PTAB

IPR2016-00590

Xactware Solutions Inc v. Eagle View Technologies Inc

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Pitch Determination Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation
Brief Description: The ’770 patent discloses systems for determining roof measurements using two or more aerial images of a building. The system allows a user to specify roof features on a first aerial image with a visual marker, which causes a second visual marker to be automatically generated and placed on a second aerial image at the corresponding location.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Avrahami (a 2005 publication on 3D roof extraction) and Applicad (a 2002 product bulletin for roofing software).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Avrahami disclosed a semi-automated system for modeling roofs from a pair of aerial images. This system involved a user manually selecting a "seed point" (a first visual marker) on a first image, which the system then automatically transferred to a second image to extract 3D polygons of the roof structure. Petitioner contended that Applicad disclosed a computer-aided design system for generating detailed roof estimate reports from 3D models. These reports included top-plan views annotated with numerical values for roof characteristics like pitch, area, and edge lengths, thus teaching the report generation limitations of the challenged claims.
- Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would combine the roof reporting functionality of Applicad with the 3D roof model generation of Avrahami to achieve the predictable result of an integrated system that could both model a roof and effectively communicate measurement data. Applicad’s disclosure of importing roof models from other systems provided an explicit motivation for the combination.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because each reference would function as intended within the combined system, yielding only predictable results.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Hsieh (a 1995 publication on a semi-automated site modeling system) and Applicad (a 2002 product bulletin for roofing software).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Hsieh taught a system for constructing 3D building models from multiple aerial images. In Hsieh, a user measures a roof in a first image by delineating its outline with vertices (first visual markers). The system then generates a full 3D model, which can be a wireframe, and automatically projects it onto other aerial images, thereby displaying corresponding markers in the second image. As in the first ground, Applicad was cited for its teaching of generating annotated roof estimate reports from such 3D models.
- Motivation to Combine: The motivation was analogous to the first ground. A POSITA would have found it obvious to import the 3D roof model generated by the Hsieh system into the Applicad system to generate a comprehensive roof report. This would combine known methods to yield the predictable result of a more capable and commercially useful system.
- Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued the combination was straightforward, as both systems operated in the known field of computer-aided modeling and would function as designed, leading to predictable success.

Prior Art Relied Upon: The combinations from Grounds 1 or 2, plus Pictometry (a 2007 user guide) or Abhyanker (Application # 2007/0220174).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims 10 and 19, which add the limitation of enabling a user to input location data (e.g., a street address) to access the relevant aerial imagery. Petitioner asserted that both Pictometry and Abhyanker explicitly disclosed this functionality. Pictometry taught a system with an "Address Search feature" to find images containing a specific street address. Similarly, Abhyanker disclosed a geo-spatial mapping system that allowed a user to input a real-world street address to obtain aerial imagery of a corresponding building.
- Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a POSITA would have been motivated to add the address look-up functionality of Pictometry or Abhyanker to the core 3D modeling systems of Avrahami or Hsieh. This addition represented a simple and logical improvement, enhancing the speed and efficiency of locating the correct images for analysis—a necessary prerequisite for the modeling process itself.
- Expectation of Success: Integrating a known address-lookup feature into an image analysis system was a common technique for improving user interface efficiency and would have been implemented with a high expectation of success.

Petitioner argued for a specific construction of the claim term "displaying a location of a second visual marker...based on an indication...of the first location...".
Proposed Construction: "a second visual marker is displayed on the roof structure of the building in the second aerial image at the same location as the first visual marker in the first aerial image."
Petitioner asserted this construction was supported by the specification and the patent’s prosecution history, where the patentee distinguished prior art by emphasizing the automatic placement of the second marker without requiring manual user interaction with the second image. This construction was central to mapping the automated processes taught by Avrahami and Hsieh to the claims.

Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 10-12, 14, and 19 of the ’770 patent as unpatentable.