• The Gillette Company v. Shavelogic, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2016 · IPR2016-00699 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–6 were unpatentable under any of six obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are persuasive. As discussed above, the claimed “longitudinal axis of inertia” at a minimum requires a longitudinal axis that passes through the center of mass of the handle. Petitioner, using only its own proposed construction in its analysis of the prior art, ignores this requirement. Petitioner never alleges that the axis disclosed by Ohtsubo and passing through the “center line of the gripping section” of the handle in Ohtsubo also passes through the center of mass of the handle. Petitioner never mentions the center of mass in the analysis of Ohtsubo or any of the other prior art references. In addition, the Petition and accompanying Slocum Declaration fail to set forth sufficient evidence from which we could find that the prior art discloses angles with respect to a longitudinal axis passing through the center of mass of the handle. Similarly, Petitioner’s argument that the claimed angle would have been an obvious matter of design choice relies on Petitioner’s flawed construction, and fails to allege, much less establish, that arriving at the claimed angle using a longitudinal axis passing through the handle’s center of mass would have been an obvious matter of design choice. Pet. 23–24. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to establish that the combination of Jian and Ohtsubo discloses this limitation, or that the claimed angle would have been an obvious matter of design choice. Because Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable, and the remaining claims 2–6 at issue in Ground I depend from claim 1, we decline to institute on Ground I.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The parties seem to agree that Figure 7E is controlling, as both parties cite to the figure in support of their respective positions. Pet. 10; POPR 10. For purposes of this Decision, we agree. The description of Figure 7E confirms that it “is a diagram illustrating how the longitudinal axis of inertia of the handle is measured.” Ex. 1001, 3:61–62; see also id. at 6:22–24 (“These angles are measured between the longitudinal axis of inertia of the handle (see FIG. 7E) and the skin surface.”). Because the specification indicates that Figure 7E illustrates how to measure the longitudinal axis of inertia, and the remaining text of the specification does not define the term, we rely on Figure 7E to construe “longitudinal axis of inertia” in claim 1. Figure 7E depicts the longitudinal axis passing through the center of mass of the handle. Id. at Fig. 7E. The figure identifies the center of mass with a symbol and explains that the center of mass corresponds to that symbol in a legend. Id. Petitioner’s construction, with reference to an axis extending “generally through the center of the gripping portion of the handle,” may be consistent with Figure 7E in a broad sense, but Petitioner’s proposed construction does not go far enough. Figure 7E does not merely disclose the longitudinal axis of inertia extending “generally through the center of the gripping portion of the handle,” but instead relies on the center of mass of the handle as a frame of reference to define the claimed axis. Id. Petitioner improperly employs broad language not found in the figure, while ignoring important details such as the intersection of the longitudinal axis of inertia with the center of mass that is specifically called out in the figure. On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we conclude that the correct construction of “longitudinal axis of inertia,” in light of the specification and in particular Figure 7E, at a minimum requires a longitudinal axis that passes through the center of mass of the handle.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are persuasive. As discussed above, the claimed “longitudinal axis of inertia” at a minimum requires a longitudinal axis that passes through the center of mass of the handle. Petitioner, using only its own proposed construction in its analysis of the prior art, ignores this requirement. Petitioner never alleges that the axis disclosed by Ohtsubo and passing through the “center line of the gripping section” of the handle in Ohtsubo also passes through the center of mass of the handle. Petitioner never mentions the center of mass in the analysis of Ohtsubo or any of the other prior art references. In addition, the Petition and accompanying Slocum Declaration fail to set forth sufficient evidence from which we could find that the prior art discloses angles with respect to a longitudinal axis passing through the center of mass of the handle. Similarly, Petitioner’s argument that the claimed angle would have been an obvious matter of design choice relies on Petitioner’s flawed construction, and fails to allege, much less establish, that arriving at the claimed angle using a longitudinal axis passing through the handle’s center of mass would have been an obvious matter of design choice. Pet. 23–24. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to establish that the combination of Jian and Ohtsubo discloses this limitation, or that the claimed angle would have been an obvious matter of design choice. Because Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable, and the remaining claims 2–6 at issue in Ground I depend from claim 1, we decline to institute on Ground I. Grounds II through VI rely on the same flawed arguments to establish that the combination of Jian and Ohtsubo discloses the claimed “planar rim surface being disposed at an angle of about 10 to 20 degrees with respect to a longitudinal axis of inertia of the handle.” Pet. 41–58. Patent Owner relies on additional references in these Grounds, but not in a manner that addresses the deficiencies noted above. Id. We therefore decline to institute on Grounds II through VI for the same reasons discussed above.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,789,282
• Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 24, 2016 · CBM2016-00016 · APJ Peter P Chen · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–19 because the petition did not establish that the ’957 patent qualifies as a covered business method patent.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “method patent,” as defined by the AIA. CoreLogic bears the burden of persuasion that the ’957 patent is a covered business method patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a). For the reasons discussed below, we determine CoreLogic has made an insufficient showing that the ’957 patent is a “covered business method patent.” The AIA defines “covered business method patent” as “a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). The legislative history of the AIA “explains that the definition of covered business method patent was drafted to encompass patents ‘claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.’” Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,374, 48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“CBM Final Rules”) (quoting 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011)); see also Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016). To determine whether a patent is eligible for a covered business method patent review, the focus is on the claims. AIA § 18(d)(1) (“a patent that claims . . .” (emphasis added)); 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) (same); CBM Final Rules, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,736 (comment 4) (“[T]he definition set forth in § 42.301(a) . . . is based on what the patent claims.”). A patent need have only one claim directed to a covered business method to be eligible for review. CBM Final Rules, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,736 (comment 8) (“A patent having one or more claims directed to a covered business method is a covered business method patent for purposes of the review, even if the patent includes additional claims.”).” slip op. at 5

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “patent because “[a]t least claim 1 of the ’957 patent claims data processing or other operations that are financial in nature or, at a minimum, incidental or complementary to a financial activity.” Pet. 7. CoreLogic also relies on dependent claims 13 and 16–18, and argues that those claims “explicitly limit the claims to financial applications.” Id. at 9; see also id. at 11 (alleging that claims 16–18 cover “subject matter incidental or complementary to a financial activity”). As noted above, however, BSI disclaimed claims 13 and 16–18 at the same time it filed its Preliminary Response. See Ex. 2003. “A statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 has the effect of canceling the claims from the patent and the patent is viewed as though the disclaimed claims had never existed in the patent.” Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We agree with other panels that have considered this issue under similar facts and concluded that the disclaimed claims should not be consulted when determining whether the patent is a covered business method patent under AIA §18(d)(1).1 We are mindful that other Board decisions have evaluated compliance with CBM standing requirements at the time of filing, but those cases are distinguishable2 and not binding here. Any suggestion in those cases that a decision on institution should address the disclaimed claims because they existed at the time the petition was filed is inconsistent with Federal Circuit precedent instructing us to treat the claims as if they never existed, and our Rules forbidding institution “based on disclaimed claims.” Guinn, 96 F.3d at 1422; 37 CFR § 42.207(e) (“No post-grant review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”); see also Google Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc., CBM2015- 00019, slip op. at 5–6 (PTAB Aug. 19, 2015) (Paper 15) (Order Denying Request for Rehearing) (rejecting petitioner’s argument that disclaimed claim should be considered because it existed at the time the petition was 1 See, e.g., AT&T Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, CBM2015- 00185, slip op. at 9–10 (PTAB May 4, 2016) (Paper 10); Great West Casualty Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, CBM2015-00171, slip op. at 7–9 (PTAB Feb. 9, 2016) (Paper 10); Google Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc., CBM2015-00019, slip op. at 14–15 (PTAB May 19, 2014) (Paper 11). 2 In Travelers Lloyds of Texas Ins. Co. v. Integrated Claims Sys., LLC, CBM2014-00187, slip op. at 7, 8 n.1 (PTAB Mar. 30, 2016) (Paper 31), the Patent Owner attempted to cancel a claim after institution, not disclaim a claim prior to institution. In J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, CBM2014-00157, slip op. at 9 (PTAB Jan. 12, 2016) (Paper 40), the Patent Owner’s disclaimer occurred after institution, not prior to institution. filed). We therefore do not consider disclaimed claims 13 and 16–18 in our analysis.” slip op. at 6

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with BSI. CoreLogic does not explain adequately how any of the claims of the ’957 patent recite a method or apparatus “for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.” AIA § 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). CoreLogic focuses on claim 1, but fails to identify any limitation in claim 1 or any other claim that relates to a financial activity in any way. Claim 1 claims a “method for retrieving geographic parcel boundary polygon maps and associated parcel attribute data,” which has applicability to retrieving and displaying map data, not financial products and services. CoreLogic suggests that the “transmitting” step of claim 1 “can be used” by various entities in a business context, but does not argue, let alone establish, that the claim terms on their face are financial in nature. See Pet. 1. CoreLogic asserts that the Specification of the ’957 patent describes several methods of generating revenue using the claimed methods, and that numerous businesses may pay for access to map data generated using the claimed method. Pet. 10–16. CoreLogic’s reliance on these portions of the Specification is unavailing. First, CoreLogic fails to address how these disclosures relate directly to, or meaningfully informs our analysis of, the language of the claims. For example, CoreLogic does not direct us to any claims or claim limitations that require users to pay for access to the map database or use of the claimed methods. Second, CoreLogic fails to address portions of the Specification that indicate the claimed invention can be used “for free,” i.e., without any generation of revenue or financial aspect at all. See Ex. 1001, 2:58 (“These end users may access for free . . . .”), 14:11–15 (“Another public-private alliance option is to offer the free use of the NPDP server to such data sponsors in addition to or in lieu of their revenue share.”), 14:41–45 (“[C]ommodity service subscriber end users (customers) can have access to the NPDP at no charge.”), 16:8–12 (“It is also contemplated that other independent public and private data sponsors could be provided with links as part of the NPDP display which end users could access on a free or fee basis.”). Given that the Specification contemplates use of the claimed inventions for free, it is not apparent that the “purpose of the claimed method is to provide data in exchange for money,” as CoreLogic suggests. Pet. 10. At most, CoreLogic has established that the claimed methods could be used to generate revenue in a number of ways, even though the language of the claims does not require any exchange of money or other financially related step. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the “financial prong” has not been met. Numerous Board decisions have taken a similar approach in situations where the Specification refers to potential financial applications for the claimed inventions but the claim language does not expressly indicate a financial context.3 In Qualtrics, LLC v. OpinionLab,” slip op. at 10

  None
  Patents in suitUS 7,092,957
• Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 24, 2016 · CBM2016-00017 · APJ Richard H Marschall · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution of CBM review because CoreLogic did not show that the patent claims a method or apparatus for a financial product or service.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “We agree with BSI. CoreLogic does not explain adequately how any of the claims of the ’946 patent recite a method or apparatus “for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.” AIA § 18(d)(1). CoreLogic focuses on claim 1, but fails to identify any limitation in claim 1 or any other claim that relates to a financial activity in any way. Claim 1 claims a “method for retrieving and displaying geographic parcel boundary polygon maps,” which has applicability to retrieving and displaying map data, not financial products and services. CoreLogic suggests that the method of claim 1 “can be used” by various entities in a business context, but does not argue, let alone establish, that the claim terms on their face are financial in nature. See Pet. 11. CoreLogic asserts that the specification of the ’946 patent describes several methods of generating revenue using the claimed methods, and that numerous businesses may pay for access to map data generated using the claimed method. Pet. 10–16. CoreLogic’s reliance on these portions of the specification is unavailing. First, CoreLogic fails to address how these disclosures relate directly to, or meaningfully informs our analysis of, the language of the claims. For example, CoreLogic does not direct us to any claims or claim limitations that require users to pay for access to the map database or use of the claimed methods. Second, CoreLogic fails to address portions of the specification that indicate the claimed invention can be used “for free,” i.e., without any generation of revenue or financial aspect at all. See Ex. 1001, 2:59 (“These end users may access for free . . . .”), 13:54–56 (“Another public-private alliance option is to offer the free use of the NPDP server to such data sponsors in addition to or in lieu of their revenue share.”), 14:20–21 (“[C]ommodity service subscriber end users (customers) can have access to the NPDP at no charge.”), 15:51–55 (“It is also contemplated that other independent public and private data sponsors could be provided with links as part of the NPDP display which end users could access on a free or fee basis.”). Given that the specification contemplates use of the claimed inventions for free, it is not apparent that the “purpose of the claimed method is to provide data in exchange for money,” as CoreLogic suggests. Pet. 11. At most, CoreLogic has established that the claimed methods could be used to generate revenue in a number of ways, even though the language of the claims does not require any exchange of money or other financially related step. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the “financial prong” has not been met. Numerous Board decisions have taken a similar approach in situations where the specification refers to potential financial applications for the claimed inventions but the claim language does not expressly indicate a financial context.3 In Qualtrics, LLC v. OpinionLab, Inc., CBM2015-00164 (Feb. 3, 2016) (Paper 8), for example, the claims were “devoid of any terms that reasonably could be argued as having any particular relation to a financial product or service,” but the specification” slip op. at 10

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,499,946
• Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 24, 2016 · CBM2016-00018 · APJ Richard H Marschall · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–23 because the petition did not establish that the ’352 patent qualifies as a covered business method patent.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied

    “method patent,” as defined by the AIA. CoreLogic bears the burden of persuasion that the ’352 patent is a covered business method patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a). For the reasons discussed below, we determine CoreLogic has made an insufficient showing that the ’352 patent is a “covered business method patent.” The AIA defines “covered business method patent” as “a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). The legislative history of the AIA “explains that the definition of covered business method patent was drafted to encompass patents ‘claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.’” Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,374, 48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“CBM Final Rules”) (quoting 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011)); see also Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016). To determine whether a patent is eligible for a covered business method patent review, the focus is on the claims. AIA § 18(d)(1) (“a patent that claims . . .” (emphasis added)); 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) (same); CBM Final Rules, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,736 (comment 4) (“[T]he definition set forth in § 42.301(a) . . . is based on what the patent claims.”). A patent need have only one claim directed to a covered business method to be eligible for review. CBM Final Rules, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,736 (comment 8) (“A patent having one or more claims directed to a covered business method is a covered business method patent for purposes of the review, even if the patent includes additional claims.”).” slip op. at 5

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,065,352
• Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 19, 2016 · IPR2015-00219 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 12–15 and 17–21 were not shown unpatentable because Oosterom did not disclose searching the database using a jurisdictional identifier.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “In the Institution Decision, we construed “jurisdictional identifier” to mean “a number or other name, code, or description that identifies a jurisdiction.” Dec. 6. We based our construction on the only appearance of “jurisdictional identifier” in the written description of the ’352 patent, which states: FIG. 3 illustrates a USA County Boundary Map (USACM). This is a public domain boundary file of each and every of the 3140 counties within the United States. Each of these polygons is geocoded with its county name and FIPS number, a numerical jurisdictional identifier, as illustrated in the figure. Ex. 1001, 8:48–53 (emphasis added).3 BSI does not challenge our construction of “jurisdictional identifier” in its Patent Owner Response, see PO Resp. 6, nor does CoreLogic challenge the construction in its Reply, see Reply 10. For this Final Written Decision, after considering the complete record, we maintain our construction of “jurisdictional identifier” as “a number or other name, code, or description that identifies a jurisdiction.”” slip op. at 5

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Having reviewed the arguments and evidence, we are not persuaded CoreLogic has demonstrated that Oosterom discloses searching the parcel map database “using a jurisdictional identifier” as recited in claim 12. Among the attributes in Oosterom’s parcel and boundary tables identified by CoreLogic in its analysis, only the municipality codes (i.e., “municip” in the parcel table and “L_municip” and “R_municip” in the boundary table) qualify as “jurisdictional identifiers.” See Ex. 1010, 513–14 (Tables 1, 2). The “object_id” of an object, e.g., a parcel or a boundary, is a nationwide unique identifier, but there is no indication in Oosterom that the object_id of a parcel or boundary identifies a jurisdiction. See id. at 512; see also id. at 513–14 (showing object_id attribute in parcel and boundary tables). As for the “ogroup” attribute in the parcel and boundary tables, Oosterom states only that it “indicates to which group the record belongs.” Id. at 519. Nothing in Oosterom describes the ogroup as identifying a jurisdiction. Although the municipality code attributes in the parcel and boundary tables identify jurisdiction, CoreLogic does not cite any portion of Oosterom that illustrates the use of municipality codes in searching the database for selected parcels as required by claim 12. See Pet. 45. Dr. Goodchild opines that the “municipality code . . . would allow us to search [the] parcel table by that jurisdiction and to identify all the parcels in that jurisdiction.” Ex. 2010, 19:22–24. He further testifies that in his analysis, he “was concerned with the specific kind of query identified in the claim, which is much narrower than Oosterom’s discussion [and] much more specific than the broad range of queries discussed by Oosterom.” Id. at 21:14–25. Ultimately, he states that the “question [he] analyzed is whether [Oosterom’s] database is capable of supporting the type of query identified in the claim.” Id. at 22:14–16 (emphasis added). Dr. Goodchild’s testimony that municipality codes could be used in searching Oosterom’s database, however, is insufficient to establish for anticipation purposes that Oosterom discloses the step of searching a multi-jurisdictional digital parcel map database for a selected parcel boundary polygon “using a jurisdictional identifier.”” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeOther

    “C. CoreLogic’s Motion to Exclude Evidence CoreLogic moves to exclude the redirect testimony of BSI’s expert, Mr. William Huxhold, on the ground that it was provided in response to leading questions. Mot. Excl. 1 (citing Ex. 1034, 150:6–153:8). The redirect testimony relates to a portion of Mr. Huxhold’s cross-examination testimony. Id. at 1–2 (citing Ex. 1034, 72:5–22). Because we do not rely on Mr. Huxhold’s testimony, CoreLogic’s motion is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,065,352 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,065,352
• Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 19, 2016 · IPR2015-00226 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 14, 15, and 19–21 are unpatentable as obvious over the Harder-based grounds; the Kearney and ARC/INFO ground was not proven for claims 1–6 and 20–21.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedUnpatentable

    “In summary, we agree with Petitioner’s contentions and find that Harder and Longley, once combined as proposed by Petitioner, teach or suggest the limitations of independent claim 1.” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill in the art is “at least a bachelors degree in geographic information science, survey engineering, geomatics, or similar education, and two years of experience in a relevant field (e.g., land or geographic information science), or six years of experience in the relevant field.” Ex. 1006 (Declaration of Michael Goodchild), ¶ 11. Patent Owner has proposed that one of ordinary skill in the art would possess a “a Bachelor’s degree or higher in, GIS engineering with at least 5 years of academic or industry experience in GIS database design..” Ex. 2005 (Declaration of William Huxhold), ¶ 14. We determine that an express definition of the level of ordinary skill is not required. The level of ordinary skill in the art can be reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”) (internal quotations omitted); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Therefore, we find the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected in the cited references.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “The disclosure of Longley and the knowledge of one skilled in the art would have motivated such a person to modify Harder’s system given that Harder discloses parcel-based searching and display functionalities for a jurisdiction (e.g., Ex. 1003, 21-25) and for multiple states (id., 49-51), and discloses that databases in GIS environments could span multiple jurisdictions (id.,7, 49- 51), and that Longley discloses configuring such databases to include data relating to different states and also discloses parcel based systems. Moreover, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to look to Longley to supplement the features of the systems and processes of Harder given they both describe[] features of ESRI systems. Ex. 1015, 170, 172; Ex. 1003. Thus, modifying Harder’s database in such a way would have been a common sense and predictable modification that was within the realm of knowledge of one skilled in the art at the time of the alleged invention. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 35- 39. Pet. 18–19. The Petition continues:” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

  Patent outcomesUS 7,499,946 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,499,946
• Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 19, 2016 · IPR2015-00222 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–23 are unpatentable: claims 9, 10, and 12–22 as obvious over Harder and Du; claims 1–8, 11, and 23 as obvious over Harder, Du, and MacDonald.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that an express definition of the level of ordinary skill is not required. The level of ordinary skill in the art can be reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.” (internal quotations omitted)); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In this case, we find the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected in the cited references.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “We remain unpersuaded by BSI’s arguments. As we explained in the Institution Decision, although the ’352 patent describes assembling a national parcel-level map database from data provided by various sponsoring agencies, the claims themselves do not require assembling the multi-jurisdictional database using any specific method or obtaining the information in the database from any particular sources. Dec. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:41–48, 4:8–11). Moreover, BSI’s reliance on the prosecution history of the ’957 patent does not support its position, as the claims at issue there did not recite a “multi-jurisdictional database.” See Ex. 2006, 132–37, 141, 193–200). For these reasons, we maintain our construction of “multi- jurisdictional database” as “a collection of data relating to two or more jurisdictions.”” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “success”9 in combining Harder and Du because Du would not be used to maintain data for jurisdictions with a large number of parcels, and the visibility of parcels would be diminished in a map with so many parcels. PO Resp. 38. We do not find this argument to be persuasive because, as CoreLogic notes, Du discloses that cells can correspond to different types of jurisdictions and that any geographic areas can be searched and displayed. See Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1018, Fig. 3, 3:21–32, 4:38–40, 6:31–38, 9:5–6, 9:16–44). BSI also argues that a county identified as a cell in Du would include a huge amount of parcel data, and data for the entire cell would be transmitted to a client computer in the system described in Du, thereby defeating a purpose of Du’s system—the speedy display of maps. PO Resp. 38–39. CoreLogic, however, relies on Du for teaching an index of 9 We understand BSI’s use of the phrase “reasonable likelihood of success” to be an argument that there would be no “reasonable expectation of success” in the combination of references, rather than a reference to the reasonable likelihood standard for instituting an inter partes review. jurisdictional identifiers used to search a portion of a multi-jurisdictional database, not the transmission of parcel data, and has shown sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Du’s teaching of an index with Harder’s system for retrieving and transmitting parcel boundary polygon map data. See Reply 15. We have reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence on this issue, and we agree with and adopt CoreLogic’s reasoning for modifying Harder’s single-county example in view of Du to retrieve a jurisdictional identifier from an index and use it to search a portion of a multi-jurisdictional database for a selected parcel. In sum, we find that the combination of Harder and Du teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 9 and that CoreLogic has provided articulated reasoning supported by rational underpinnings for combining the references in the manner asserted. Therefore, we conclude CoreLogic has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 9 would have been obvious over Harder and Du.” slip op. at 22

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “G. CoreLogic’s Motion to Exclude Evidence CoreLogic moves to exclude the redirect testimony of BSI’s expert, Mr. William Huxhold, on the ground that it was provided in response to leading questions. Mot. Excl. 1 (citing Ex. 1034, 150:6–153:8). The redirect testimony relates to a portion of Mr. Huxhold’s cross-examination testimony. Id. at 1–2 (citing Ex. 1034, 72:5–22). Because we do not rely on the cited redirect testimony or the cited cross-examination testimony, CoreLogic’s motion is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 8,065,352 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,065,352
• Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 19, 2016 · IPR2015-00228 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 14, 15, and 19 are unpatentable: claims 1–10, 12, 14, 15, and 19 as obvious over Harder and Longley, and claim 11 over Harder, Longley, and Roy.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision to Institute, we construed “numerical jurisdictional identifier” to mean “a number that identifies a jurisdiction.” Dec. to Inst. 7– 8. We based our construction on the only appearance of “jurisdictional identifier” in the written description of the ’957 patent: FIG. 3 illustrates a USA County Boundary Map (USACM). This is a public domain boundary file of each and every of the 3140 counties within the United States. Each of these polygons is 8 geocoded with its county name and FIPS number, a numerical jurisdictional identifier, as illustrated in the figure. Ex. 1001, 8:48–53 (emphasis added).1 Patent Owner does not challenge our construction of “jurisdictional identifier” in its Patent Owner Response, see PO Resp. 7, nor does Petitioner challenge the construction in its Reply, see Reply 7. For this Final Written Decision, after considering the complete record, we maintain our construction of “numerical jurisdictional identifier” as “a number that identifies a jurisdiction.”” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner also proposes a construction for “national parcel map database comprising multiple jurisdictional databases which have been normalized to a common data protocol.” PO Resp. 7–15. Patent Owner’s proposal is 60 words long, and reads, “a database covering more than one state including multiple jurisdictional databases, wherein a jurisdictional database is a collection of data representing the boundaries of parcels from the jurisdiction, each of the jurisdictional databases having been received from a jurisdiction, and modified, transformed, amended or converted by a common set of one or more processes applied to all data and updates.” PO Resp. 8. Patent Owner had in its Preliminary Response proposed a different construction (“the database of individual land parcels having been 1 According to the ’957 patent, the Federal Information Processing Standards (“FIPS”) number “is used nationally to numerically identify specific county jurisdictions.” Ex. 1001, 7:27–30. 9 transformed by a set of one or more automated and/or semiautomated processes applied to data and data updates supplied by sponsoring jurisdictions using a set of rules or procedures”) for nearly the identical phrase (“multiple jurisdictional databases which have been normalized to a common data protocol”). Prelim. Resp. 15–17. We did not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction in our Decision to Institute, and we do not adopt its revised (and lengthier) construction in this Final Written Decision, for the reasons argued by Petitioner in its Reply (Reply 2–5) and also because the Patent Owner’s prolix proposed construction does not add clarity to the term. We decline to provide an express construction for this term or for any other terms in the claims other than discussed above.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill in the art is “at least a bachelors degree in geographic information science, survey engineering, geomatics, or similar education, and two years of experience in a relevant field (e.g., land or geographic information science), or six years of experience in the relevant field.” Ex. 1006 (Declaration of Michael Goodchild), ¶ 11. Patent Owner has proposed that one of ordinary skill in the art would possess a “a Bachelor’s degree or higher in, GIS engineering with at least 5 years of academic or industry experience in GIS database design.” Ex. 2004 (Declaration of William Huxhold), ¶ 13. We determine that an express definition of the level of ordinary skill is not required. The level of ordinary skill in the art can be reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”) (internal quotations omitted); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Therefore, we find the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected in the cited references.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “universal spatial protocol using SHP files (shapefiles) (Ex. 1001, 7:31–41), and Harder’s description of how its system’s datasets are “stored in the industry-standard shapefile (.shp) format” and how the system “converts the data into shapefiles.” Pet. Reply 9–11; Ex. 1003, 24, 106. Petitioner also notes that Patent Owner’s declarant acknowledged that assembling databases according to a standard protocol was in the prior art. Pet. Reply 11; Ex. 1034, 29:15–32:17, 32:18–40:22. We agree with Petitioner and find that Harder teaches or suggests databases that have been normalized to a common data protocol. Second, Patent Owner argues about the lack of disclosure of multiple jurisdictional databases. PO Resp. 28–29. Petitioner contends multiple jurisdictional databases are taught by both Harder and Longley, which explicitly discloses a “STATES table” that is a multi-state database. Pet. Reply 13; Ex. 1015, 229, Fig. 11.2. We agree with Petitioner and find that Harder and Longley teach or suggest multiple jurisdictional databases.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,092,957 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,092,957

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.