Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Pictometry International Corp.

1. Case Identification

• 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, and 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 utilizing geo-referenced image products. The technology involves displaying digital imagery, detecting edges of objects within the imagery, and implementing a "snap-to" feature that automatically moves a user's cursor to a detected edge when the cursor is within a predefined proximity.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

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

• Prior Art Relied Upon: R2V (publication entitled “R2V User’s Manual, Advanced Raster to Vector Conversion Software,” publicly available Sep. 16, 2000).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that R2V, a commercially available raster-to-vector conversion software, disclosed every element of the challenged claims. The R2V manual allegedly described a system that receives and displays digital images containing geo-referenced information (e.g., latitude and longitude). The software performed edge detection to generate vectors for objects in the image. Critically, R2V included a snapping feature that automatically snapped a user's cursor to the nearest detected line or node when the cursor moved within a user-customizable distance threshold (measured in pixels). The user could then accept this snapped-to edge to perform subsequent actions, such as measuring distances or drawing lines, which involved storing points of interest along the detected edge. The R2V system also taught magnifying a region of interest while still displaying the full unmagnified image, with snapping functionality present in the magnified view.

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.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Pictometry (publication entitled “Pictometry Visual Intelligence, Electronic Field Study User Guide,” Version 2.7, July 2007) and Gleicher (publication entitled “Image Snapping,” 1995).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Pictometry taught the base system for displaying, navigating, and manipulating geo-referenced aerial images. The Pictometry system included a measurement tool that allowed a user to select points on an image to measure distances, including, for example, measuring the height of a building along its edge. However, Pictometry allegedly lacked automated edge detection and a "snap-to" cursor function. Gleicher was argued to supply these missing elements. Gleicher disclosed a system for "image snapping" where a cursor automatically snapped to nearby features of interest, specifically including object edges, when the cursor was within a predetermined range. This feature was described as a way to improve accuracy for tasks like measurement by allowing users to point near an object rather than precisely on it.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to combine Gleicher’s edge-snapping functionality with Pictometry’s image measurement system for a clear and predictable purpose: to improve the accuracy and ease of use of the measurement tool. Since Pictometry already allowed for measuring along building edges, incorporating Gleicher’s teachings would be a straightforward enhancement to make that process more precise by automatically snapping the measurement points to the detected edge.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. Integrating a known software feature (edge-snapping) into an existing image viewing and measurement system was a well-understood task in the art, and the result—more accurate measurements—was entirely predictable.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "accept": Petitioner argued that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), this term should encompass any means of communication to the computer, whether literal or implied, that indicates the user's agreement. This would include actions like clicking a mouse, selecting an 'Accept' button, or a lack of action for a specified time to indicate acceptance of a snapped-to edge.
• "geo-referenced": Petitioner proposed that this term should be construed to mean identifying position or geographic data, such as geographic coordinates, associated with an address or a point of interest selected by a user. This construction was argued to be consistent with the patent's description of using GPS or inertial navigation unit data.

5. Relief Requested

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