`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 17, 2019
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and MINN CHUNG,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONR:
`
`
`ALYSSA HOLTSLANDER, ESQ.
`Unified Patents Inc.
`1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Floor 10
`Washington, D.C. 20009
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`CHRISTOPHER COULSON, ESQ.
`Bunson De Mory LLP
`701 El Camino Real
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, September
`
`17, 2019, commencing at 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: All right. Good morning everybody.
`
`
`This is the oral hearing in case IPR2018-00952. Just to remind everybody
`Judge Chung is participating remotely so anything that you refer to you need
`to identify by exhibit number or page number or document number so that
`he can find it in the record and please speak clearly from the microphones so
`that Judge Chung can hear you.
`
`
`A couple of preliminaries. In this particular case I believe there
`had been a Motion to Amend filed and that Motion to Amend has been
`withdrawn and we also discussed during the prehearing conference that the
`parties would rest on their papers with respect to real party at interest issues
`and so this hearing is open to the public and is not confidential. If at any
`point some subject matter comes up that anyone thinks should be
`confidential, please alert us and then we'll decide how to handle it probably
`in a closed session at the end.
`
`
`So all that remains then is the case in chief. Each party will
`have 30 minutes of argument time and we'll start with the Petitioner, then the
`Patent Owner. Petitioner can then use whatever time it reserved to rebut and
`the Patent Owner gets a surrebuttal directed to the Petitioner's rebuttal. I
`would invite, beginning with Petitioner's counsel, to please introduce
`yourselves.
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Thank you, Your Honor. My name is
`
`
`Alyssa Holtslander representing Unified Patents and with me is co-counsel
`Roshan Mansinghani.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Thank you. And for the Patent
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`Owner.
`MR. COULSON: Good morning, Your Honor. My name is
`
`
`Chris Coulson with the law firm Bunson De Mory. With me is Mike
`Shanahan of Bradium.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: All right. I assume everyone is ready
`to begin?
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`
`MR. COULSON: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Let's go to it.
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Your Honors, I have paper copies of
`
`
`our slides which (indiscernible.)
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Please bring them up, sure. Make
`sure the court reporter has one.
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Yes, Your Honor. She already has
`one.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: And we take them from the Patent
`
`
`Owner now at this time too. Thank you very much. Is there some time you
`want me to alert you to?
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Yes. I'd like to reserve ten minutes for
`rebuttal please.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay. All right. Please begin.
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Thank you, Your Honors. Today I'm
`on slide 2 here and just as an overview of what I'm going to discuss, first I
`will give an overview of the patent at issue here. Then I will discuss how
`the prior art that was discussed in the petition renders claim 20 obvious and
`it's important to note here that Patent Owner has disclaimed all other claims
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`of the patent so what was dependent claim 20 is now the only claim at issue
`here. Finally, there was discussion in the papers regarding why the Board
`should not terminate this proceeding, however I'm not going to get into that
`issue further unless the Board has questions on it.
`
`
`On slide 3, the patent at issue is U.S. 9,253,239 and the major
`problem that this patent was trying to address was the issue of transmitting
`very large full resolution images over the internet as requested by a user and
`these images could be very complex such as geographic, topographic and
`other highly detailed maps and the problem they were trying to solve was
`improving the transfer latency of these images.
`
`
`On slide 4. Now the proposed solution for this problem
`includes a core concept of dividing up these complex images into different
`image data parcels that correspond to derivative images. These derivative
`images have different resolutions and breaking up these large complex
`images allows the smaller portions to move more quickly over the network
`to be received and viewed by the user more quickly.
`
`
`Now in addition to this core solution of the patent, the patent
`also describes a way to prioritize how these image parcels are transferred.
`One way that the patent describes how to prioritize the image parcels is
`based on resolution such that there is a progressive improvement of the
`display, that is the lower resolution images are transferred before higher
`resolution images. In addition, another feature or add-on of this patent is
`that when it's doing this prioritization, it can also take into account changes
`in the viewing frustum.
`
`
`Now I'm going to move to slide 28 to show you the patent. I'll
`give you a moment to get there. Now this claim is a very long claim and I'm
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`not going to go into every aspect of what is claimed here but as a general
`matter this claim relates to issuing a first request for an image portion that's
`based on a first user controlled viewpoint, receiving that image portion and
`displaying that image portion. It also relates to issuing a second request for
`another image portion that's based on a second viewpoint that is different
`from the first viewpoint, receiving that second update data parcel and then
`displaying that image portion.
`
`
`Now the important part of this claim is in the Wherein clause
`because this clause lays out the core solution that this patent proposes and
`that is breaking down these large complex images into derivative images that
`vary based on resolution. Claim 1 does not claim a prioritization at all.
`
`
`Now moving on to slide 29, claim 20 is dependent from claim 1
`and adds a step for prioritizing the first request and the second request but it
`does not specify exactly how this prioritization must occur and as we
`discussed with respect to slide 4, there are multiple types of prioritization
`described in the patent.
`
`
`Now moving back to slide 5, this is really just a summary of
`what I discussed with respect to independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2.
`The main element --
`
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Counsel.
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Before we go on maybe you can step back.
`I know there is claim construction, or at least (indiscernible) claim
`construction issue, so determining the priority of the first request and the
`second request how do you read that? What are we determining priority of?
`Are we determining a relationship between the two, a priority between the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`two, a priority of the first and then subsequently a priority of the second?
`Just break down at a high level how I'm supposed to read this.
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Sure, Your Honor. So I am going to
`get into this issue in much more detail but at the very high level we believe
`that this claim is very broad and Your Honors recognized that in the
`Institution decision as well, and we believe that this claim is broadly read to
`include both determining a priority of the first request with other requests
`within that first viewpoint, as well as the second request with respect to
`other requests within that viewpoint. It can also include determining priority
`based on the changes in the viewpoint from the first viewpoint to the second
`viewpoint. We believe it's a broad claim that includes both of those issues
`and there's been no disclaimer in this case that would say otherwise.
`
`
`JUDGE CHUNG: Counsel.
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`
`JUDGE CHUNG: This is Judge Chung. So my question is
`does the specification describe both embodiments you discussed?
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Yes.
`
`
`JUDGE CHUNG: Two different types of -- okay. Can you
`point us to that?
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Yes, Your Honor, and let's go ahead
`and move down two slides to address this issue. So in particular if we go to
`slide 10, the patent broadly describes how users can change viewpoints
`using a frustum control system and the specification teaches that one way to
`do a prioritization is based on resolution within that viewpoint and in
`particular here the portion of the patent that's excerpted it talks about
`determining request prioritization such that there is progressive
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`improvement in display resolution within the field of view presented on the
`client display.
`
`
`So this is within that field of view there is a prioritization that
`occurs, and on slide 11 the specification provides a little more detail about
`exactly how this prioritization occurs. In particular, the image parcels with
`lower resolution levels will accumulate greater priority values. This allows
`the lower resolution image parcels to be downloaded first and then this
`provides the user with a complete image of at least low resolution before the
`higher resolution aspects are added to the image. Now moving on to --
`
`
`JUDGE MOORE: So could you --
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Sure.
`
`
`JUDGE MOORE: -- like apply that concept to the words of the
`claim. So the claim says priority of the first request, so in here you have
`lower resolution, higher resolution, tell me where the request is and how the
`priority relates to the request in the example that you're taking from the spec.
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Sure, Your Honor. So as I mentioned
`on slide 10, this progressive display improvement occurs within each
`viewpoint that the user is looking at. So there may be multiple requests from
`the first viewpoint and then there also may be multiple requests from the
`second viewpoint. Determining priority of the first request, the system may
`look at is that first request a low resolution image, a medium resolution
`image or a high resolution image and how am I going to prioritize that with
`respect to other requests from that viewpoint? In addition at the second
`request, again, there can be multiple requests based on the resolution which
`the specification describes and the patent's -- that prioritization would again
`determine if it was a lower resolution image that I want to prioritize, higher
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`or medium or high resolution image.
`
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Thank you.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: The first and second request, because
`this is where it gets a little confusing, it's almost like you're talking about
`priorities within the request. So there's a first request and there's a second
`request and when it says determining priority of the first request and the
`second request, it sounds like we're talking about multiple requests within
`the first request and determining a priority in there versus determining a
`priority of the first request over the second request. Is that reasonable?
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: So to clarify, where the patent claimed
`one request from the first viewpoint --
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Uh-huh.
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: -- the way the specification lays out
`the system it does not limit it to one request. There can be multiple requests
`based on a single viewpoint because the way the computer works a user may
`select a certain viewpoint. The system then sends multiple requests because,
`as I mentioned, these images are broken down into smaller parts --
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Stop right there. When you talk about
`multiple requests right there, before we've gotten to the -- because it sounds
`like there you're talking about the first request and then multiple requests
`and those multiple requests is that the second request, the third request or is
`it just the first request with multiple requests inside it?
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: It would be additional like third and
`fourth requests.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay. So, and I understand the
`concept that you can get like first request and the second request from the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`same viewpoint, but what I'm having trouble with is what your construction
`is regarding the first request and the second request because you said
`multiple, you know, there's multiple things going on here so.
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Yes. An example of how this would
`work is based on what Patent Owner's proposed in their amended claims
`which are now withdrawn, they proposed claiming multiple requests from
`the same viewpoint.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay.
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: As an additional feature.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay. Thank you.
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: You're welcome. So now I want to
`move on to slide 12 which talks about the other way that prioritization can
`occur and this is that prioritization can also occur based in part on changes in
`the viewing frustum, and what the specification describes is this allows the
`priority order to dynamically reflect changes in the viewing frustum or to re-
`prioritize the requests.
`
`
`On slide 13, Patent Owner acknowledges that there are these
`two types of advantages to the specification. There is the one advantage
`which is this prioritization within each viewpoint and then there is another
`advantage which, as I note, is a re-prioritization of requests based on
`different viewpoints. Now the claim does not require a re-prioritization.
`The claim is very broad and it can include both of these advantages.
`
`
`JUDGE CHUNG: Counsel?
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`
`JUDGE CHUNG: So claim 1, which is the base claim for
`claim 20, expressly requires that the second image viewpoint is different
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`from the first image viewpoint.
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`
`JUDGE CHUNG: So does that mean that claim 1 is directed to
`prioritizing the request across two different viewpoints?
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: No, Your Honor.
`
`
`JUDGE CHUNG: (Indiscernible.)
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Claim 1 doesn't have any prioritization
`claimed within it and when you get to, and like I said claim 1 really deals
`with the breaking down of the image parcels into smaller less complex
`pieces, but when you get to claim 20 which is the step for determining the
`priority it does not require that the claim priority be based on changes of the
`viewpoint. In fact, we know that Patent Owner knew how to make such a
`claim because they made a claim comparing different requests in their now
`withdrawn Motion to Amend. This is just a broad prioritization and the
`prioritization can occur between multiple requests of the first viewpoint and
`multiple requests of the second viewpoint. Now, we don't claim that Patent
`Owner's interpretation should be excluded from the claim. We think it's
`broad enough to include both interpretations.
`
`
`JUDGE CHUNG: Okay. Thank you for the explanation.
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: You're welcome.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Actually I have another question
`about that because I'm getting, again, maybe distracted by parts of claim 1.
`But, you know, you issue the first request and then the second request is for
`a second update data parcel and that says the second update data parcel is
`selected based on the second user controlled image viewpoint. So my
`question is, does it have to be a different viewpoint? Does the second
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`request concern a different viewpoint?
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: The second request does concern a
`different viewpoint, however the prioritization doesn't need to be based on
`that change or comparing the two.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay. All right.
`
`
`JUDGE MOORE: So maybe I can try to put something out
`here. Determining priority of the first request, could that be done
`independent of determine the priority of the second request. In other words,
`does the second request need to be involved at all in determining the priority
`of a first or both?
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: No, it doesn't need to be. Now just on
`slide 15, I think it's important to note that this case is under broadest
`reasonable interpretation. However, as we all know even under Phillips
`interpretation, it would be improper to import a particular embodiment of the
`patent into the claim when the claim language is broader than the
`embodiment, and as I noted earlier there is no disclaimer in this case. There
`was one Office Action issued which was merely a double patenting rejection
`that did not address the merits of, or the specifics of claim 20, and there's
`also no disclaimer in the specification.
`
`
`JUDGE CHUNG: Yes. Just to clarify your explanation, so you
`argued that the claim is broad enough to cover prioritization within each
`view.
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Yes.
`
`
`JUDGE CHUNG: So in that embodiment, you know, how does
`
`
`claim 1 which is a base claim for claim 20 and claim 20 read on that
`embodiment when issuing a first request for the first parcel (phonetic)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`selected based on the first user controlled image viewpoint and issuing a
`second request for the second data parcel based on the second user
`controlled image viewpoint which is different from the first viewpoint. I
`mean, with respect to the embodiment, where prioritization is determined
`within each view, how does this claim read on that embodiment?
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: So in particular the claim does not
`limit the request to only these two requests, one from a first viewpoint and
`one from a second viewpoint. The claim allows for additional requests
`which, as I mentioned in Patent Owner's withdrawn Motion to Amend, they
`added additional requests within the viewpoint. The prioritization broadly of
`claim 20 allows for there to be multiple requests from the first viewpoint and
`multiple requests from the second viewpoint and the prioritization to occur
`within each of those viewpoints.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: So multiple requests from the first
`viewpoint, is that the first request?
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: No. Again, the first -- that would be a
`third and fourth request.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay. But it's not the second one?
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: No, it's not the second one.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: All right. Now I understand. You're
`saying when it says the first request and the second request they are
`distinguished because they must come from different viewpoints but the
`third request comes from the same viewpoint that the first request came
`from. The second viewpoint could come from the same, the fifth one could
`come from the same as the second, the same viewpoint?
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Right.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay. All right. Now I have a much
`
`
`better feel for that.
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: So now --
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Until the Patent Owner gets up here.
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Now I would like to move on to slide
`16 to applying the prior art references to this claim feature and I need to first
`note that we've talked a lot about how this claim feature should be
`interpreted but the prior art renders it obvious either way. On slide 17
`there's not really --
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Just to alert you you've used up that
`first 15 minutes.
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Yes. I'll just take a few minutes to
`wrap up. Thank you.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: That's okay. I just wanted to alert
`you.
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: So on slide 17 Reddy discloses a
`
`
`progressive course defined algorithm to load and display new data and as
`you can see in figure 1, the different blocks shown show how it divides the
`image up into the smaller portions that can be sent more easily over the
`internet and it prioritizes requests from low resolution first to medium and
`then high resolution tiles, and this is just how the patent does it.
`
`
`Furthermore, on slide 18 just like the patent a user can click on
`different locations and change the viewpoint and then this additional
`prioritization would occur at the various viewpoints.
`
`
`Now moving quickly on to slide 20. In addition to the
`embodiment, what I just spoke about at Reddy, Reddy also discloses a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`prefetching and flyover features and what this allows is a user can initially
`click on a certain location of the map that they're viewing and then they can
`select a direction and speed that they want to fly over the map and this
`allows them to change viewpoints along that path and Reddy discloses that
`these images should be prioritized to create a flyover effect for the user and
`this prioritization would require that the earlier viewpoints be prioritized
`over the later viewpoints as the user is moving across the land.
`
`
`Now it's important to notice that the issue of the prioritization
`between viewpoints isn't really what Patent Owner is arguing about. What
`they're focusing on is whether or not Reddy has a second user controlled
`viewpoint where this prioritization occurs and in this instance, even though
`Patent Owner didn't provide a construction for claim 20 they did provide a
`construction for user controlled image viewpoints. In particular, the two
`viewpoints controlled by the user, for example, by user navigational controls
`and Petitioner doesn't disagree with this construction. But Patent Owner's
`definition does not require that a user have a direct selection of every single
`viewpoint, that is they don't need to enter in the coordinates or they don't
`need to select every single portion of the map that they want to view.
`Rather, it merely allows the user to use navigational controls to control the
`viewpoint, for example, setting a flight path with a mouse or the keyboard to
`show the direction that a user wants to go to. In this way, every viewpoint
`along that user controlled flight path is a user controlled viewpoint.
`
`
`Now finally moving on to slide 22, I want to talk briefly about
`the motivation to combine Reddy and Rosasco. In particular, on slide 23
`Rosasco discloses a prioritization algorithm. So to the extent Reddy doesn't
`actually provide the specific algorithm for how its prioritization is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`accomplished, Rosasco discloses this. In particular a user can put in a
`texture modulation request. The system determines which image sets that
`are needed to fulfill the request and the image sets are prioritized based on
`viewpoints of the user and particularly that's more closely parallel with the
`line of sight are given priority in sorting to provide helpful and informative
`displays. Now a person of ordinary skill in the art would have applied this
`teaching to Reddy in order to have more helpful and informative displays in
`conducting the prioritization.
`
`
`On slide 24 again these references are analogous art. They
`address a common technical issue and are both applicable to mapping related
`applications. In addition, the problems described by Reddy related to
`limited computing resources are addressed by Rosasco's prioritization
`relevant to limited means.
`
`
`Again, just slide 26 shows how a user would have applied
`Rosasco's broad teaching of a prioritization algorithm to Reddy's disclosure
`of having tiles for multiple viewpoints and wanting a way to prioritize those
`tiles so that it's most beneficial to the user.
`
`
`With that, I'll reserve the rest of my time unless you have any
`further questions.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: No. You'll have five minutes.
`
`
`MS. HOLTSLANDER: Thank you.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Mr. Coulson, can I alert you at any
`amount of time?
`
`
`MR. COULSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Five minutes.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: All right. Proceed.
`
`
`MR. COULSON: Your Honors, Petitioner misinterprets the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`claim scope reading it overly broadly such that it could read on any
`prioritization or indeed, as in Rosasco, any sorting of data related to image
`processing. They also misread the prior art, the prior art being silent as to
`any prioritization algorithms on which Petitioner relies or would otherwise
`misinterpret the prior art. Additionally, a third point I'll make is that this
`petition should be terminated based on the Board to exercise its discretion --
`request that the Board exercise its discretion to terminate. I'll cover that at
`the end of my presentation. Your Honors, claim 20 as I mentioned is not so
`broad as the Petitioner suggests. First the claim should be read in the
`context of claim 1 and there's two features, or in the context of claim 1.
`
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Counsel, for the record if you could refer to
`which demonstrative you're referring to.
`
`
`MR. COULSON: Your Honor, I'm on slide 6 of our Exhibit
`2060 as our claim language. So as the Board mentioned earlier claim 1
`requires a first user controlled image viewpoint on which a first request is
`selected based upon and a second different user viewpoint for which it is the
`basis for the second request and the determination of claim 20 must be
`determining priority of the first request and the second request. The claim
`does not say determining the priority of the first request and determining
`priority of the second request. So the plain language supports Bradium's
`construction.
`
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Well the claim doesn't say between the first
`request and the second request, it simply says priority of first request and
`second request. How are you reading that the first request and the second
`request have to be related in terms of priority? How do you read that so that
`it says determining priority between the first and second request, or is that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`how you're reading it?
`
`
`MR. COULSON: Your Honor, we're not reading it to insert the
`word between as Petitioner suggested. I know Petitioner has a slide where
`they took the word between from a sentence in our brief. We're relying on
`the plain meaning and what we're relying on as well, Your Honor, is and I
`think I'll address now what the Board asked us to address on the conference
`call. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation we were looking for an
`interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his
`invention in the specification. The specification strongly supports the
`interpretation that Bradium was suggesting. I'll move now to slide 8.
`
`
`JUDGE CHUNG: Counsel?
`
`
`MR. COULSON: Yes.
`
`
`JUDGE CHUNG: I have an even more basic question. As you
`just pointed out claim 1 recites selecting update data parcel based on a first
`or second user controlled image viewpoint whereas claim 20 which depends
`from claim 1 recites determining priority of the first request and the second
`request. So claim 1 recites that it's the selection of data parcel that's based
`on an image viewpoint, how do you get from the recitation that the update
`data parcels are selected based an image viewpoint to the requirement that
`the determining priority has to be based on a user image viewpoint?
`
`
`MR. COULSON: Well, Your Honor, let me try to answer Your
`Honor's question this way. So we are not -- I would disagree with how
`Petitioner characterized our position. We're not looking for a particular
`change in viewpoint. What we're looking for is simply what the claim
`requires. You issue a request based on a first user controlled viewpoint.
`You issue a second request based on a different second user control
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`viewpoint and you determine priority of this first request you issued and the
`second request you issued based on -- you determine the priority of both the
`first request you issued and the second request you issued.
`
`
`JUDGE CHUNG: So my question was that what's expressly
`recited in claim 1 is that the selection of a data parcel is based on a user
`image viewpoint.
`
`
`MR. COULSON: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`
`JUDGE CHUNG: Right. And the request for this data parcel
`may not be based on user image viewpoint. You may select a data parcel
`based on image viewpoint but the request for that may be prioritized based
`on a different criteria.
`
`
`MR. COULSON: Indeed, Your Honor, I agree. As we'll cover
`in the patent, the patent has a single embodiment with a priority queue in
`which you place requests for your current viewpoint and you then place
`other requests for later viewpoints and then as I'll cover in column 10, you're
`going to go ahead and prioritize or rank within that queue, the queue having
`all of your viewpoints from all of their requests based on the various prior
`viewpoints and your current viewpoint, and what's taught in column 10 is
`prioritizing based on size of the parcel in the current viewing area and also
`closeness to the center of the particular viewing area in that condition.
`That's the function S covered in column 10.
`
`
`So you can use different criteria to rank, that's not a problem,
`and the patent tells you how to do it in a queue, how to rank requests from
`viewpoint one, requests from viewpoint two or three, four, five. They're in a
`queue and you rank them. If the request happens to be for a parcel in the
`area you're viewing towards the middle, that'll rank higher whereas that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`request off to the side may be based on a prior viewpoint that you're no
`longer looking at, that'll fall to the bottom. You've now ranked requests that
`are based on different viewpoints in this single preferred embodiment.
`
`
`I'd like to explain that in some detail because I think it really
`brings clarity to the claim. I do not believe that there are two separate
`embodiments. I agree there are advantages in the patent and maybe I'll just
`touch on that right now. So, yes, if you're going to rank different requests
`that are based on various viewpoints, that'll give you an advantage. If you
`stay and look in one particular place for a while, you'll progressively
`improve the resolution of that particular pla