`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`_________________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`IPR201 8-00952
`
`US. 9,253,239
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`BRADIUM BROADENED THE SCOPE OF THE CLAIMS ....................... 1
`
`THE MOTION TO AMEND IS UNSUPPORTED ........................................ 3
`
`III.
`
`NEW CLAIM 21 IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE CLAIM .................................... 5
`
`CLAIMS 20 AND 21 ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`The Proposed Claims Are Indefinite ..................................................... 6
`
`B.
`
`The Proposed Claims Are Obvious ....................................................... 7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (per curiam) .......................... 6
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007) ................................. 15, 16
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014) ............................... 6
`
`Western Digital Corp. v. SPEX Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00082, IPR2018-00084,
`
`Paper 13 (PTAB April 25, 2018) ........................................................................... 6
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(d) .................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1)(B) .......................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121 .................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2) ........................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3) ........................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`Bradium’s Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 39) should be denied. The
`
`proposed claims fail to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.121 and also fail to render the claims patentable over the prior art.
`
`I.
`
`BRADIUM BROADENED THE SCOPE OF THE CLAIMS
`A “proper substitute claim under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2) must only narrow
`
`the scope of the challenged claim it replaces and may not enlarge the scope of the
`
`challenged claim by eliminating any feature or limitation.” Paper 35, 3.
`
`Proposed claim 20 includes three requests instead of two. The original claim
`
`included a “first request” based on a first viewpoint and a “second request” based on
`
`a second different viewpoint. Proposed claim 20 includes the same “first request,”
`
`but also includes a new “second request” based on the first viewpoint and a “third
`
`request” based on a second different viewpoint which corresponds to the originally
`
`claimed “second request.” The “third request” of proposed claim 20 is broader than
`
`the corresponding “second request” in original claim 20.
`
`The original “second request” includes a “second derivative image” modified
`
`by a wherein clause requiring that “a series of K1-N derivative images . . . comprises
`
`the first derivative image and the second derivative image, . . . .” The new “third
`
`request” similarly includes a “third derivative image,” but the third derivative image
`
`is not modified by the wherein clause, as shown below.
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`The claim is also improperly broadened because there is no step for displaying
`
`the discrete portion based on the second viewpoint, i.e., “the third discrete portion.”
`
`Original claim 20 recited “displaying the second discrete portion” and “the second
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`discrete portion” being formed using a data parcel “selected based on a second . . .
`
`viewpoint,” Proposed claim 20 does not include a corresponding displaying step,
`
`i.e., “displaying the third discrete portion.” Rather, proposed claim 20 recites
`
`“displaying the second discrete portion” and defines the second discrete portion as
`
`being formed from a data parcel “based on the first … viewpoint.”
`
`II.
`
`THE MOTION TO AMEND IS UNSUPPORTED
`A motion to amend must provide support in the patent application’s
`
`specification even when claiming priority to another filing. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b).
`
`Bradium did not comply with this rule instead only providing citations to the
`
`provisional application. The specification and drawings of the application of the ’239
`
`Patent are completely different from those of the provisional application. Compare,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1019 with Ex. 1013, Part 3, 55-80. The specification was completely
`
`rewritten—none of Bradium’s citations to the provisional application correspond
`
`with the patent application’s specification.
`
`The specification contains no support for several of the elements in proposed
`
`claim 20. For example, proposed claim 20 recites:
`
`Proposed claim 20 recites the “second update data parcel uniquely forming a second
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`discrete portion,” but also requires that the system “display the second discrete
`
`portion using the third update data parcel.” There is no support for using different
`
`update data parcels to display a single discrete portion; rather the specification and
`
`Bradium’s citations to the provisional application only teach displaying a discrete
`
`portion using the data parcel that formed it as recited in original claim 20. Ex. 1027,
`
`¶¶52-54; Ex. 1013, Part 3, 59:7-9; Paper 39, 13; Ex. 1019, 6:25-7:1 (only disclosing
`
`“rendering performed asynchronously as data parcels are received”).
`
`The provisional application also does not provide support for:
`
`a series of K1-N derivative images of progressively lower image resolution
`comprises . . . 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,
`
`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.
`
`Bradium’s alleged support merely describes that “the target image . . . is represented
`
`by multiple grids of 64x64 image pixels (Figure 4) with each grid having some
`
`corresponding level of detail.” Paper 39, 15; Ex. 1019, 3:21-4:1. Neither a
`
`predetermined color or bit per pixel depth nor the resolutions being related by a
`
`factor of two is disclosed. Ex. 1027, ¶55.
`
`Finally, with respect to proposed claim 21, the provisional application teaches
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`away from “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.” Instead of teaching prioritization based on
`
`subsequently downloading the next highest resolution parcel as recited in the
`
`proposed claim, the provisional application describes downloading the parcels with
`
`the highest increase in resolution first. Ex. 1019, 8:19-21. Thus, in the case of a
`
`“zoom,” a POSA would have understood that the system described in the provisional
`
`application downloads the highest resolution parcel (additional parcel) before a
`
`lower resolution (second parcel), contrary to the proposed claim. Ex. 1027, ¶56.
`
`III. NEW CLAIM 21 IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE CLAIM
`Patent Owner may propose a “reasonable number of substitute claims;”
`
`presumably one substitute for each challenged claim. 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1)(B); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3). The motion must “identify the challenged claim that it is
`
`intended to replace” and “all proposed claims should be traceable to an original
`
`challenged claim as a proposed substitute claim for that challenged claim.” Western
`
`Digital Corp. v. SPEX Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00082, IPR2018-00084, Paper 13, 5
`
`(PTAB Apr. 25, 2018) (precedential) (emphasis added). Proposed new claim 21 is
`
`not a “substitute” claim “traceable to an original challenged claim.” Id. Bradium
`
`argues that it should be allowed to propose an additional substitute claim because it
`
`disclaimed all other claims in the patent—but cites no legal authority. Paper 39, 3-
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`
`US. 9,253,239
`
`5. In any event, Bradium does not even attempt to trace proposed new claim 21 to
`
`original claim 20 or any of the previously disclairned claims. Id.
`
`IV. CLAINIS 20 AND 21 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A.
`
`The Proposed Claims Are Indefinite
`
`Indefiniteness under the Packard standard looks to whether the claim
`
`“contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” whereas under the Nautilus
`
`standard, an issued claim is indefinite when it fails to “inform those skilled in the art
`
`about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d
`
`1307, 1310 Wed. Cir. 2014) (per curiam); Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`
`572 US. 898, 910 (2014)- Under either standard, the proposed claims are indefinite-
`
`Proposed claim 20 is indefinite at least because it recites “the second update
`
`data parcel uniquely forming a second discrete portion of the predetermined image,
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. displaying the second discrete portion .
`
`.
`
`. using the third update data parcel-” It
`
`would have been unclear to a POSA how the second discrete portion can be
`
`displayed using the third update data parcel when the second discrete portion is
`
`formed by the second update data parcel. Ex. 1027, 1157. The second update data
`
`parcel is selected based on the first viewpoint whereas the third update data parcel
`
`is selected based on the second viewpoint. Therefore, it would not be possible to
`
`uniquely form the second discrete portion using the second update data parcel (first
`
`VieWpoint) and then display the second discrete portion using the third update data
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`parcel (second viewpoint). Id.
`
`Also, the claim recites both “displaying the second discrete portion . . . using
`
`the third update data parcel” and “displaying the second discrete portion . . . using
`
`the second update data parcel.” Thus, the claims recite two steps for displaying the
`
`second discrete portion, but each step must be performed using different update data
`
`parcels. As noted above, the different update data parcels are based on different
`
`viewpoints making it impossible to complete these displaying steps. Ex. 1027, ¶58.
`
`Finally, the claim does not recite a step of displaying a third discrete portion,
`
`so there is no antecedent basis for “the step of displaying the third discrete portion.”
`
`Rather than requiring a step of displaying the third discrete portion, the claims
`
`require two separate steps of displaying the second discrete portion.
`
`The Proposed Claims Are Obvious
`B.
`The proposed claims are rendered obvious by the prior art cited in the Petition,
`
`including Reddy (Ex. 1004), Hornbacker (Ex. 1003) and Rosasco (Ex. 1018). See
`
`Paper 2, 12-71; see also Ex. 1005, ¶¶32-242. To the extent that any of the limitations
`
`are lacking from Reddy, Hornbacker, or Rosasco, those limitations are taught by
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,496,189 to Yaron et al. (“Yaron”). For the reasons presented in
`
`the Petition, and additional reasons presented below, Reddy, Hornbacker, and
`
`Rosasco teach all of the elements in the proposed claims that are identical to those
`
`in granted claim 20. Paper 2, 12-71; Ex. 1005, ¶¶32-242. Reddy, Hornbacker, and
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`Rosasco also teach the elements added to the proposed claims, as detailed below.
`
`Ex. 1027, ¶¶61-62. Furthermore, the elements added to the proposed claims 20 and
`
`21 are taught by Yaron, as detailed below. Id., ¶¶63-66.
`
`For consistency, the elements of proposed claims 20 and 21 are referenced by
`
`the same numbering as used in the Declaration of Dr. Peggy Agouris (Ex. 2055).
`
`20: [F] issuing a second request for the user computing device to 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 the predetermined image, the second update data parcel
`uniquely forming a second discrete portion of the predetermined image,
`[G] 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;
`[H] 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;
`[I] 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;
`Proposed claim 20 adds a new “second request” different from the original
`
`“second request.” The new “second request” is based on the same viewpoint as the
`
`“first request” instead of a different viewpoint. The new “second request” contains
`
`many elements identical to the elements of the “first request” discussed in the
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition. The gray elements of the claim shown above are identical to elements 1.A-
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`
`1.D (as numbered in the Petition) and are rendered obvious for at least the same
`
`reasons discussed with respect to the corresponding claim elements in the Petition.
`
`Paper 2, 24-31; Ex. 1027, ¶68. Bradium has not alleged that any of these elements
`
`render the claim patentable over the prior art. Paper 38, 40-73; Paper 39, 19-24.
`
`Proposed claim 20 has the following additions as compared to the “first
`
`request” (shown in black above): (1) that the identical elements above are performed
`
`for a “second” request, i.e., performed twice, such that there are a total of three
`
`requests, (2) that “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,” and (3) that the step of displaying the second discrete portion
`
`occurs “after the step of displaying the first discrete portion.” Ex. 1027, ¶69.
`
`These additions are taught by Reddy through its discussion of network lag
`
`tolerance. In particular, as will be detailed below, Reddy teaches requesting and
`
`displaying low resolution tiles (i.e., the “first request” having a “first update data
`
`parcel” and “first discrete portion”), requesting and displaying higher resolution tiles
`
`(i.e., the “second request” having a “second update data parcel” and “second discrete
`
`portion,” the “second update data parcel” having a “greater resolution that the first
`
`update data parcel” ) that overlay over the low resolution tiles (i.e., the “first and
`
`second discrete portions hav[ing] a first non-empty overlap area” and the second
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`discrete portion being displayed “after . . . the first discrete portion.”)
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`
`Reddy describes that TerraVision “uses a progressive coarse-to-fine algorithm
`
`to load and display new data” and that “if some high-resolution tiles have yet to
`
`arrive over the network, TerraVision simply uses the highest resolution data it has
`
`so that the user can continue to interact with the terrain.” Ex. 1004, ¶44. A POSA
`
`would have understood, or at least it would have been rendered obvious to a POSA,
`
`that when a viewpoint is at a particular point on the map, the browser would first
`
`request and download lower resolution for particular areas, then request higher
`
`resolution tiles for portions of the image that can usefully display the higher
`
`resolution data. Ex. 1027, ¶70. In Figure 1 (annotated below), the browser would
`
`first request the low-resolution tile shown in red, then the green, then the blue, which
`
`are successively higher resolution tiles in the red tile. Ex. 1005, ¶¶190-91.
`
`
`
`This is relevant for when the user-controlled viewpoint is moving as well as
`
`when the viewpoint is constant. When the user-controlled viewpoint is moving, the
`
`portions of the image utilizing higher resolution are changing as the viewpoint
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`moves. In contrast, when the viewpoint is constant, the portion of the image utilizing
`
`the higher resolution image is also constant. The graphic below, also based on Fig.
`
`1 of Reddy (adding yellow, green, and blue annotations), illustrates how the tiles
`
`from the different resolution levels in Figure 1(a) correspond to Figure 1(b):
`
`
`
`The annotations were added to this figure in the Petition to show the final
`
`resolutions seen by the user. They were not prepared to show the process of
`
`displaying the different resolution tiles. Ex. 1027, ¶72. As Mr. Wilson stated, during
`
`the rendering process it would have been obvious to a POSA that the tiles would be
`
`rendered in a progressive manner, i.e., four yellow tiles would be rendered, then four
`
`green tiles (which would all overlap the fourth yellow tile), and then four blue tiles
`
`(which would all overlap the fourth green tile). Ex. 2044, 33:16-34:13, 37:4-17,
`
`37:20-38:16, 41:14-19, 73:20-74:5. Mr. Wilson acknowledged that Reddy does not
`
`explicitly state that the fourth yellow tile is displayed, but noted that this would be
`
`obvious to address user satisfaction issues so that the user is able to view a lower
`
`resolution image until the higher resolution images are available instead of just
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`having a blank portion of the image during the waiting time. Id.; see also id., 33:2-
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`
`6. Mr. Wilson noted that “[t]here is in Reddy significant discussion of user interface
`
`issues which might entail downloading that fourth yellow tile” and “several spots in
`
`Reddy that it might be interpreted to require downloading that tile, mostly related to
`
`efficiency.” Id., 37:11-19, 37:22-38:5. For example, Reddy describes that “[u]sers
`
`must be able to navigate the VRML [(Virtual Reality Modeling Language)]
`
`structures easily and efficiently using a standard VRML browser or a customized
`
`browser that further increases browsing efficiency.” Ex. 1004, ¶7.
`
`Having the lower resolution imagery, i.e., fourth yellow tile, download first
`
`followed by the four green tiles and then the four blue tiles, would allow users to see
`
`the entire low-resolution image quickly and to respond to what is shown in the initial
`
`low-resolution image. Ex. 2044, 38:6-13. For example, a user may determine that
`
`based on the low-resolution imagery, it would be more appropriate to view the image
`
`from a different viewpoint. Ex. 1027, ¶¶73-74. Mr. Wilson discussed that Reddy’s
`
`coarse-to-fine algorithm is motivated by this efficiency goal of allowing a user to
`
`see the entire image quickly, among other things. Ex. 2044, 71:16-19; 73:20-74:5.
`
`Thus, a POSA would have understood Reddy as disclosing multiple requests (i.e.,
`
`repeating the elements of the “first” request for a “second” request such that there
`
`are a total of three requests) to progressively load higher resolution image data (i.e.,
`
`the second update data parcel having a “greater resolution” than the first update data
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`parcel and the second discrete portion being displayed “after the step of displaying
`
`the first discrete portion”) for a particular location (i.e., the first and the second
`
`discrete portions having a “first non-empty overlap area”). Ex. 1027, ¶¶73-74; Ex.
`
`1029, 4; Ex. 1030.
`
`In addition, Hornbacker and Yaron, as will be detailed below, each teach
`
`requesting and displaying low resolution tiles (i.e., the “first request” having a “first
`
`update data parcel” and “first discrete portion”), requesting and displaying higher
`
`resolution tiles (i.e., the “second request” having a “second update data parcel” and
`
`“second discrete portion,” the “second update data parcel” having a “greater
`
`resolution that the first update data parcel” ) that overlay over the low resolution tiles
`
`(i.e., the “first and second discrete portions hav[ing] a first non-empty overlap area”
`
`and the second discrete portion being displayed “after . . . the first discrete portion.”)
`
`Hornbacker teaches that a user requests an image view. Ex. 1003, 5:16-21.
`
`After the image is displayed, the user may click on an area of the image to change
`
`the resolution of the image. Id., 5:21-24. This constitutes the claimed second request
`
`from the same viewpoint. The user may continue to click on portions of the image
`
`to further change the resolution of the image in subsequent requests. Id., 5:24-25.
`
`Hornbacker teaches that due to bandwidth limitation, “it is preferred [] to implement
`
`a progressive display” and “send[] the low-resolution compressed image data for
`
`each view tile followed by the full-resolution image data for each view tile.” Id.,
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`12:28-30, 13:6-10. Thus, Hornbacker discloses that when a user clicks on an image
`
`to change the resolution of the image (i.e., makes a second request from the same
`
`viewpoint), the image data tiling would enable the higher-resolution image data (i.e.,
`
`the second update data parcel having a “greater resolution” than the first update data
`
`parcel) to be applied over (i.e., the first and the second discrete portions having a
`
`“first non-empty overlap area” and the second discrete portion being displayed “after
`
`the step of displaying the first discrete portion”) the lower-resolution image data to
`
`take into account the bandwidth limitations. Ex. 1027, ¶¶75-76.
`
`Yaron similarly discloses a system for displaying terrains in a progressive
`
`manner. Ex. 1028, 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. 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. Specifically, Yaron discloses:
`
`When the rendering program requires a block including a new point or area
`for display, the cache manager first requests the block of the lowest
`resolution level which covers the area with the least detail and then requests
`subsequent blocks with successively increasing detail until the block with the
`level of the detail required by the rendering program is sent. The rendering
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`
`program renders the three-dimensional image using the blocks it has on
`hand. Each time another block is received, the image is rendered again.
`Thus, the user sees an image at substantially all times and is not prevented
`from moving the viewpoint while additional data is being sent from the
`server. . . . Further preferably downloading one or more additional data
`blocks includes downloading the blocks from a succession of resolution
`levels, from the level immediately higher than the resolution level of the first
`block up to the maximal existent resolution level on the server not above the
`indicated resolution level.
`
`Id., 3:65-4:9, 4:29-34 (emphasis added). Yaron describes that “if viewpoint 80 is not
`
`changed, or is changed relatively slowly, the resolution level of the images displayed
`
`by renderer 72 is slowly increased until the maximal desired resolution is reached.”
`
`Id., 14:47-50. Therefore, 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. Ex. 1027, ¶¶77-78.
`
`A POSA would have been motivated, and would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success, to modify Reddy to include Yaron’s progressive display
`
`because such a combination is the use of a known technique to improve a similar
`
`device. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007). Reddy teaches a
`
`system giving a computer (e.g., PC or laptop) access to large-scale geographic
`
`information databases (comprising multi-resolution “tiled” image pyramids like
`
`those described in the ’239 Patent) via the Web by visualizing that information in
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`3D using progressive resolution enhancement to optimize the display quality and
`
`limit network bandwidth. As discussed above, “[t]here is in Reddy significant
`
`discussion of user interface issues which might entail downloading that fourth
`
`yellow tile [i.e., a lower resolution tile before overlapping higher resolution tiles]”
`
`and “several spots in Reddy that it might be interpreted to require downloading that
`
`tile, mostly related to efficiency.” Ex. 2044, 37:11-19, 37:22-38:13, 71:16-19, 73:20-
`
`74:5; Ex. 1004, ¶7; Ex. 1027, ¶79. A POSA would have recognized that the system
`
`for first rendering low resolution tiles and then overlapping higher resolution tiles in
`
`Yaron would improve the similar system of Reddy, and the combination of
`
`techniques (the progressive display as taught by Reddy with the specific disclosure
`
`of rendering higher resolution tiles overlapping over lower resolution tiles in the
`
`same viewpoint in Yaron) would have been well within the skill of a POSA. KSR at
`
`401; Ex. 1027, ¶79.
`
`A POSA would have looked to Yaron to improve the analogous system of
`
`Reddy. Both references address common technical issues in visualizing large data
`
`sets, such as maps, over a network. Ex. 1004; Ex. 1028, 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, 14:47-53; Ex. 1027, ¶80. Both
`
`reference address similar problems (e.g., optimizing and prioritizing use of
`
`bandwidth, determining which portions of a larger set of image data to request, etc.);
`
`a POSA familiar with Reddy’s teachings would have been motivated to consider the
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`analogous teachings of Yaron to solve the same problems. Ex. 1027, ¶80.
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`
`20: [J] issuing a third request from the user computing device to the one or
`more servers, over the one or more servers, over the one or more network
`communication channels, the third request being for a third update data
`parcel corresponding to a third derivative image of the predetermined
`image, the third update data parcel uniquely forming a third discrete
`portion of the predetermined image, wherein the third update data parcel
`is selected based on a second user-controlled image viewpoint on the user
`computing device relative to the predetermined image,
`[K] the second user-controlled image viewpoint being different from the
`first user-controlled image viewpoint;
`[L] receiving the 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 third update data parcel being performed
`after the step of issuing the third request;
`[M] displaying the second discrete portion on the user computing device
`using the third update data parcel, the step of displaying the third discrete
`portion being performed after the step of receiving the third update data
`parcel;
` As discussed above, the portion of the claim requiring “displaying the second
`
`discrete portion . . . using the third update data parcel, the step of displaying the third
`
`discrete portion being performed after the step of receiving the third update data
`
`parcel” is unsupported and indefinite. To the extent Bradium intends to argue that
`
`this limitation should recite “displaying the third discrete portion . . . ,” it is taught
`
`by the prior art. Petitioner does not concede that such an interpretation of this
`
`limitation is appropriate and reserves the right to contest such an interpretation as it
`
`is contrary to the plain language of the claims. Elements 20J-M including
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`“displaying the third discrete portion” are identical to elements 1.E-1.G discussed in
`
`the Petition, except that the term “second” has been changed throughout to recite
`
`“third.”1 Therefore, this limitation is obvious for the same reasons presented in the
`
`Petition for elements 1.E-1.G. Paper 2, 31-32; Ex. 1027, ¶¶81-82.
`
`20: [N] determining priority of the first, 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 update data parcel,
`[O] 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;
`This claim limitation differs from claim 20 discussed in the Petition in that it
`
`(1) requires determining priority of an additional request (the new second request)
`
`based on the first user-controlled viewpoint, (2) requires that “the first update data
`
`parcel has a greater priority and [is] requested, received, and displayed before the
`
`second update data parcel,” and (3) requires that the step of determining priority
`
`“enable[es] 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.” The Petition describes how Reddy and Rosasco disclose determining
`
`priority of the first request and what is now the third request. Paper 2, 67-71.
`
`Regarding the additional priority limitations, Reddy teaches that the
`
`
`1 The term “second user-controlled viewpoint” has not been modified.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`TerraVision II browser software uses a “progressive coarse-to-fine algorithm to load
`
`and display new data.” Ex. 1004, ¶21. The lower resolution tiles are displayed while
`
`high resolution tiles have yet to arrive. Id., ¶44. A POSA would have understood
`
`that the lower resolution tiles are prioritized such that they are requested, received,
`
`and displayed before the higher resolution tiles (which corresponds to (1) and (2)
`
`above) because this allows the user to view the lower resolution image while waiting
`
`for the higher resolution image to download. Ex. 1027, ¶84. A POSA would also
`
`have understood that this change from low resolution to high resolution of a
`
`particular portion of the image when viewed from a single user-controlled viewpoint
`
`would enable 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 (which corresponds to (3) above). Id. Furthermore, as discussed in the
`
`Petition (pp. 67-71), a POSA would have understood that for another viewpoint a
`
`similar prioritization would occur with respect to the lower-resolution requests and
`
`the higher resolution requests. See also Id. 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.
`
`
`
`Hornbacker’s system also has a prioritization in which the lower-resolution
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`requests are processed first for a particular viewpoint. Hornbacker teaches “sending
`
`the low-resolution compressed image data for each view tile followed by the full-
`
`resolution image data for each view tile.” Ex. 1003, 13:6-10. Therefore, Hornbacker
`
`discloses prioritizing the first request and the second request such that the first
`
`request (lower-resolution) is reques
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
