PTAB

IPR2016-00589

Xactware Solutions Inc v. Eagle View Technologies Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Concurrent Display Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation
  • Brief Description: The ’454 patent describes computer-implemented systems and methods for determining roof measurement information using one or more aerial images. The technology involves generating a 3D model based on a correlation between at least two aerial images and concurrently displaying specified roof features across multiple displayed images as an operator defines them.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 26-28 and 33-36 are obvious over Hsieh in view of Applicad

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hsieh (a 1995 publication from Carnegie Mellon titled “Design and Evaluation of a Semi-Automated Site Modeling System”) and Applicad (a November 2002 product bulletin for roofing software).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hsieh teaches the core functionality of the challenged claims. Hsieh’s “SiteCity” system is a semi-automated building extraction tool that constructs and manipulates 3D building models using multiple images. It discloses displaying a plurality of aerial images on a single display, overlaying 2D line drawings (projections of a 3D model) on those images, and allowing a user to modify image features in one view, which causes the system to update the corresponding features in other views. Petitioner contended that Applicad, a commercial roofing software, supplied the missing limitation of claim 26: generating and outputting a roof estimate report. Applicad’s system uses 3D drawings to automatically calculate material quantities and generate detailed reports, which can include top plan views of the roof model annotated with numerical values for pitch, area, and lengths.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine the roof reporting functionality of Applicad with the multi-image modeling and line-drawing matching features of Hsieh. The motivation was to improve Hsieh's system by adding a known technique—automated report generation—to provide easy and effective communication of roof measurement results to an end-user. Applicad itself provided a direct suggestion for this combination by disclosing its ability to import roof models and outlines from other CAD systems in common file formats like .dxf.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in this combination because it amounted to using Applicad as intended—importing a model generated by a system like Hsieh and using its built-in functionality to produce a detailed report. The result would be predictable.

Ground 2: Claims 26-28 and 34-36 are obvious over Avrahami in view of Applicad

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Avrahami (a 2005 publication from the International Archives of Photogrammetry) and Applicad (a November 2002 product bulletin).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative to Hsieh. Petitioner argued that Avrahami, a semi-automatic system for extracting 3D spatial polygons from a pair of aerial images, also discloses the core limitations of the claims. The Avrahami system requires a user to manually point to a seed point on a roof in a first image. The system then automatically segments the area, extracts a bounding polygon (a line drawing) in the first image, and uses that data to calculate and generate a corresponding polygon in a second image. This interactive process, where user input in one image generates line drawings across multiple views, was alleged to meet the display and changing limitations of claim 26. As in Ground 1, Petitioner relied on Applicad to teach the final limitation of generating an annotated roof estimate report from the model data created by Avrahami.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to that in Ground 1. A POSITA would have found it obvious to incorporate the known report-generating functionality of Applicad with the 3D modeling features of Avrahami. This would combine prior art elements to yield a predictable result: a complete system that could both model a roof from aerial images and output a useful, detailed estimate report. Applicad’s disclosed capability of importing external CAD drawings provided the necessary rationale.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued the combination would have been successful with predictable results. A POSITA would recognize that the line drawings generated by Avrahami could be imported into a system like Applicad, which would then function as designed to produce the desired annotated reports.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "wire frame": Petitioner proposed that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this term should be construed as "a type of model of an object that is represented by lines." This construction was argued to be consistent with the patent’s specification and figures, which illustrate the construction of a 3D wire frame model based on user-defined roof features. This interpretation ensures that the line-based models generated by prior art systems like Hsieh fall within the scope of the claims.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 26-28 and 33-36 of the ’454 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.