PTAB

IPR2017-00021

Xactware Solutions Inc v. Eagle View Technologies Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods
  • Brief Description: The ’436 patent describes systems and methods for determining roof measurement information from aerial images. The process involves receiving at least two different aerial views of a roof (e.g., a top-down view and an oblique view), correlating the images to generate a three-dimensional model, and then preparing an annotated roof estimate report from the model.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 15, 17-21, 31, 36-38, 40, 42, and 55 are obvious over McKeown in view of Applicad.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: McKeown (a 1996 publication titled "Feature Extraction and Object Recognition") and Applicad (a November 2002 product bulletin for roofing software).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that McKeown, a publication on photogrammetry, disclosed a semi-automated system for generating three-dimensional models of buildings, including roofs, from multiple non-stereoscopic aerial images. This system used both vertical (top plan) and oblique views and correlated them to create the model. Applicad, a commercial roofing software, disclosed a system that could generate detailed roof estimate reports, complete with annotated top plan views showing measurements like slope, area, and edge lengths. Critically, Applicad was designed to import 3D models from other CAD systems to generate such reports. Petitioner contended that McKeown taught the 3D model generation from different aerial views, and Applicad taught the generation of the claimed annotated report from such a model.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine McKeown’s 3D model generation with Applicad’s reporting functionality to create a complete and useful roof estimation tool. Applicad’s express disclosure of importing 3D models from external systems provided a direct teaching and suggestion to combine it with a modeling system like McKeown's to achieve the predictable result of an annotated roof report.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as Applicad was designed to accept and process imported 3D models to produce reports, and McKeown's system generated the type of 3D model that Applicad could process.

Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 15, 17-21, 31, 36-38, 40, 42, and 55 are obvious over Avrahami in view of Applicad.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Avrahami (an August 2005 publication titled "Extraction of 3D Spatial Polygons Based on the Overlapping Criterion for Roof Extraction from Aerial Images") and Applicad (the same November 2002 product bulletin).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Avrahami, like McKeown, disclosed a semi-automated system for creating 3D roof models from a pair of non-stereoscopic aerial images, including both top-down and oblique views. Avrahami described an iterative matching process to correlate points between the images to generate the 3D model. Similar to Ground 1, Petitioner argued that Avrahami taught the core 3D modeling process, while Applicad taught the claimed functionality of generating a detailed, annotated roof estimate report from an imported 3D model.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to that in Ground 1. A POSITA would be motivated to use the powerful reporting and annotation features of a system like Applicad to visualize and communicate the measurement data derived from the 3D roof model generated by a system like Avrahami's. The ability of Applicad to import external models provided the explicit rationale for the combination.
    • Expectation of Success: As with the first ground, a POSITA would expect the combination to be successful. Combining a system that generates 3D models (Avrahami) with a system designed to create reports from such models (Applicad) was a straightforward application of known technologies to achieve a predictable result.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "top plan view": Petitioner proposed that this term refers to an aerial view of an object taken from a position vertically or nearly vertically above the object. This construction was argued to be consistent with the patent's specification and file history, which equated the term with "substantially top-down" and "orthogonal" views.
  • "oblique perspective view": Petitioner proposed that this term refers to an aerial view of an object that is neither vertically nor near vertically above it. The file history showed the patentee distinguished this view from a "top plan view."
  • "not a stereoscopic pair": Petitioner argued this means a pair of images that, when viewed together, does not provide an appearance of depth. This was based on the file history, which explained that stereoscopy required specific camera angles and positions (e.g., two top-plan views), unlike the claimed combination of a top plan and an oblique view.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. §325(d). A previously filed petition on the ’436 patent was denied on non-substantive grounds related to establishing the public accessibility of a different prior art reference (Hsieh).
  • Petitioner asserted that because the Board had not previously considered the substantive merits of any challenge, and because the current petition relies on different prior art combinations (McKeown/Applicad and Avrahami/Applicad), denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5, 8, 15, 17-21, 31, 36-38, 40, 42, and 55 of the ’436 patent as unpatentable.