PTAB

IPR2022-01090

Nearmap US Inc v. Eagle View Technologies Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods
  • Brief Description: The ’436 patent discloses systems and methods for remotely creating roof estimates for buildings. The technology involves using aerial images to generate a three-dimensional model of a roof, which is then used to create an annotated report with roof property measurements.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Littleworth, Linder, Nishitani, and Middlebrook - Claims 1-4, 6-22, 24-37, 39-42, and 46-66 are obvious over the combination of four prior art references.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Littleworth (a 1993 article on 3D mapping), Linder (a 2003 textbook on digital photogrammetry), Nishitani (Japanese Publication No. 2006185367A), and Middlebrook (a 2004 book on AutoCAD).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the primary reference, Littleworth, discloses the core concept of independent claims 1 and 18: generating a three-dimensional building model using a first vertical aerial image and a second oblique aerial image that are not a stereoscopic pair. Petitioner contended that Littleworth does not detail the technical process for correlating these images, creating a gap that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would fill with Linder. Linder allegedly supplies the well-known photogrammetric principles for correlating images using control points to calculate 3D coordinates. To meet the claim limitations regarding generating an annotated report, Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would use a CAD system like the one described in Middlebrook. Middlebrook, an AutoCAD manual, teaches annotating 3D models with numerical values for properties like length and slope, and using different visual indicia (e.g., line types, colors) for different properties. Finally, Nishitani was introduced to teach generating and transmitting a roof estimate report, specifically one that includes a top-plan view of a 3D model for purposes such as solar panel installation estimates.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Littleworth and Linder to implement Littleworth’s conceptual system using Linder's standard, detailed photogrammetry techniques. A POSITA would then incorporate the teachings of Middlebrook because Littleworth explicitly mentions using CAD systems, and Middlebrook describes standard annotation and view-generation functionalities (e.g., creating top-plan views) inherent to such systems. The combination with Nishitani would be motivated by the desire to package and communicate the generated 3D model data in an easily understandable and usable format, such as the estimate reports taught by Nishitani.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involves applying known solutions (Linder, Middlebrook, Nishitani) to improve a known system (Littleworth) in a predictable manner. The integration of standard photogrammetry, CAD annotation, and reporting functionalities would have been routine.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Littleworth, Linder, Nishitani, Middlebrook, and Heller - Claims 5, 23, and 38 are obvious over the combination from Ground 1, further in view of Heller.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The four references from Ground 1, plus Heller (a 1997 workshop proceeding on a site-model construction system).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the combination asserted in Ground 1 to address the limitations of claims 5, 23, and 38, which require generating an electronic file that includes line drawings of the 3D model. Petitioner argued that Heller discloses a system with tools for site model construction, including a semi-automatic technique where an operator uses a box primitive to manually trace or annotate the outlines of a building on an image. The result is a line drawing superimposed on the image of the building. Petitioner asserted that adding Heller's teachings to the primary combination would render the generation of such line drawings obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Heller’s teachings to increase the speed and accuracy with which a user can create line drawings or annotate the outlines of the 3D model generated by the Littleworth-Linder combination. This provides a straightforward method for creating the line drawings recited in the challenged claims.
    • Expectation of Success: Adding a known manual tracing/annotation technique to a 3D modeling workflow would be a simple and predictable modification with a high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "not a stereoscopic pair" (claims 1 and 18): Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean that the two images were "captured independently of each other and without metadata (or other information) relating angles of cameras that captured the images." This proposed construction was based on arguments the Patent Owner made during a prior ex parte reexamination of the ’436 patent, where the Patent Owner distinguished prior art by arguing that images in a stereoscopic pair are not taken independently. Petitioner contended that its primary reference, Littleworth, discloses images taken years apart, which would meet this construction.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1-42 and 46-66 of Patent 8,078,436 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.