PTAB

IPR2017-01616

Microsoft Corp v. Bradium Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method of Retrieving Images over a Network Communication Channel
  • Brief Description: The ’644 patent discloses methods and server systems for efficiently delivering large, high-resolution images (e.g., geographic maps) over a network. The system pre-processes source image data into a multi-level hierarchy of "image parcels" of progressively lower resolutions, allowing a client device to request and display only the necessary image data for a given viewpoint, thereby reducing latency.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Reddy and Hornbacker - Claims 1-65 are obvious over Reddy in view of Hornbacker.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Reddy ("TerraVision II: Visualizing Massive Terrain Databases in VRML," IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Mar./Apr. 1999) and Hornbacker (WO 99/41675).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Reddy and Hornbacker together teach all elements of the challenged claims. Reddy described a system (TerraVision II) for browsing massive geographic databases over a network using a multi-resolution "image pyramid." This pyramid structure involved segmenting images into tiles at different resolution levels, allowing a client to progressively load higher-resolution tiles as a user "zooms" or "flies" closer to a location. This taught the core concepts of creating derivative images of progressively lower resolution and selecting them based on a user-controlled viewpoint. However, Petitioner contended that Reddy did not explicitly detail the mechanism for how a client would request a specific tile.
    • Motivation to Combine: Hornbacker was argued to supply this missing detail. It taught a client-server system for viewing large images where tiles were explicitly requested using HTTP requests directed to specific URLs. The URLs incorporated information identifying the tile by its scale (resolution level) and position (row and column). Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), seeking to implement the efficient data delivery system of Reddy, would have been motivated to use the well-understood and analogous tile-requesting mechanism from Hornbacker. Both references addressed the same problem of reducing latency and managing bandwidth when viewing large images over a network. The Board had previously found motivation to combine these references in IPRs against related patents.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination because both references relied on conventional internet and client-server technologies. Integrating Hornbacker's URL-based tile identification scheme into Reddy's 3D browsing environment was presented as a straightforward application of known techniques to achieve a predictable result.
    • Key Aspects: The core of the challenge rested on the argument that the '644 patent's claimed invention was merely the combination of two known solutions for a known problem: using Reddy's image pyramid for efficient multi-resolution display and Hornbacker's URL scheme for requesting the specific tiles from that pyramid. This combination, Petitioner argued, was an obvious design choice for a POSITA at the time. The arguments for independent claims 23 (a computer system) and 44 (a non-transitory storage medium) relied on the same prior art mapping, contending that these were simply different formats for the same obvious method.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Mobile Device" (claims 2, 23, 45): Petitioner argued this term requires no special construction and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, or alternatively, be construed as "a device which is portable." This position was based on a prior Board decision in an IPR on a related patent ('239), which rejected the Patent Owner's attempt to import limitations into the term. Petitioner contended that examples of "small clients" in the specification were not intended to be limiting.
  • "Image Parcel": While not proposing a new construction, Petitioner noted that the Board previously construed this term in a related case as "an element of an image array, with the image parcel being specified by the X and Y position in the image array coordinates and an image set resolution index." Petitioner argued that the tiles disclosed in Reddy, especially when combined with the specific location and resolution identifiers taught by Hornbacker, met this construction.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner preemptively argued against discretionary denial under §325(d), acknowledging that Reddy and Hornbacker were cited in an Information Disclosure Statement during prosecution of the '644 patent. The core argument was that the examiner never provided any substantive analysis of these references, and the notice of allowance did not mention them. Citing Board precedent (e.g., Tandus Flooring, Inc. v. Interface, Inc.), Petitioner asserted that mere citation without substantive discussion does not preclude institution of an IPR, especially when the Petitioner’s arguments and expert declaration provide a new, more detailed analysis of the prior art. Petitioner also highlighted that the Board had previously instituted IPRs on related patents based on the same combination, creating a risk of conflicting Patent Office statements if review were denied.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-65 of the '644 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.