PTAB

IPR2015-00789

Google Inc v. Art+com InNOvatIONPool GmbH

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Device for Pictorial Representation of Space-Related Data
  • Brief Description: The ’550 patent describes a method for generating a pictorial representation of geographical objects, such as the Earth, by using a hierarchical data structure. The system requests data for a selected field of view from multiple spatially distributed data sources, stores it centrally, and recursively subdivides the view to represent it with progressively higher resolution data until a desired level of detail is achieved.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over T_Vision Publication - Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 17-18, 25, 27, 31, 33, 41-42, 76, 79, and 84 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by the T_Vision Publication.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: T_Vision Publication (The T_Vision Project, CD-ROM Materials from Siggraph 95, Aug. 1995).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the T_Vision Publication, which describes the Patent Owner’s own “Terravision” project, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. The publication describes an earth visualization project that provides a “virtual globe” allowing a user to navigate and view the Earth from any position, distance, and angle. This system explicitly uses a multi-layered “distributed database” to store vast amounts of high-resolution satellite imagery and other geographical data, satisfying the “plurality of spatially distributed data sources” limitation of independent claim 1. Petitioner contended the publication shows that user inputs determine a field of view, for which the system requests data from the distributed database. The system then represents the data by recursively subdividing the planet into sections using a quadtree structure, retrieving data with “higher levels of detail as you descend down the tree” until an “appropriate resolution” is achieved, directly mapping to the recursive processing steps of claim 1.
    • Prior Art Mapping (Dependent Claims): Petitioner asserted that the T_Vision Publication also discloses the limitations of the dependent claims. It describes user interfaces like a "Space Mouse" for altering the viewing location and direction (claims 2, 4, 84); shows the object of visualization is the Earth, a heavenly body, in the form of a globe (claims 18, 25, 27); discloses that data is present as pixel texture images (claims 17, 76); and describes displaying information billboards, CAD models, and transmitting data asynchronously (claims 31, 33, 41, 79).
    • Key Aspects: A central point of Petitioner's argument was that the T_Vision Publication explicitly and repeatedly refers to using a networked, "distributed database." This directly contradicts a declaration submitted by one of the named inventors during prosecution of the ’550 patent, in which the inventor stated that the prototype demonstrated at SIGGRAPH 95 used only a "simple single database residing on a local system" and was not networked. Petitioner argued that the printed publication itself, not the inventor's subsequent characterization of the physical demonstration, constitutes the prior art and that its text unambiguously discloses the claimed features.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "plurality of spatially distributed data sources": Petitioner proposed that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of this term is "two or more separate data sources." This construction was crucial for mapping the claim element to the T_Vision Publication's disclosure of a multi-layered "distributed database" implemented across multiple physical locations (e.g., Tokyo, Berlin, California) via an ATM network.
  • "pictorial representation": Petitioner proposed a BRI of "image data representation." This construction was supported by the patent's specification, which focuses on representing space-related data in "any image resolution" and generating an image for the user.
  • "field of view": Petitioner proposed a BRI of "the portion of the object to be observed." This construction aligned with the specification's description of the user selecting a specific portion of a larger object (e.g., the Earth) for viewing.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1-2, 4, 7, 17-18, 25, 27, 31, 33, 41-42, 76, 79, and 84 of the ’550 patent as unpatentable.