Xactware Solutions Inc v. Pictometry Intl Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2016-00593
• Patent #: 8,823,732
• Filed: February 8, 2016
• Petitioner(s): Xactware Solutions, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Pictometry International Corp.
• Challenged Claims: 12-15, 21-23, 25-27, 33-38, 44-45

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Systems and Methods for Processing Images with Edge Detection and Snap-To Feature
• Brief Description: The ’732 patent discloses systems and methods for processing geo-referenced digital imagery. The technology involves displaying an image, automatically detecting edges of objects within the image, and enabling a "snap-to" feature that causes a user's cursor to automatically snap to a detected edge when it is moved within a predetermined distance of that edge, facilitating user interaction and measurements.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over R2V - Claims 12-15, 21-23, 25-27, 33-38, and 44-45 are anticipated by R2V under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: R2V ("R2V User's Manual, Advanced Raster to Vector Conversion Software," a publication by Able Software Corp., publicly available September 16, 2000).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the R2V manual discloses every element of the challenged claims. R2V is an image manipulation software that receives digital images containing geo-referenced information (e.g., latitude and longitude) and performs edge detection to generate vectors for objects within the image. The software explicitly teaches a snapping feature that causes a cursor to snap to the nearest detected line or node when the cursor is within a user-customizable distance threshold, measured in pixels. Petitioner asserted that R2V further allows a user to "accept" the snapped-to edge to perform subsequent commands, such as measuring distances or drawing lines, thereby determining and storing points of interest along the edge as required by the claims.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Pictometry and Gleicher - Claims 12-15, 21-23, 25-27, 33-38, and 44-45 are obvious over Pictometry in view of Gleicher under 35 U.S.C. §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Pictometry ("Pictometry Visual Intelligence, Electronic Field Study User Guide," Version 2.7, July 2007) and Gleicher ("Image Snapping," a publication by Michael Gleicher, 1995).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Pictometry teaches a base system for displaying, navigating, and manipulating geo-referenced aerial images. The Pictometry system includes a measurement tool for selecting points on an image to measure distances, such as measuring the height of a building along one of its edges. However, Pictometry allegedly lacks an automated edge detection and cursor snapping function. Gleicher was argued to supply these missing elements, as it discloses a system for performing edge detection on digital images and a "snapping" feature that causes a cursor to jump to nearby detected object edges when it is within a predetermined range.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Gleicher’s teachings with the Pictometry system to improve the functionality and accuracy of Pictometry's existing measurement tool. Since Pictometry already taught measuring distances along features like building edges, incorporating Gleicher’s automated edge detection and snapping would have been a predictable and desirable improvement. This would make the selection of points along an edge easier and more precise for the user, a clear advantage for a measurement application.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. Integrating the known software technique of edge-snapping (Gleicher) into an existing image manipulation and measurement platform (Pictometry) involved combining known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, namely, a more accurate and user-friendly measurement tool.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "accept": Petitioner proposed that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this term encompasses any means of communication to the computer, whether literal or implied through user action, that indicates the user's agreement. This includes actions like clicking a mouse or proceeding with a subsequent command after a snap has occurred, rather than requiring an explicit "accept" button.
• "geo-referenced": Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean identifying position or geographic data associated with an image, such as geographic coordinates (latitude/longitude), an address, or another point of interest selected by a user. This construction is consistent with the patent's description of using GPS and inertial navigation unit data.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 12-15, 21-23, 25-27, 33-38, and 44-45 of the ’732 patent as unpatentable.