Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 17
`Date Entered: April 5, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIESLLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. MCNAMARA,and
`MINN CHUNG,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a petition, Paper 2 (‘“Pet.”),
`
`to institute an inter partes review of claims 1—25 (the “challenged claims”)
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 B2 (“the ’239 Patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 311.
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner’) timely filed a Preliminary
`
`Response, Paper9 (“Prelim. Resp.”), contending that the Petition should be
`
`deniedas to all challenged claims. We have jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.4(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review
`
`maynotbeinstituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows
`
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`
`respectto at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Having
`
`considered the arguments and the associated evidence presented in the
`
`Petition and the Preliminary Response, for the reasons described below, we
`
`institute inter partes review of claims 1-19 and 21-25.
`
`REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`
`The Petitioner identifies itself as the only real party-in-interest. Pet. 1.
`
`PENDING LITIGATION
`
`The Petition states that the ’239 Patent and three other patents in the
`
`same family, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,139,794 B2 (794 patent), 7,908,343 B2
`
`(343 patent), and 8,924,506 B2 (°506 patent), are being asserted against
`
`Petitioner in an on-going patent infringement lawsuit brought by Patent
`
`Ownerin Bradium Techs. v. Microsoft, 1:15-cv-00031-RGA,filed January
`
`9, 2015. Pet. 1-2. Petitioner states that Patent Ownerasserted the ’239
`
`Patent for the first time in the aforementionedlitigation by filing an
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`amended complaint on March 11, 2016, and served the Petitioner with the
`
`amended complaint on March 14, 2016. Jd. at 2. Petitioner also identifies
`
`the following petitions for inter partes review ofthe related patents:
`
`* °794 patent: IPR2015-01432,instituted Dec. 23, 2015, final written
`
`decision finding claims 1 and 2 not unpatentable entered on Dec. 21, 2016,
`Notice of Appeal filed Feb. 21, 2017;'
`
`* °343 patent:
`
`IPR2015-01434,institution denied Dec. 23, 2015
`
`IPR2016-00448,instituted July 25, 2016
`
`* °306 patent:
`
`IPR2015-01435, institution denied Dec. 23, 2015
`
`IPR2016-00449,instituted July 27, 2016.
`
`Id.
`
`THE ’239 PATENT (EXHIBIT 1001)
`
`In the ’239 Patent, large scale imagesare retrieved over network
`
`communication channels for display on client devices by selecting an update
`
`image parcel relative to an operator controlled image viewpoint to display on
`
`the client device. Ex. 1001, Abstract; 3:47-51. A request for an update
`
`imageparcelis associated with a request queue for subsequent issuance over
`
`a communication channel. Jd. at 3:51-54. The update image parcelis
`
`received in one or more data packets on the communications channelandis
`
`displayed as a discrete portion of the predetermined image. Id. at 3:54-60.
`
`The update imageparcel optimally has a fixed pixel array size and may be
`
`' The Petition wasfiled on September 30, 2016. We have included
`subsequenthistory information not available when the Petition wasfiled.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`constrained to a resolution equal to or less than the display device resolution.
`
`Id.
`
`The system described in the ’239 Patent has a network image server
`
`and a client system where a user can input navigational commandsto adjust
`
`a 3D viewing frustum for the image displayed on the client system. Ex.
`
`1001, 5:26—55. Retrieval of large-scale or high-resolution imagesis
`
`achieved by selecting, requesting, and receiving update image parcels
`
`relative to an operator or user controlled image viewpoint. Jd. at 3:48-51.
`
`Whenthe viewing frustum is changed by user navigation commands, a
`
`control block in the client device determines the priority of the image parcels
`
`to be requested from the server “to support the progressive rendering ofthe
`
`displayed image,” and the image parcel requests are placed in a request
`
`queueto be issuedin priority order. Id. at 7:45—62.
`
`Onthe server side, high-resolution source image data is pre-processed
`
`by the imageserverto create a series of derivative images of progressively
`
`lowerresolution. /d. at 6:3-8. Figure 2 of the ’239 patent is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`Xa
`
`
`
`Pat-Processen
`Pancentaace Data
`
`Fic. 2
`
`Figure 2 of the ’239 Patent
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`Figure 2 of the ’239 Patent depicts preparation of pre-processed image
`
`parcels at the network image server. See id. at 4:57-60; 6:10. Asillustrated
`
`in Figure 2, source image data 32 is pre-processed to obtain a series Ki.vof
`
`derivative images of progressively lower image resolution. Jd. at 6:6-8.
`
`Initially, the source image data—i.e., the series image Ko—is subdivided
`
`into a regular array of image parcels of a fixed byte size, e.g., 8K bytes. Id.
`
`at 6:8-13. In an embodiment,the resolution of a particular imagein the
`
`series is related to the predecessor image bya factor of four while, at the
`
`sametime, the array subdivision is also related by a factor of four, such that
`
`each imageparcel of the series images has the samefixed byte size, e.g., 8K
`
`bytes. Jd. at 6:14-18. 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 6:19-24. The image parcels are stored in a file of
`
`defined configuration, such that any parcel can be located by specification of
`
`a Kp,xy value, representing the image set resolution index D andthe
`
`corresponding image array coordinate. Jd. at 6:24—28. The TCP/IP protocol
`
`is used to deliver imageparcels, e.g., 2K-byte compressed image parcels,to
`
`the clients. Jd. at 8:10—11, 17-19. For preferred embodiments, where
`
`network bandwidthis limited, entire image parcels preferably are delivered
`
`in corresponding data packets. Jd. at 8:11—-14. 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. Jd. at
`
`8:14-17.
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
`
`Claim 1, reproduced below,is illustrative:
`
`1. A method of retrieving images over a network
`communication channel for display on a user computing device,
`the method comprising stepsof:
`issuing a first request from the user computing device to
`one or more servers, Over one or more network communication
`channels, the first request being for a first update data parcel
`corresponding to a first derivative image of a predetermined
`image, the predetermined image corresponding to source image
`data, the first update data parcel uniquely forminga first discrete
`portion of the predetermined image, whereinthe first update data
`parcel
`is
`selected based on a first user-controlled image
`viewpoint on the user computing device relative to the
`predetermined image;
`receiving the first update data parcel at the user computing
`device from the one or more servers over the one or more
`network communication channels, the step of receiving thefirst
`update data parcel being performed after the step of issuing the
`first request;
`displaying the first discrete portion on the user computing
`device using the first update data parcel, the step of displaying
`the first discrete portion being performed after the step of
`receiving the first update data parcel;
`issuing a second request from the user computing device
`to the one or more servers, over the one or more network
`communication channels, the second request being for a second
`update data parcel correspondingto a secondderivative image of
`the predetermined image, the second update data parcel uniquely
`forming a second discrete portion of the predetermined image,
`wherein the second update data parcel is selected based on a
`second user-controlled image viewpoint on the user computing
`device relative to the predetermined image, the second user-
`controlled image viewpoint being different from the first uscr-
`controlled image viewpoint;
`the user
`receiving the second update data parcel at
`computing device from the one or more servers over the one or
`more network communication channels, the step of receiving the
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`second update data parcel being performed after the step of
`issuing the second request;
`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;
`wherein:
`a series of K1-N derivative images of progressively lower
`image resolution comprises the first derivative image and the
`second derivative image, the series of K1-N ofderivative images
`resulting from processing the source image data, series image KO
`being subdivided into a regular array wherein each resulting
`image parcel of the array has a predetermined pixel resolution
`and a predeterminedcolororbit 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, and the array subdivision being related by a factor
`of two.
`
`ART CITED IN PETITIONER’S CHALLENGES
`
`Petitioner cites the following referencesin its challenges to
`
`patentability:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PCT Publication No. WO
`99/41675 to Cecil V. Hornbacker,
`Ill, publ. Aug. 19, 1999
`Reddyetal., “TerraVisionII:
`
`
`Visualizing Massive Terrain
`
`Databases
`
`
`in VRML,” IEEE Computer
`Graphics and Applications
`
`March/April
`
`1999, pp. 30-38
`USS. Patent No. 6,728,960 Bl
`issued Apr. 27, 2004
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Hornbacker
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Reddy
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`|
`Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`CHALLENGES ASSERTEDIN PETITION
`
`
`
`Challenge
`
`
`
`1-20, 23-25 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)_|OPVTOusOve!Reddy
`
`
`
`
`
`Obvious over Reddy,
`21, 22 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)|Hornbacker, and
`Loomans
`
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Weinterpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable constructionin light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee,
`
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144-46 (2016). In applying a broadest reasonable
`
`construction, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, as would be understood by oneof ordinary skill in the art in the
`context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Anyspecial definition for a claim term must
`be set forth in the specification with reasonableclarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`Data Parcel
`
`Petitioner proposes that we construe the term “data parcel” as “data
`
`that corresponds to an element of a source imagearray.” Pet. 12.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is the same construction we applied in
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Tech. LLC, Case IPR2016-00448 and Microsoft
`
`Corp. v. Bradium Tech. LLC, Case IPR2015-01434. Patent Owner does not
`
`dispute this construction. Prelim. Resp. 6. See Microsoft Corporation v.
`
`Bradium Tech. LLC, Case IPR2014-01434, slip op (PTAB Dec. 23, 2015)
`
`(Paper 15, Decision DenyingInstitution). In this proceeding, we apply
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction./
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`Image Parcel
`
`Patent Ownerproposesthat in this proceeding we adopt the same
`
`construction for “image parcel” as we adopted in Microsoft Corp. v.
`
`Bradium Tech. LLC, Case IPR2015-01432,i.e., “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 imageset resolution index.” Prelim. Resp.
`
`7. See Microsoft Corporation v. Bradium Tech. LLC, Case IPR2015-01432,
`
`slip op. at 7 (PTAB Dec. 21, 2016) (Paper 51, Final Written Decision).
`
`Petitioner does not propose a specific construction for this term. In this
`
`proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`
`Mobile Device
`
`Patent Ownerproposes that we construe “mobile device” to mean “a
`
`portable small client such as a mobile phone, smart phone,or personal
`
`digital assistant (PDA) that is constrained to limited bandwidth.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 8. Petitioner does not propose a specific construction. Patent Owner
`
`arguesthat the Specification distinguishes between “mobile device” and
`
`“user computer device” based ontheir attributes, i.e., small clients are
`
`constrained to limited processing capabilities and working with limited
`
`bandwidth networks. Jd. at 9-12; see Ex. 1001, 2:40—-55, 3:10-19. The
`
`word “mobile”in the term “mobile device” suggests a devicethat is
`
`portable. The ’239 Patent states “A mobile computing device such as a
`
`mobile phone, smart phone,tablet and or personal digital assistant (PDA)is
`
`a characteristic small client. Embedded, low-cost kiosk, automobile
`
`navigation systems and Internet enabled I connected TV are other typical
`
`examples.” Ex. 1001, 2:53-58. The Specification of the ’239 Patent further
`
`discusses the features of small clients. Jd. at 2:49-53. In view of these
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`disclosures, we are not persuadedthat the term “mobile device” requires
`
`further construction for purposes ofthis proceeding.
`
`ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER’S PRIOR ART CHALLENGES
`Introduction
`|
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 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 obviousatthe time the
`
`invention was madeto a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’] Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousnessis resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and contentofthe priorart;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the priorart;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`
`Petitionerarticulates its analysis of Reddy and Hornbackerfor each of
`
`challenged claims 1-20 and 23-25. Pet. 13-58. Patent Ownerexplicitly
`
`disputes Petitioner’s analysis of claims 20, 23 and 24, but does not provide
`
`an explicit analysis of the remaining claims, other than disputing the choice
`
`and the proposed combination ofthe prior art references. Prelim. Resp. 25—
`
`29, 34-38. Petitioner cites Reddy, Hornbacker and Loomansas rendering
`
`claims 21—22 obvious. Pet. 58-65. Patent Owner contendsthat Petitioner
`
`has not established Loomansis applicable prior art. Prelim. Resp. 23—25.
`
`Patent Owneralso explicitly contends that the combination of Reddy,
`
`Hornbacker, and Loomansdoes not render claim 22 obvious. Id. at 29-34.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`Patent Owneralso argues that a person of ordinary skill would not have been
`
`motivated to combinethe asserted references. Jd. at 34-48.
`
`Claims 1-20 and 23-25 As Obvious Over Reddy and Hornbacker
`
`Petitioner states that Reddy discloses processing large sets of source
`
`image data to create a multiresolution image pyramid that can be viewed in
`
`three dimensions using an online web browser. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs.
`
`1-4 andassociated text). Petitioner acknowledges that Reddy does not
`
`specify how requests for image tiles would identify locations and zoom
`
`levels of image tiles and cites Hornbackeras disclosing specific methodsto
`
`implementthe teachings of Reddy to identify specific needed tiles. Jd. at 14.
`
`Accordingto Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill would have been
`
`motivated to combine the teachings of Reddy and Hornbacker. Petitioner
`
`states that Reddy describes browsing techniques for requesting tiles based on
`
`user viewpoint and suggests that tiles may be located by HTTP requests
`directed to particular URLs. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1004, J 21, 26, 52°).
`
`Noting that Reddy does not explain exactly howtiles are located, Petitioner
`
`contends that Hornbackerdetails techniques, such as the structure of an
`
`HTTPrequest for identifying a particulartile at a desired location and
`
`resolution, that a person of ordinary skill would recognize assist in
`
`requesting tiles in a 3D browser, as taught by Reddy. Jd. at 20-21 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003, 5:16-6:19, 8:30-9:19, 11:19-28, Ex. 1005, Michalson Decl.
`
`q{ 120-26).
`
`? Petitioner has inserted paragraph designators in Reddy. We adopt
`Petitioner’s paragraph designators in Reddy for consistency of notation in
`this proceeding.
`
`1]
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`Asto the preamble of claim 1, i.e., a method of retrieving images over
`
`a network communication channel for display on a user communication
`
`device, Petitioner notes that Reddy discloses a system for retrieving terrain
`
`data sets including satellite and aerial imagery over the Internet with a
`
`standard Web browser on anddisplaying the images segmented into regions
`
`of different resolution on PC or laptop machine. Pet. 24.
`
`Petitioner identifies as element 1A the limitation that recites a user
`
`computerissuing a first request to a server for an update data parcel
`correspondingtoa first derivative image uniquely forming a first discrete
`portion of a predetermined image corresponding to source image data. Id. at
`
`25. Petitioner cites Reddy’s description of processing a predetermined
`
`image, suchas satellite data, into a multi-resolution pyramid of derivative
`
`images using a series of Ki, Kz, .
`
`.
`
`. Kn progressively lowerresolution
`
`derivative images and dividing the derivative imagesintotiles as disclosing
`
`this feature. Jd. at 24-27. Reddy discloses that users can browse terrain data
`
`using a VRML plug-in for browsers, such as Netscape communicator or
`
`Microsoft Internet Explorer. Ex. 1004 931. Petitioner states that Reddy
`
`describes retrieving imagetiles (“geotiles”) based on the user’s selected
`
`view using a web browserand universal resource locators (URLs). Pet. 27—
`
`28.
`
`Petitioner also cites Hornbackeras teaching that imagedatais
`
`represented by discrete derivation imagesat different resolutions and that
`
`tiles may be located via specialized URL requests that identifyatile by
`
`charactcristics such as resolution and location. Jd. at 28 (citing Ex. 1003,
`
`Abstract, 3:10-27, 5:16-25, 6:13-19, 7:26-8:6, 8:30-9:28, 10:24-28, 12:24—
`
`13:10 and 18:20—23). Thus, Petitioner argues that the problem addressed by
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`Reddy includes how to identify tiles desired to rendera particular
`
`geographic view and that a person of ordinary skill would have lookedto
`
`Hornbacker’s disclosure of identifying imagetiles using URLs basedontile
`
`coordinates and other viewing characteristics as an efficient way to specify
`
`neededtiles in Reddy. Id. at 29.
`
`Petitioner identifies as element 1B the limitation that recites selecting
`
`the first update parcel based ona first user controlled image viewpoint on
`
`the user computing devicerelative to the predetermined image.
`
`/d. Forthis
`
`limitation, Petitioner cites Reddy’s disclosure of a 2-D pan and zoom display
`
`or a 3-D simulated viewpoint chosen by the operator in whichtiles of
`
`appropriate resolution are selected based on a user’s proximity to the tile of a
`
`predetermined image. Jd. at 29-30.
`
`Petitioner identifies as limitation 1C the recitation of the user
`
`computing device receiving the first update data parcel from one or more
`
`servers over the communication channels after issuing the first request. Id.
`
`at 31. Petitioner cites as element 1D therecitation of displaying thefirst
`
`discrete portion on the user computing device on the first update data parcel
`
`after receiving the first update data parcel. Jd. Petitioner cites Ex. 1005,
`
`Declaration of Dr. William R. Michalson (“Michalson Decl.”) J 147-148)
`
`and argues that a person of ordinary skill would recognize that in Reddy the
`
`imagetiles (update data parcels) are received from a server following a:
`
`request and before they are displayed. Id.
`
`Petitioner identifies as element 1E the limitation that recites the user
`
`computer issuing over the network communication channels a second
`
`request for a second update parcel corresponding to a second derivative
`
`image of the predetermined image. Pet. 32. This limitation also recites that
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`the second update data parcel uniquely forms a second discrete portion of
`
`the predetermined image andis selected based on a seconduser controlled
`
`image viewpoint of the user computing device relative to the predetermined
`
`image,that is different from the first user-controlled image viewpoint. Jd.
`
`AsPetitioner points out, this limitation differs from those elements identified
`
`as 1A and 1B onlyinthatit recites a second request concerning a viewpoint
`
`different from that in the first request. Jd. With respect to limitation 1E,
`
`Petitioner cites Reddy’s description of zoomingor flying over an image,
`
`with requests for imagery of appropriate location and zoom levels and more
`
`detailed tiles when a user approachesa region, as disclosing the claimed
`
`requests for retrieval of updated data parcels. /d. (citing Ex. 1004 ff 3, 36—
`38).
`|
`Petitioner identifies as limitation 1F the recitation of the user
`
`computing device receiving the second update data parcel from one or more
`
`servers over the communication channels after issuing the second request.
`
`Id. at 33. Petitioner cites as element 1G therecitation of displaying the
`
`second discrete portion on the user computing device on the second update
`
`data parcel after reeving the second update data parcel. Jd. Petitioner notes
`
`that these limitations are disclosed by Reddy as discussed above with respect
`
`to limitations 1C and 1D. Jd.
`
`Petitioner identifies as limitation 1H the recitation of a series of Ki-n
`
`derivative images of progressively lower resolution that comprise thefirst
`
`and second derivative images resulting from the processing of the source
`
`image data. Jd. Petitioner cites Reddy’s disclosure, discussed above, of
`
`processing an image as a multi-resolution pyramid of images by repeated
`
`down-sampling of image data to lower resolutions at each level, as
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`supporting this limitation. /d. at 33-34 (citing Ex. 1004 JJ 14-24, 41-46,
`
`Figs. 1-3). Petitioner cites Hornbackeras disclosing that viewtiles are
`
`generated at a server by an imagetiling routine that divides an image into a
`
`grid of smaller images that are computed further for distinct resolutions. Jd.
`
`Petitioner identifies as element II the series image Ko being
`
`subdivided into a regular array and cites the disclosure in Reddy that each
`
`tile at a given level maps onto fourtiles at the next higher level and the
`
`original image Kois subdivided in a regular array of 8x8 tiles, with the next
`
`twolevels being divided into regular arrays of 4x4 and 2x2 tiles. Jd. at 35.
`
`Weagree with Petitioner that the disclosure in Reddy is substantially
`
`identical to that of the ’239 Patent’s disclosure of dividing source image data
`
`into derivative imagesof progressively lower image resolution. See id.
`
`Petitioner identifies as element 1J the recitation that each resulting
`
`image parcel has a predeterminedpixel resolution and a predeterminedbit
`
`per pixel depth. Jd. As Petitioner notes, similar to the ’239 Patent, Reddy
`
`discloses that the 64 tiles making up the 1024x1024 original image Ko are
`
`each 128x128 pixels and that that within each pyramid “all tiles have the
`
`same pixel dimensions.” Jd. (citing Ex. 1004 9] 15-16). Petitioner further
`
`cites Reddy’s disclosure of using known imagery formats, e.g. Portable
`
`Bitmap (PBM), to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill
`
`would recognize such formats as having a fixed coloror bit pixel depth. Jd.
`
`at 35-36. According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill would also
`
`knowthat the size of data representing an uncompressedtile is the product
`
`of the bit depth multiplied by the pixel dimensions. Jd. at 36. Petitioner
`
`further cites Hornbackeras explicitly disclosing the use of tiles having a
`
`predeterminedresolution andcoloror bit per pixel depth andthattiles
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`preferably are fixed at 128x128 pixels imagefiles. Jd. at 36-37. Petitioner
`
`notes that fixed sized tiling provides a more efficient mechanism for
`
`caching, identifying and locating tiles. Id.
`
`Petitioner cites as element 1K the recitation that resolution of the
`
`series Ki-n of derivative images is related to resolution of the source image
`
`data or predecessor imagein the series by a factor of two, and the array
`
`subdivision is related by a factor of two. Id. at 40. Petitioner cites Reddy’s
`
`disclosure of progressive down sampling an imageto produce layers at 4 the
`
`resolution of the previouslayer (i.e., % width x “% height=1/4 resolution),
`
`noting that becauseall tiles have the same 128 x 128 pixel dimensions each
`
`progressively lower resolution layer image includes % the numberoftiles
`
`from the previous layer. Jd. (citing Ex. 1004 ff 14-15). Based on the
`current evidence, we are persuadedby Petitioner’s argumentthatthis is the
`
`same factor of four relationship between imagesas that described in the
`
`preferred embodiment of the ’239 Patent. Petitioner cites a similar
`
`disclosure in Hornbacker. Jd. at 41 (citing Ex. 1003, 6:13-7:25, 8:7-15,
`
`14:2-16).
`Patent Ownerdoes not dispute explicitly Petitioner’s assertions
`concerning the disclosures in Reddy and Hornbacker. Based on the current
`
`record, we are persuadedthat Petitioner has demonstrated the elements of
`
`claim 1 are disclosed in the asserted combination of Reddy and Hornbacker.
`
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites determining the
`
`first user controlled image viewpoint basedat least in part on a first
`
`navigational input of the user computing device. Petitioner persuasively
`
`cites Reddy’s teaching of using map and viewpoint displays, allowing a user
`
`to click on the mapas a navigational input to move the viewpointto that
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`location. Jd. at 42 (citing Ex. 1004 9 3, 37). Claim 2 also recites preparing
`
`the first request by processing a control block of the user computer device
`
`basedat least in part on the first user controlled image viewpoint. Claim 4
`
`recites a similar limitation for the second user controlled image viewpoint.
`
`Petitioner notes that the ’239 Patent does not define precisely a “processing
`
`control block,” but describes an architecture preferably implemented by a
`
`software plug-in or application executed by the client. Jd. at 43 (citing Ex.
`
`1001, 7:8-11, Fig. 3), 45. Based on the current state of the evidence, we
`
`find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that Reddy’s disclosure of a
`
`geographic browserto request particular tiles based on navigational inputs
`
`rendersthis limitation obvious for purposes of institution.
`
`Claim 3 depends from claim 2 andrecites that the step of preparing
`
`the first request is performed basedat least in part on altitude and attitude of
`
`the first viewpointrelative to the predetermined image. Petitioner
`
`persuasively cites Reddy’s exemplary scenario of a user zooming in from
`
`space, flying over mountains and approaching a target requiring an altitude
`
`and attitude image viewpoint. Jd. at 43-45.
`
`Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and recites preparing the first request
`
`basedat least in part on 3 dimensionalaltitude andattitude ofthe first
`
`viewpoint relative to the predetermined image. Petitioner applies the same
`
`analysis to this claim as it applied to claim 3. Jd. at 46. We further note that
`
`Reddy TerraVision includes 3D flythroughs. Ex. 1004 738. Asto claim 6,
`
`which depends from claim 5 andrecites that the predetermined imageis an
`
`image of a geographic area, we agree with Petitioner that Reddy discloses
`
`maps, aerial, and satellite imagery and digital elevation models of a region.
`
`Pet. 46.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`Claim 7 depends from claim 5 andrecites the first and second
`
`navigational inputs comprise first and secondlateral x position data, lateral y
`
`position data, z height position data and rotational position data. Claim 8
`
`depends from claim 5 andrecites that the first and second navigational
`
`inputs comprise three dimensional coordinate data and rotational position
`
`data. As Petitioner notes and explains persuasively in more detailrelative to
`
`claim limitation 1B, a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that
`
`displaying a perspective view from a viewpoint would require atleast x, y,
`
`and z positional data, i.e., three dimensional coordinate position data, as well
`
`as direction of view,i.e., rotational data. Id. at 47—48 (citing Ex. 1005,
`
`Michalson Decl. Jf 186-189; Ex. 1004 4 37).
`
`Claim 9 depends from claim 1 andrecites that the first derivative
`
`image includes the second derivative image having a higherlevel of detail
`
`than the first derivative image. Similarly claim 10 depends from claim 1 and
`
`recites that the second derivative image includesthefirst derivative image
`
`having a lowerlevel of detail than the first derivative image. Both claims 9
`
`and 10 recite that the first request is issued before the second request. As
`
`Petitioner persuasively notes, Reddy discloses that when a user approaches a
`
`terrain region moredetail is progressively loaded and displayed in a coarse-
`
`to-fine fashion. Pet. 48-50 (citing Ex. 1004 9 12-17, Fig. 1).
`
`Claim 11 depends from claim 1 andrecites that the first derivative
`
`image does not include the second derivative image and the second
`
`derivative image does not include thefirst derivative image. Citing the
`
`declaration of Dr. Michalson, Petitioner persuasively argues that it would
`
`have been obviousto a person of ordinary skill that Reddy would request
`
`different derivative images for the original source, such as differenttiles at
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`the same zoom level, as the user moves through an image. Jd. at 50-S1
`
`(citing Ex. 1005, Michalson Decl. { 193).
`Claims 12-19 recite various features comprising an overlay or overlay
`data, i.e., the first update parcel comprising overlay data forthefirst
`
`derivative image (claim 12), the overlay data comprising text annotation of
`
`streets or landmarks (claims 13 and 19), the overlay data comprising graphic
`
`data representing a three dimensional object (claim 14), the overlay data
`
`comprising graphics data describing at least one object in three dimensions
`
`(claim 15), the overlay data comprising one or more graphical icons (claim
`
`16), a second overlay for a second derivative image (claim 17), the first and
`
`second overlay data in a resolution independent format (claim 18). As to
`
`these claims, Petitioner persuasively cites Reddy’s disclosure of the use of
`
`overlay data. Pet. 51-53.
`
`Claim 20 depends from claim 1 andrecites the further step of
`
`determiningpriority of the first and second request. Petitioner cites Reddy’s
`
`disclosure of a progressive coarse-to-fine algorithm to load and display new
`
`data and an algorithm that attempts to predict future movement by
`
`extrapolating the flight path and prefetching tiles as evidence of requests
`
`prioritized for tiles that are needed sooner. Jd. at 54 (citing Ex. 1004 {f 21,
`
`44, 46; Ex. 1005 Michalson Decl. {¥ 190, 205-206). Patent Owner contends
`that Reddy does not suggest determining the priority ofrequests and notes
`that Petitioner does not assert that Hornbackerteaches or suggests priority.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 25. The ’239 Patent discloses a priority request queue and
`
`stales that when a network thread becomesavailable, the pending requests in
`
`the queue are examined and the request with the highest priority is selected.
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:4-11. As a result, requests can be issued out of order depending
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`upon an independently assigned request priority. Jd. at 11-13. According to
`
`Patent Owner, Dr. Michalson’s analysis assumes the missing priority
`
`element becausenotall tiles are received simultaneously, but there is no
`
`particular prioritization of requests disclosed in Reddy. Prelim. Resp. 27.
`
`Patent Ownercharacterizes paragraph 21 of Reddy as disclosing only that
`