PTAB

IPR2016-00587

Xactware Solutions Inc v. Eagle View Technologies Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Pitch Determination Systems and Methods For Aerial Roof Estimation
  • Brief Description: The ’376 patent describes systems and methods for determining roof measurements from one or more aerial images. The technology involves using interactive user interface components, such as a "pitch determination marker," overlaid on an aerial image to allow a user to specify a roof's pitch, generate a three-dimensional roof model, and produce a roof estimate report.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Aerowest and Verma - Claims 11, 13, 14, 17-20, 22, and 23 are obvious over Aerowest in view of Verma.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Aerowest (European Patent No. 1 010 966) and Verma (Application # 2006/0061566).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Aerowest disclosed the foundational method for generating three-dimensional (3D) building models, including roof pitch and other measurements, from pairs of aerial photographs for purposes like roof renovation. Aerowest’s system could transmit this 3D object data to a client computer and generate a report. However, Petitioner contended Aerowest lacked an interactive tool for a user to adjust the model's pitch. Verma was asserted to supply this missing element, disclosing a method for generating a 3D building model from LIDAR point cloud data and overlaying it on the aerial image. Verma explicitly taught using "handle" user interface elements that a user could manipulate to modify the model and correct roof slopes (pitches) to better fit the underlying image data. Petitioner mapped Verma’s "handles" directly to the ’376 patent's "pitch determination marker."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Verma with the system of Aerowest to improve the accuracy of the automatically generated 3D model. By incorporating Verma's interactive adjustment tools, a user could easily and effectively correct any inaccuracies in Aerowest's model, a benefit explicitly taught by Verma.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be a predictable integration of a known user interface element (Verma's handles) with a known 3D modeling system (Aerowest). The result would be an improved, more accurate system, with each component performing its intended function.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Hsieh, Verma, and Applicad - Claims 11, 13, 14, 16-20, 22, and 23 are obvious over Hsieh in view of Verma and further in view of Applicad.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hsieh ("Design and Evaluation of a Semi-Automated Site Modeling System," Carnegie Mellon, Nov. 1995), Verma (Application # 2006/0061566), and Applicad ("Product Bulletin," Nov. 2002).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted Hsieh as the primary reference, teaching a semi-automated system for creating 3D building models from multiple aerial images where a user manually delineates roof outlines. Hsieh's model could be projected onto the images. As in Ground 1, Verma was introduced to add interactive "handle" tools, which Petitioner argued a POSITA would use to modify Hsieh's models to correct errors and improve accuracy. Finally, Applicad was alleged to provide the claimed report generation features. Applicad disclosed a software system that could generate detailed reports and quotes from 3D roof models, including top-plan views annotated with numerical values for pitch, area, and lengths, for roof repair and construction.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would first combine Hsieh and Verma to allow for user-friendly correction of the 3D model, a known problem-solving technique. Subsequently, a POSITA would integrate Applicad's reporting functionality to generate useful, annotated outputs from the Hsieh/Verma model. This would create an effective end-to-end system for roof estimation, and Applicad’s teaching of importing models from other systems would have made this combination apparent.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because the combination involved applying known model improvement techniques (from Verma) to a base modeling system (Hsieh) and then using a known reporting tool (Applicad) to generate a useful output, with each component performing its expected function.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Verma and Applicad - Claims 17, 18, and 19 are obvious over Verma in view of Applicad.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Verma (Application # 2006/0061566) and Applicad ("Product Bulletin," Nov. 2002).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground used Verma as the primary reference. Petitioner argued Verma disclosed the core claimed method: using LIDAR data (an "aerial image") to create a 3D model, displaying the model and image simultaneously, and providing interactive "handle" elements (a "pitch determination marker") for a user to adjust roof slopes. The dependent claims related to manipulating an "envelope tool" were also argued to be taught by Verma's disclosure of rotating adjacent roof planes about an edge to fit the model to the image data. Applicad was then added to supply the teachings for generating and outputting a detailed roof estimate report with annotated numerical values for pitch, as claimed.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Applicad's robust reporting and quoting functionality with Verma's interactive modeling system to create a complete, commercially valuable tool. The combination would allow a user to not only accurately model a roof using Verma's interactive system but also to generate a professional, detailed estimate report using Applicad's established methods.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued there was a reasonable expectation of success, as Applicad was designed to work with 3D models to produce reports, and Verma provided such a model. Combining them would yield the predictable result of a system that could both model a roof and report on its dimensions.

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 the object." This construction is not limited to photographic images and would encompass other data types like a LIDAR point cloud image, which was critical for applying the teachings of Verma.
  • "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 of a section of the roof model." This construction was used to map tools like Verma's "handles" to the claims, emphasizing that the marker is a separate control element and not the 3D roof model itself.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 11, 13, 14, 16-20, 22, and 23 of the ’376 patent as unpatentable.