PTAB

IPR2016-01897

Microsoft Corp v. Bradium Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Methods and Systems for Retrieving and Displaying Networked Images
  • Brief Description: The ’239 patent discloses methods and systems for a client computing device to request and display image data from networked servers. The technology centers on dividing large source images (e.g., geographic maps) into smaller "image parcels" at multiple resolutions, which are progressively requested and rendered based on a user's viewpoint to optimize performance over a network.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Reddy and Hornbacker - Claims 1-20 and 23-25 are obvious over Reddy in view of Hornbacker.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Reddy (a March/April 1999 article titled "TerraVision II: Visualizing Massive Terrain Databases in VRML") and Hornbacker (WO 99/41675).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Reddy taught the core inventive concept: a system for browsing large-scale geographic imagery in 3D by dividing images into a multi-resolution pyramid of tiles (quad-tree structure) that are requested based on a user's viewpoint. Reddy disclosed processing source image data into derivative images of progressively lower resolution, selecting tiles based on user proximity, and displaying them on a client device. Petitioner contended that while Reddy taught the overall system, it did not explicitly detail the protocol for requesting specific tiles. Hornbacker, addressing the same problem of network latency for large images, allegedly supplied this missing detail by teaching a specific method for requesting image tiles via HTTP requests using URLs that uniquely identify a tile by its scale (resolution) and position (row/column).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the references because they are analogous art addressing the common problem of efficiently displaying large, networked images on a client with limited resources. A POSITA implementing Reddy's 3D visualization system would have looked to a reference like Hornbacker to provide a known and efficient method for specifying and requesting the needed image tiles, thereby improving Reddy's system with a well-understood technique. The similarity in goals—optimizing bandwidth and enabling progressive rendering—provided a strong motivation to integrate Hornbacker’s specific tile request mechanism into Reddy’s framework.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references relied on conventional, compatible internet technologies. Integrating Hornbacker's URL-based tile identification scheme into Reddy's client-server browser architecture was presented as a straightforward application of known techniques to achieve a predictable result.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Reddy, Hornbacker, and Loomans - Claims 21-22 are obvious over Reddy and Hornbacker in view of Loomans.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Reddy (a 1999 article), Hornbacker (WO 99/41675), and Loomans (Patent 6,728,960).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Reddy and Hornbacker to address the multi-threading limitations of claims 21-22. Petitioner argued that Reddy and Hornbacker collectively taught all limitations of the base claims. Loomans was introduced to teach the specific use of multi-threading for network requests in a browser context. Loomans disclosed using multiple, concurrently executing threads to retrieve different items of content from a server, specifically to improve performance and maintain user interactivity on low-bandwidth connections. Claims 21 and 22 add limitations requiring that requests for different data parcels (e.g., a first and second parcel) are issued and received on separate, concurrent threads.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that Reddy explicitly taught the need for a highly interactive, real-time browsing experience and disclosed that its browser was "multi-threaded" to allow user interaction while higher-resolution imagery downloads. A POSITA seeking to optimize this interactivity in the Reddy/Hornbacker system would be motivated to implement the specific multi-threading techniques taught by Loomans. Applying Loomans's method of using separate threads for concurrent data retrieval would directly address Reddy's stated goal of preventing the user interface from freezing during downloads, which was a well-known problem with a known solution.
    • Expectation of Success: Because multi-threading was a well-known programming technique for browsers at the time of the invention, a POSITA would have readily understood how to apply the techniques from Loomans to the tile-requesting system of Reddy and Hornbacker with a high expectation of successfully improving data retrieval speed and system responsiveness.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed a construction for the term "data parcel" as "data that corresponds to an element of a source image array." This construction was argued to be consistent with the patent’s specification and vital for aligning the claim language with the prior art's disclosure of "tiles" or "view tiles," thereby showing that the tiled image systems in Reddy and Hornbacker met this claim limitation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • The petition argued that the primary prior art reference, Reddy, presented a question of patentability that had not been considered by the USPTO during the original examination. Petitioner asserted that the Patent Owner was aware of Reddy from other proceedings but submitted it in an Information Disclosure Statement just one day before the ’239 patent issued, making it untimely and ineffective for Examiner review. Petitioner contended that the Examiner, therefore, relied on an incomplete prior art record, and institution was warranted to consider these material teachings for the first time.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1-25 of Patent 9,253,239 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.