lower image resolution. Id.
`at col. 6, ll. 10–12. Initially, the source image data—i.e., the series image
`K0—is subdivided into a regular array of image parcels of a fixed byte size,
`e.g., 8K bytes. Id. at col. 6, ll. 12–17. In an embodiment, the resolution of a
`particular image in the series is related to the predecessor image by a factor
`of four while, at the same time, the array subdivision is also related by a
`factor of four, such that each image parcel of the series images has the same
`fixed byte size, e.g., 8K bytes. Id. at col. 6, ll. 17–22.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`In another embodiment, the image parcels are compressed by a fixed
`ratio—for example, the 8K byte parcels are compressed by a 4-to-1
`compression ratio such that each image parcel has a fixed 2K byte size. Id.
`at col. 6, ll. 23–28. This allows each image parcel to fit into a single
`network data packet, which improves data delivery and avoids the
`transmission latency and processing overhead of managing image parcel
`data broken up over multiple network data packets. See id. at col. 8, ll. 15–
`22.
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim
`1 is illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced below:
`1.
`A method of retrieving large-scale images over network
`communications
`channels
`for display on
`a
`limited
`communication bandwidth computer device, said method
`comprising:
`limited communication bandwidth
`issuing, from a
`computer device to a remote computer, a request for an update
`data parcel wherein the update data parcel is selected based on
`an operator controlled image viewpoint on the computer device
`relative to a predetermined image and the update data parcel
`contains data that is used to generate a display on the limited
`communication bandwidth computer device;
`processing, on the remote computer, source image data to
`obtain a series K1-N of derivative images of progressively lower
`image resolution and wherein series image K0 being subdivided
`into a regular array wherein each resulting image parcel of the
`array has a predetermined pixel resolution wherein image data
`has a color or bit per pixel depth representing a data parcel size
`of a predetermined number of bytes, resolution of the series
`K1-N of derivative images being related to that of the source
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`image data or predecessor image in the series by a factor of
`two, and said array subdivision being related by a factor of two
`such that each image parcel being of a fixed byte size;
`receiving said update data parcel from the data parcel
`stored in the remote computer over a communications channel;
`and
`
`displaying on the limited communication bandwidth
`computer device using the update data parcel that is a part of
`said predetermined image, an image wherein said update data
`parcel uniquely forms a discrete portion of said predetermined
`image.
`
`
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Cuozzo Speed
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of
`the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as the claim construction
`standard to be applied in an inter partes review proceeding). Under the
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and absent any special
`definitions, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in view
`of the specification. In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007). Only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed,
`and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs.,
`Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`In our Decision on Institution, we applied the ordinary and customary
`meaning to the terms not expressly construed. Dec. on Inst. 11. We
`determined that the term “mesh” in claims 8 and 15 required no further
`construction. Id. Consistent with our Decision in Microsoft Corp. v.
`Bradium Tech. LLC, Case IPR2015-01434, slip op. at 9 (PTAB Dec. 23,
`2015) (Paper 15, Decision Denying Institution), which involved the ’343
`patent, we construed the term “data parcel” to mean data that corresponds to
`an element of a source image array, as the broadest reasonable interpretation
`of that term. Dec. on Inst. 10–11. Neither party proposed constructions for
`any other claim terms. Id. at 11.
`In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner proposes that for the
`term “image parcel” we adopt our construction of that term from related
`case, Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Tech. LLC, Case IPR2015-01432, slip op.
`at 10 (PTAB Dec. 23, 2015) (Paper 15, Decision on Institution) as “an
`element of an image array, with the image parcel being specified by the X
`and Y position in the image array coordinates and an image set resolution
`index.” PO Resp. 9–10. Petitioner does not oppose this construction and
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the usage of the
`term in the ’506 patent. Therefore, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction in this proceeding.
`
`“Limited Bandwidth Communications Channel”
`Patent Owner further proposes that we construe the term “limited
`bandwidth communications channel” to mean “a wireless or narrowband
`communications channel.” Id. at 10. Patent Owner states that a person of
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`ordinary skill would have understood that a limited bandwidth
`communications channel refers to the communications channel itself, not the
`device receiving the data parcels. Id. Acknowledging that the term is not
`defined in the Specification of the ’506 patent, Patent Owner argues that the
`Specification indicates that the inventors considered narrowband and
`wireless communication channels as the limited bandwidth channels. Id. at
`10–11 (citing Ex. 1002, col. 1, ll. 29–34). Patent Owner contends that
`wireless networks are a form of limited bandwidth communications channel
`as disclosed in the ’506 patent, which contemplates performance on wireless
`devices in describing its preferred embodiment of four concurrent threads.
`Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1002, col. 3, ll. 13–15, col. 8, ll. 50–53).
`Petitioner notes that both parties’ experts agree that another way to
`say “limited bandwidth” is to use the term “narrowband.” Pet. Reply 1.
`Petitioner further notes that the ’506 patent Specification does not state that
`limited bandwidth communication channels must be wireless, just that
`wireless conditions may result in limited bandwidth. Id. (citing Ex. 1002,
`col. 3, ll. 12–14; Ex. 1016, Declaration of Dr. William R. Michalson In
`Support Of Petitioner’s Reply (“Michalson Reply Decl.”) ¶¶ 19–20).
`Petitioner further notes the deposition testimony of inventor Isaac Levanon
`that limited bandwidth channels can be limited by the amount of users. Id.
`at 2 (citing Ex. 1019, Transcript of Deposition of Isaac Levanon (“Levanon
`Dep. Tr.”) at 40:18–41:10).
`The term “limited bandwidth communications channel” is not limited
`to a wireless channel, nor does it imply the cause of the limited bandwidth.
`Thus, the term “limited bandwidth communications channel” requires no
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`special construction. We apply its ordinary meaning, i.e., a communications
`channel whose bandwidth is limited.
`
`“Limited Communication Bandwidth Computer Device”
`Patent Owner proposes that we construe the term “limited
`communication bandwidth computer device” to mean “a small client for
`example, smaller, typically dedicated function devices often linked through
`wireless network connections, such as PDAs, smartphones, and automobile
`navigation systems.” PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 1002, col. 5, ll. 36–40;
`Ex. 2003, Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris (“Agouris Decl.”) ¶¶ 37–43).
`Patent Owner asserts that the ’506 patent supports this proposed construction
`because it describes a number of preferred embodiments whose goal is to
`provide a client system viable on small clients, i.e., a device constrained to
`very limited network bandwidths either through direct technological
`constraints (a limited bandwidth communications channel, as Patent Owner
`proposes construing that term) or through indirect constraints imposed on
`relatively high-bandwidth channels by high concurrent user loads. Id. at 13–
`14.
`
`Petitioner contends that the Specification’s identification of a need for
`a system that supports small clients and efficiently utilizes low to very low
`bandwidth connections does not support Patent Owner’s attempt to limit the
`term “limited communication bandwidth computer device” based on
`processing power or device size. Pet. Reply 2. According to Petitioner, the
`’506 patent describes problems with computational requirements of prior art
`transmission methods separately from those of limited network bandwidths,
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`and a person of ordinary skill would not conflate processing power or device
`size with bandwidth. Id.
`The Specification characterizes mobile computing devices, such as
`smart phones and person digital assistants (PDAs) as small clients and states
`that such small clients typically have restricted performance processors with
`limited memory that cannot support extensive graphics abstraction layers
`and are insufficient for conventional client based visualization systems.
`Ex. 1002, col. 2, ll. 49–57; col. 2, l. 64–col. 3, l. 11. The Specification does
`not connect directly these restricted performance parameters with a
`computer device having a limited communication bandwidth. The
`Specification also states that “small clients are generally constrained to
`generally to very limited network bandwidths particularly when operating
`under wireless conditions,” noting that such conditions “may exist due to
`either the direct technological constraints dictated by the use of a low
`bandwidth data channel or indirect constraints imposed on relatively high-
`bandwidth channels by high concurrent user loads.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 12–25.
`This portion of the Specification concerns communication channel and
`network issues, rather than the computing device. Thus, we agree with
`Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposed construction conflates
`communication channel and computer device issues, and consequently
`decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Instead, we apply
`the plain and ordinary meaning and construe this term to refer to a
`communications device that has a limited communication bandwidth.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`IV. ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER’S PRIOR ART CHALLENGES
`A. Relevant Principles of Law
`To prevail in challenging Patent Owner’s claims, Petitioner must
`demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are
`unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). “In an [inter partes
`review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with
`particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v.
`Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C.
`§ 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with
`particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to
`each claim”)). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic
`Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–
`27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).
`The sole ground on which we instituted inter partes review is
`Petitioner’s challenge to clams 1–21 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over the combination of Reddy and Hornbacker. A claim is unpatentable
`under § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
`in the art to which the subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the
`basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and
`content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject
`matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) where in
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving
`obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum
`Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`time it was made, 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires us to determine the level of
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham,
`383 U.S. at 17. “The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in
`the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness
`inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir.
`1991).
`The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is
`presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re
`GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of
`one with ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered,
`including the types of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to
`those problems, the sophistication of the technology, rapidity with which
`innovations are made, and educational level of active workers in the field.
`Id. In a given case, one or more factors may predominate. Id. In addition,
`we are guided by the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior
`art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d. 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
`2001). Generally, it is easier to establish obviousness under a higher level of
`ordinary skill in the art. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A less sophisticated level of skill
`generally favors a determination of nonobviousness . . . while a higher level
`of skill favors the reverse.”).
`Relying upon the Declaration of Dr. William R. Michalson
`(Ex. 1005, “Michalson Decl.”), Petitioner asserts that, at the time of the
`priority date of the ’506 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the
`technology disclosed in the ’506 patent would have had a Master of Science
`or equivalent degree in electrical engineering or computer science, or
`alternatively a Bachelor of Science or equivalent degree in electrical
`engineering or computer science, with at least 5 years of experience in a
`technical field related to geographic information system or the transmission
`of digital image data over a computer network. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1005
`¶¶ 27–31).
`Patent Owner cites the Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris (Ex. 2003)
`and asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a
`Bachelor of Science or equivalent degree in electrical engineering or
`computer science. PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 16–18). In addition,
`Patent Owner argues that the education levels of the listed inventors for the
`’506 patent indicate that no master’s degree is required. Id.
`Patent Owner’s argument against a master’s degree is unpersuasive
`because “[t]he actual inventor’s skill is irrelevant” to the level of skill of a
`hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art. Standard Oil Co. v. Am.
`Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 454 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Nonetheless, the
`parties’ definitions are not necessarily inconsistent because Dr. Agouris
`opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`would have had at least two years of experience in image and graphics
`processing including developing, designing, or programming client-server
`software for computer networked environments beyond a bachelor’s degree.
`Ex. 2003 ¶ 17. First, we do not perceive any meaningful difference between
`the parties’ definitions of the technical field of the required experience.
`Second, the parties do not argue, nor do we find, that the difference between
`two and five years of experience by a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would impact the obviousness inquiry in any way in this proceeding. Based
`on the foregoing, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the invention of the ’506 patent would have had a Bachelor of
`Science or equivalent degree in electrical engineering or computer science as
`well as two to five years of experience in a technical field related to
`geographic information system or the transmission of digital image data over
`a computer network.
`
`C. Asserted Ground of Obviousness of Claims 1–21 over
`the Combination of Reddy and Hornbacker
`
`1. Introduction
`Petitioner cites Reddy as teaching a system for retrieving massive
`terrain data sets using a client, such as a personal computer (PC) that can be
`implemented with a plug-in for a standard browser, i.e., the VRML (Virtual
`Reality Markup Language) browser plug-in. Pet. 18–19, 26–27. According
`to Petitioner, Reddy allows the user to browse on-line geographic
`information in standard VRML, thereby providing compatibility with
`different sources, and enables access for a standard personal computer, such
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`as a laptop over the worldwide web (WWW), instead of a specialized high-
`speed network. Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 9, 31, 39, 48).
`Petitioner cites Hornbacker as using graphical web browsers on client
`systems to view large images divided into tiles. Pet. 27–28 (citing Ex. 1003,
`Abstract, 6:20–7:1, 13:28–14:11, 14:26–28). According to Petitioner, like
`Reddy, Hornbacker addresses similar technical issues as those addressed in
`the ’506 patent, i.e., network and system performance problems in accessing
`large image files from a network file server. Id. at 19–20. The ’506 patent
`states, “As well recognized problem with such conventional systems could
`be that full resolution image presentation may be subject to inherent transfer
`latency of the network.” Ex. 1002, col. 1, ll. 52–55. Petitioner cites
`Hornbacker as teaching methods of dividing large data sets into tiles,
`compressing those tiles, and requesting the appropriate tiles over a network.
`Pet. 15.
`Patent Owner contends that Reddy fails to disclose several of the
`elements recited in the claims, including the “limited bandwidth computer
`device” and the “limited bandwidth communications channel” recited in
`independent claims 1, 8, or 15, and that a person of ordinary skill would not
`select Reddy when considering a bandwidth limited situation because Reddy
`discloses a high bandwidth communications channel and a device requiring
`extensive software to be loaded onto the user computer. PO Resp. 18–20.
`Patent Owner contends that Hornbacker also does not disclose several claim
`elements including selecting the defined data parcel to provide for a
`progressive resolution enhancement of the defined image, as recited in
`independent claims 8 and 15. Id. at 18–19.
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill would not have
`been motivated to cure Reddy’s deficiencies by combining its teachings with
`those of Hornbacker because (i) Hornbacker is directed document processing
`for GIS applications having very different technical constraints than those of
`Reddy, and (ii) Reddy uses specialized client-based image software to pre-
`compute tiles and share them among clients with the goal of real-time “fly
`over” system performance, so that low resolution tiles can reside in the
`memory of a client and be accessed as necessary, whereas Hornbacker
`avoids such client based software by using HTTP requests to a server that
`creates tiles on demand in a server based, computationally intensive process
`unsuitable for real-time processing. Id. at 20–21.
`Patent Owner further contends that objective considerations
`demonstrate that the claimed subject matter is not obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a). Id. at 52–61.
`Our Decision on Institution analyzed Petitioner’s challenges and the
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response in the context of claim elements
`designated by Petitioner (e.g., 1.A, 1.B, 15.A, 15.B). For consistency, we
`use the same claim element designations in this Decision. Independent
`claim 1 and claims 2–7 that depend from claim 1 are drawn to a method.
`Independent claim 8 and claims 9–14 that depend from claim 8, as well as
`independent claim 15 and claims 16–21 that depend from claim 15, are
`drawn to an apparatus.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`2. Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`a. Overview of Reddy
`Reddy “aim[s] to enable visualization of near photographic 3D
`models of terrain that can be on the order of hundreds of gigabytes,”
`allowing users to select dynamically particular sets of geo-referenced data.
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 2, 10. Reddy implements its functionality in a standard VRML
`browser for downloading over the World Wide Web, using Java scripting to
`extend VRML’s base functionality and the External Authoring Interface to
`provide application-specific management of a virtual geographic
`environment. Id. ¶¶ 9, 10. Reddy also discloses a custom terrain
`visualization package (TerraVision II) that can browse standard VRML data
`structures. Id. ¶ 9. Although TerraVision II is not required to view the
`content, its specialized browser level optimizations “offer increased
`efficiency and seamless interaction with the terrain data.” Id. ¶¶ 9, 48.
`Recognizing that the time to download and render a terrain model
`would prohibit real time interaction, Reddy employs level of detail (LOD)
`techniques to change a model’s complexity based on selection criteria, such
`as distance from the viewpoint or projected screen size. Id. ¶¶ 12–13.
`Reddy uses a tiled pyramid representation to provide a view dependent
`technique that can vary the degree of simplification relative to the current
`viewpoint using a hierarchical data structure (such as a quad tree), without
`requiring access to the entire high resolution version of the data set (as that
`would limit viewing to data sets that can fit within a user’s local storage).
`Id. ¶ 14. Reddy’s pyramid model provides a multiresolution hierarchy for a
`data set in which an original image, e.g., a 1024 x 1024 image, can be down
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`sampled at lower resolutions, e.g., 512 x 512 pixels, 256 x 256 pixels, and
`128 x 128 pixels. Id. ¶ 15. Each image is then segmented into rectangular
`tiles, each tile having the same pixel dimensions. Id. Using this approach, a
`tile at a given pyramid level maps onto four tiles on the next higher level,
`such that at each higher resolution area, the tiles cover half the geographic
`area of the previous level. Id. Reddy states that its tiled image
`representation “optimize[s] the amount of data transferred over a network”
`because “we need only fetch and display for the region that the user is
`viewing, and only at sufficient resolution for the user’s viewpoint.” Id. ¶ 17.
`Reddy employs terrain tile files (that describe actual elevation and
`image texture data), feature files (that describe objects such as building and
`roads in a geographic areas), tree files (that implement part of the
`multiresolution hierarchy), and geotile files (that contain links to all data
`within a single tile). Id. ¶¶ 18, 19, 22. To implement the multi-resolution
`hierarchy, a tree file initially loads a single geotile. Id. ¶ 19. When a
`ProximitySensor recognizes a user’s approach, the geotile is replaced with
`four higher resolution tree files that in turn inline geotiles for the four quad
`tree children, using Reddy’s QuadLOD feature (instead of VRML’s Inline
`node). Id. ¶¶ 19, 21. Except for extending the tree for higher resolution, the
`hierarchy of tree files need to be generated only one time. Id.
`A user browses terrain data using a standard VRML plug-in for
`Internet browsers, such as Internet Explorer. Id. ¶ 31. Reddy discloses
`using a Java applet running in the Internet browser and communicating with
`the VRML plug-in to traverse a scene graph of a loaded terrain and modify
`the switch node settings in each geotile file to select different data sets, as
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`well as modified inline nodes that expose the inlined VRML file. Id. ¶¶ 31–
`32. This approach makes it possible to inspect and modify any part of the
`VRML scene. Id. Noting that the three standard navigation default types in
`VRML are walk, examine, and fly, Reddy discloses three additional
`specialized functions to navigate a large geographic database: (i) terrain
`following (to deal with earth curvature), (ii) altitude based velocity (to
`achieve a constant pixel flow across a screen), and (iii) active maps (a Java
`applet that manages a map display using a ProximitySensor placed around
`the entire scene to project a 3D geocentric coordinate onto the map, allowing
`users to ascertain their location). Id. ¶¶ 35–37.
`TerraVision II is a custom VRML browser specifically designed to
`optimize navigation of Reddy’s VRML databases. Id. ¶ 39. TerraVision II
`has the following advantages over a standard VRML browser: (i) visibility
`culling using a fast quad-tree search of the multiresolution hierarchy (id.
`¶ 41), (ii) level of detail improvement using projected screen size to decide
`when to reduce terrain detail considering such factors as display size and the
`angle at which the user views the terrain (id. ¶ 42), (iii) techniques to address
`discontinuities resulting from adjacent tiles of different resolutions (id. ¶ 43),
`(iv) maintenance of a low resolution terrain representation and a progre
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
