Xactware Solutions Inc v. Eagle View Technologies Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2017-00034
• Patent #: 8,209,152
• Filed: October 7, 2016
• Petitioner(s): Xactware Solutions, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 8, and 10

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Concurrent Display Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation
• Brief Description: The ’152 patent describes systems for determining roof measurements from multiple aerial images. The methods involve displaying different views of a roof, receiving user input identifying a roof feature in one image, modifying a 3D model based on that input, and projecting the modified feature as an overlaid line drawing onto the multiple aerial images.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over McKeown - Claims 1 and 8 are anticipated by McKeown under 35 U.S.C. §102.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: McKeown (a 1996 publication entitled "Feature Extraction and Object Recognition: Automatic Cartographic Feature Extraction Using Photogrammetric Principles").
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that McKeown’s “SiteCity” system discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. The system displays multiple aerial images of a building, including both oblique (perspective) and vertical views, receives user input by allowing an operator to delineate a building outline in one image, and automatically generates a 3D model. Critically, Petitioner asserted that McKeown then projects this preliminary model into the other images for verification, which satisfies the claim limitation of displaying a projection of the feature from the modified model. For dependent claim 8, McKeown’s explicit use of “two oblique images and one vertical image” was argued to teach the use of at least two different perspective views.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Avrahami and McKeown - Claim 8 is obvious over Avrahami in view of McKeown under 35 U.S.C. §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Avrahami (a 2005 publication entitled “Extraction of 3D Spatial Polygons Based on the Overlapping Criterion for Roof Extraction from Aerial Images”) and McKeown.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Avrahami teaches a semi-automatic system for extracting 3D roof polygons from a pair of aerial images, meeting the base limitations of claim 1. Avrahami states its algorithm can be implemented under “diverse photographic conditions” and accounts for “different viewing angles of the aerial camera.” Petitioner argued that McKeown was combined to explicitly teach the specific limitation of claim 8 requiring two different perspective views, which McKeown’s SiteCity system does by working with “two oblique images.”
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references as both are directed to semi-automated roof modeling and seek to solve the same technical problem. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate McKeown’s clear teaching of using multiple perspective views into Avrahami’s system to improve its modeling capabilities and robustness, as using different views was a known method for improving 3D reconstruction.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because combining the references involved applying a known technique (using multiple perspective views from McKeown) to a similar, compatible system (Avrahami) to achieve the predictable result of a more effective modeling process.

Ground 3: Obviousness over McKeown and Perlant - Claim 10 is obvious over McKeown in view of Perlant under §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: McKeown and Perlant (a 1990 publication entitled "Scene Registration in Aerial Image Analysis").
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that McKeown teaches the base method of claim 1, but not the additional limitations of claim 10, which require registering an aerial image to a "reference grid" corresponding to the 3D model based on a user-indicated point. Perlant was argued to supply these elements by teaching a system for scene registration where an operator manually selects points in stereo imagery to register the images to a reference grid. Perlant further teaches that this registration facilitates the "construction of a three-dimensional image."
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine McKeown’s 3D modeling with Perlant’s registration process to augment and improve the system. Perlant explicitly provides the motivation by stating that scene registration supports 3D model generation. Therefore, a POSITA would have found it obvious to integrate Perlant’s registration functionality into McKeown’s modeling system to create a more accurate and robust tool.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as the application of a conventional technique (image registration) to an existing system to gain a predictable advantage, yielding a high expectation of success.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner also asserted that claim 8 is anticipated by Avrahami under §102.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued for a specific construction of the term "reference grid" (recited in claim 10) as "a data structure to which one or more images are registered." This construction was central to the obviousness ground over McKeown and Perlant, as it allowed Petitioner to map Perlant’s disclosure of registering images to a grid directly onto the claim language.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should decline to exercise its discretion to deny the petition under 35 U.S.C. §325(d). It contended that the prior art and arguments presented were not the "same or substantially the same" as those raised in a previously filed petition (IPR2016-00591). Petitioner specifically argued that the primary references in this petition (McKeown and Avrahami) were substantively different from the primary reference ([Hsieh](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2017-00034/doc/1003)) relied upon in the earlier IPR, thus presenting new questions of patentability for the Board’s consideration.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 8, and 10 of Patent 8,209,152 as unpatentable.