PTAB

IPR2016-00586

Xactware Solutions Inc v. Eagle View Technologies Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Pitch Determination Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation
  • Brief Description: The ’840 patent is directed to systems and methods for determining roof measurements from aerial images. The technology involves overlaying an interactive user interface component, such as a "pitch determination marker," onto an aerial image to allow a user to manipulate the marker to specify the pitch of a roof section and thereby modify a three-dimensional roof model.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Hsieh and Verma - Claims 1-2, 4, 8-18, 21, and 28 are obvious over Hsieh in view of Verma.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hsieh (a 1995 publication from Carnegie Mellon titled "Design and Evaluation of a Semi-Automated Site Modeling System") and Verma (Application # 2006/0061566).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hsieh disclosed a semi-automated system for generating 3D building models from multiple aerial photographs. In Hsieh, a user manually delineates a roof by clicking on the vertices of the roof outline in an image, and these points are interactive and can be moved. Verma was argued to disclose generating 3D models from LiDAR data and providing "handle" user interface elements that allow a user to intuitively modify the model's parametric shapes. This modification includes correcting roof slopes (pitches) by dragging the handles or rotating planes about an edge. Petitioner contended that Verma's adjustable "handles," which are overlaid on the model and directly manipulate slope, meet the "pitch determination marker" limitation of the claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Verma's user-friendly "handle" interface for pitch adjustment with Hsieh's foundational 3D modeling system. The motivation was to improve the accuracy of the models generated by Hsieh's system, which Hsieh acknowledges may contain errors, by providing an intuitive tool to correct those errors, particularly roof pitches.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the combination involved applying a known technique (Verma's pitch adjustment) to improve a similar, known system (Hsieh's 3D modeling) to yield predictable results, with each reference functioning as intended.

Ground 2: Anticipation by Verma - Claims 1-2, 4, 8-18, 21, and 28 are anticipated by Verma.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Verma (Application # 2006/0061566).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Verma, standing alone, disclosed every element of the challenged claims. Verma's system uses LiDAR point cloud data—which Petitioner argued is an "aerial image"—to generate a 3D model of a roof with multiple planar sections. The system displays this model simultaneously with, and overlaid on, the LiDAR data. Verma explicitly teaches using "handle" UI elements on parametric shapes that can be dragged to "change the slope of the gable roof." Petitioner asserted these handles function as the claimed "pitch determination marker," as they are overlaid on the image and allow a user to specify pitch. When a user adjusts a slope, the system receives this indication, modifies the 3D model accordingly, and the updated parameters (e.g., the new pitch value) are known to the system, thereby providing the claimed roof measurement information.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted further obviousness challenges, including that claims 10, 11, 16, and 18 are obvious over Hsieh, Verma, and Applicad (a 2002 software product bulletin), and that the same claims are obvious over Verma and Applicad. These grounds primarily leveraged Applicad's teachings on generating detailed, annotated roof estimate reports from 3D models to supplement the modeling systems of Hsieh and Verma.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "aerial image": Petitioner proposed this term should be construed as a genus referring to any "visual representation of an object taken from a view point...from above," not limited to photographic images. This construction was argued to be consistent with the prosecution history, where the parent ’840 patent used the broader term "aerial image" while a child patent (’770 patent) specifically claimed a "photographic aerial image," implying a distinction. This was crucial for asserting that LiDAR point cloud data, as disclosed in Verma, qualifies as an "aerial image."
  • "pitch determination marker": Petitioner argued this term refers to "a graphical user interface component, distinct from the model of the roof, that can be manipulated by a user to specify the pitch." This construction allowed Petitioner to map Verma's "handle" UI elements, which are distinct components used to manipulate the model's parameters, to this claim limitation.
  • "roof estimate report": Petitioner proposed this term means "a representation of a building which allows measurement information of at least one aspect of the building to be conveyed." This broad construction supported the argument that the 3D model itself, once modified, could constitute the report, as it conveys the updated measurement information to the user via the display.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2, 4, 8-18, 21, and 28 of the ’840 patent as unpatentable.