Paper 48
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: May 19, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CORELOGIC, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BOUNDARY SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, PETER P. CHEN, and
`RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`In this inter partes review, instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314,
`CoreLogic, Inc. (“CoreLogic”) challenges the patentability of claims 1–23 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,065,352 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’352 patent”), owned by
`Boundary Solutions, Inc. (“BSI”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: May 19, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CORELOGIC, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BOUNDARY SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, PETER P. CHEN, and
`RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`In this inter partes review, instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314,
`CoreLogic, Inc. (“CoreLogic”) challenges the patentability of claims 1–23 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,065,352 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’352 patent”), owned by
`Boundary Solutions, Inc. (“BSI”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`
`§ 6(c). This Final Written Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed below, CoreLogic
`has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–23 of the
`’352 patent are unpatentable.
`
`A. Procedural History
`CoreLogic filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 1–23 of
`the ’352 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). BSI filed a Corrected Preliminary
`Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On May 21, 2015, we instituted an
`inter partes review of claims 1–23 of the ’352 patent on asserted grounds of
`unpatentability. Paper 7 (“Dec.”).
`After institution, BSI filed a Patent Owner Response, Paper 23
`(“PO Resp.”), and CoreLogic filed a Reply to the Patent Owner Response,
`Paper 35 (“Reply”). CoreLogic filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence,
`Paper 37 (“Mot. Excl.”), BSI filed an Opposition to the Motion to Exclude,
`Paper 41, and CoreLogic filed a Reply in support of its Motion to Exclude,
`Paper 42.
`An oral hearing was held on February 11, 2016.1 A transcript of the
`hearing has been entered into the record. Paper 47 (“Tr.”).
`
`B. Related Matters
`The parties state that BSI has asserted the ’352 patent against
`CoreLogic in Boundary Solutions, Inc. v. CoreLogic, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-
`00761 (N.D. Cal.) (filed Feb. 19, 2014). Pet. 59; Paper 4 (Patent Owner’s
`Mandatory Notices). BSI also has asserted related U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`1 A consolidated oral hearing was held for this proceeding and Cases
`IPR2015-00219, IPR2015-00226, and IPR2015-00228. See Paper 40.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`
`7,499,946 (“the ’946 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,092,957 (“the
`’957 patent”) in that proceeding. Pet. 59; Paper 4. The ’946 patent and the
`’957 patent are the subject of inter partes reviews in Cases IPR2015-00226
`and IPR2015-00228, respectively, based on petitions filed by CoreLogic.
`CoreLogic filed two additional petitions for inter partes review of the
`’352 patent. In Case IPR2015-00219, claims 12–15 and 17–21 of the
`’352 patent are the subject of an inter partes review based on an asserted
`anticipation ground. CoreLogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc., Case
`IPR2015-00219 (PTAB May 21, 2015) (Paper 6). In Case IPR2015-00225,
`we did not institute an inter partes review because the information presented
`in the petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood CoreLogic would
`prevail. CoreLogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc., Case IPR2015-00225
`(PTAB May 21, 2015) (Paper 7).
`CoreLogic also has filed petitions for covered business method patent
`review of the ’957 patent, ’946 patent, and ’352 patent, which are pending in
`Cases CBM2015-00016, CBM2015-00017, and CBM2015-00018,
`respectively.
`
`C. The ’352 Patent
`The ’352 patent relates generally to Geographic Information Systems
`(“GIS”) and, in particular, to a National Online Parcel-Level Map Data
`Portal (“NPDP”) that provides online delivery of parcel-level map data.
`Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:22–37. The ’352 patent describes the NPDP as an
`electronic repository for parcel-level maps and linked attribute data acquired
`from public and private entities. Id. at 2:41–53. Databases from different
`jurisdictions are assembled and stored in a standard format, with each
`jurisdictional database placed in an individual directory. Id. at 4:8–10, 7:22–
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`
`30. Information is normalized to a single universal spatial protocol.
`Id. at 3:16–19, 7:33–54. Parcel-level information includes parcel boundaries
`and geocodes, which are linked using a parcel identifier to a non-graphic
`database containing property tax records. Id. at 1:60–64, 4:10–17, 8:14–25.
`The ’352 patent describes retrieving a parcel-level map based on the
`address of a parcel requested by an end user. Id. at 1:65–2:1, 4:52–56. A
`jurisdictional lookup table is searched to identify, for example, the
`jurisdiction in which the requested parcel is located. Id. at 8:26–30. The
`non-graphic database for that jurisdiction is searched for a record matching
`the address, and the parcel identifier for that record is used to access a
`graphic database containing the selected parcel. Id. at 3:56–63. The
`selected parcel and surrounding parcels may be displayed, with the selected
`parcel shown as a highlighted polygon. Id. at 4:61–63. The parcel’s linked
`data (e.g., tax record) also may be displayed. Id. at 4:63–64.
`
`D. Illustrative Claims
`Claims 1, 9, and 12 of the ’352 patent are independent. Claims 2–8
`depend from claim 1, claims 10 and 11 depend from claim 9, and claims 13–
`23 depend from claim 12. Claims 1, 9, and 12 are illustrative of the claimed
`subject matter:
`
`1. A method for retrieving and displaying geographic
`parcel boundary polygon maps comprising:
`
`receiving, by a server, a request for a parcel boundary
`polygon map for a selected parcel;
`
`searching, by the server, using a jurisdictional identifier, a
`multi-jurisdictional digital parcel map database for the selected
`parcel boundary polygon and the boundary polygons of adjacent
`and surrounding parcels, the database having information about
`individual land parcels normalized to a common spatial data
`protocol, including polygon data used to describe the boundaries
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`
`of a plurality of properties, wherein the multi-jurisdictional
`digital parcel map database includes a plurality of records
`arranged in separate service area directories corresponding to
`multi-jurisdictional service areas within two or more states;
`
`transmitting the parcel boundary polygon map data for the
`selected parcel along with the adjacent and surrounding parcels
`to a client computer for display, wherein the transmitted parcel
`boundary polygon map includes the selected parcel polygon
`along with adjacent and surrounding parcel boundary polygons
`around the selected parcel.
`
`9. A method for retrieving and displaying geographic
`parcel boundary polygon[] maps comprising:
`
`receiving, by a server, a request for a parcel boundary
`polygon map for a selected parcel;
`
`retrieving, by the server, a jurisdictional identifier
`associated with the selected parcel from an index of a multi-
`jurisdictional digital parcel map database[;]
`
`searching, by the server using the jurisdictional identifier,
`a portion of the multi-jurisdictional database in which the
`selected parcel boundary polygon and the parcel boundary
`polygons [o]f adjacent and surrounding parcels are located, the
`database containing information about individual land parcels
`normalized to a common spatial data protocol, including polygon
`data used to describe the boundaries of a plurality of properties;
`and,
`transmitting the parcel boundary polygon map data for the
`
`selected parcel along with the adjacent and surrounding parcels
`for display, wherein the parcel boundary polygon map includes
`the selected parcel polygon along with adjacent and surrounding
`parcel boundary polygons around the selected parcel, with the
`selected parcel highlighted.
`
`12. A method for retrieving and displaying geographic
`parcel boundary polygon maps comprising:
`
`receiving, by a server, a request for a parcel boundary
`polygon map for a selected parcel;
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`
`searching, by the server, using a jurisdictional identifier a
`
`multi-jurisdictional digital parcel map database for the selected
`parcel boundary polygon and the parcel boundary polygons of
`adjacent and surrounding parcels,
`the database having
`information about individual land parcels normalized to a
`common spatial data protocol, including polygon data used to
`describe the boundaries of a plurality of properties; and,
`
`transmitting the parcel boundary polygon map data for the
`selected parcel along with the adjacent and surrounding parcels
`for display, wherein the parcel boundary polygon map includes
`the selected parcel polygon along with adjacent and surrounding
`parcel boundary polygons around the selected parcel.
`
`Ex. 1001, 15:66–16:21, 16:51–17:5, 17:13–30.
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–23 of the ’352 patent
`on the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`References
`Harder2 and Du3
`Harder, Du, and
`MacDonald4
`Harder and Longley5
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Challenged Claims
`9, 10, and 12–22
`1–8, 11, and 23
`
`1–23
`
`
`2 Christian Harder, SERVING MAPS ON THE INTERNET (1998) (Ex. 1003,
`“Harder”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,732,120 B1, issued May 4, 2004 (Ex. 1018, “Du”).
`4 Andrew MacDonald, BUILDING A GEODATABASE (1999) (Ex. 1020,
`“MacDonald”).
`5 Paul A. Longley et al., GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND SCIENCE
`(2001) (Ex. 1015, “Longley”).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert.
`granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890 (mem.)
`(2016). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms
`generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by
`a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different from
`its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`In accordance with these principles, we construe certain claim terms
`to the extent set forth below. No other claim terms require express
`construction.
`
`1. “multi-jurisdictional database”
`Each independent claim recites a “multi-jurisdictional digital parcel
`map database,” and some claims refer back to the term using the shorthand
`“multi-jurisdictional database.” E.g., Ex. 1001, 16:56–57, 16:59 (claim 9).
`In our Institution Decision, we adopted CoreLogic’s proposed construction
`of “multi-jurisdictional database” as “a collection of data relating to two or
`more jurisdictions.” Dec. 6–7; see Pet. 9. As we noted there, the
`’352 patent does not provide a definition of the term “multi-jurisdictional
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`
`database.” Dec. at 6–7. Indeed, the term appears only in the claims. Id. at
`7. Based on the record at that time, we agreed with CoreLogic’s proposed
`construction, which CoreLogic argued was based on a plain and ordinary
`meaning of “database” and was consistent with the written description of the
`’352 patent. Pet. 9.
`BSI submits in its Patent Owner Response that “multi-jurisdictional
`parcel boundary map database” means “a database including multiple
`jurisdictional databases, wherein a jurisdictional database is a collection of
`data representing the boundaries of parcels from a jurisdiction.” PO Resp. 9.
`In support of its proposed construction, BSI expands on the argument made
`in its Preliminary Response that a “multi-jurisdictional database” must have
`been formed from multiple jurisdictional databases supplied by sponsoring
`organizations. PO Resp. 9–16; see Prelim. Resp. 11. For example, BSI
`contends that “[t]he central problem addressed by the patent is the assembly
`and use of a map database compiled from the digital maps being prepared by
`local governments.” PO Resp. 9; see also id. at 11 (“The patent describes
`the digital parcel map databases acquired from multiple local government
`sources as the ‘center’ of the NPDP design.”). BSI also cites applicant
`remarks from the prosecution history of the related ’957 patent. Id. at 13–
`15.
`
`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
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`
`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.”
`
`2. “jurisdictional identifier”
`This claim term appears in all the independent claims of the
`’352 patent. In the Institution Decision, we construed “jurisdictional
`identifier” to mean “a number or other name, code, or description that
`identifies a jurisdiction.” Dec. 6. In doing so, we rejected BSI’s contention
`in its Preliminary Response that the claim term means “a code for
`identifying a jurisdictional database.” Id. (citing Prelim. Resp. 11–12, 23).
`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).6
`BSI does not challenge our construction of “jurisdictional identifier”
`in its Patent Owner Response, see PO Resp. 8, nor does CoreLogic challenge
`
`
`6 According to the ’352 patent, the Federal Information Processing Standards
`(“FIPS”) number “is used nationally to numerically identify specific county
`jurisdictions.” Ex. 1001, 7:27–30.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`
`the construction in its Reply, see Reply 6–10. 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.”
`
`3. “the database having/containing information about individual land
`parcels normalized to a common spatial data protocol”
`
`Each of the independent claims requires a multi-jurisdictional
`database having or containing “information about individual land parcels
`normalized to a common spatial data protocol.” BSI contends this limitation
`should be construed to mean “the individual land parcels polygon data has
`been received from a jurisdiction and modified, transformed, amended or
`converted by a set of one or more processes applied to data and updates
`from . . . each of the individual jurisdictional databases making up the multi-
`jurisdictional database.” PO Resp. 16–17. BSI further argues that the
`specification of the ’352 patent “does not permit an interpretation which
`suggests that normalization can occur even before the data is compiled into
`the jurisdictional databases.” Id. at 19. CoreLogic urges us to reject BSI’s
`proposed construction because it is “unwieldy and unreasonable [and] adds
`unclaimed and unsupported features to the claims.” Reply 4.
`We agree with CoreLogic. First, BSI’s proposed construction
`requires that parcel information has been received “from a jurisdiction.” As
`explained above, however, the claims do not require the data in the multi-
`jurisdictional database to be obtained from any particular sources. See supra
`Section II.A.1. Second, BSI’s proposed construction assumes that the multi-
`jurisdictional database is composed of individual jurisdictional databases.
`We also rejected that proposition in our construction of “multi-jurisdictional
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`
`database.” See id. In addition, BSI’s suggestion that normalization cannot
`occur before the data is compiled into jurisdictional databases is inconsistent
`with the claim language because the claims do not recite when or where the
`data is normalized. See Reply 5–6. Indeed, the challenged claims are
`method claims that do not recite a “normalizing” step, but instead require
`searching a database having information that already has been normalized.
`Thus, we do not adopt BSI’s proffered construction of a database
`having or containing “information about individual land parcels normalized
`to a common spatial data protocol” because it is premised on an incorrect
`construction of “multi-jurisdictional database” and reads additional
`limitations into the claim language. CoreLogic does not propose a
`construction of its own, and we determine that no express construction is
`necessary beyond our explanation here of what the claim language does not
`require.
`
`4. “separate service area directories corresponding to
`multi-jurisdictional service areas”
`
`In independent claim 1 and dependent claims 11 and 23, the multi-
`jurisdictional digital parcel map database includes a plurality of records or
`files arranged in “separate service area directories corresponding to multi-
`jurisdictional service areas” within two or more states. CoreLogic argues we
`should construe the quoted claim language, which appears only in the claims
`and not in the written description, as “subsets of a database for service areas
`(e.g., jurisdictions),” where database is given its plain and ordinary meaning
`as a “collection of data.” Pet. 8. BSI proposes a different construction—
`“multiple directories each containing records/files covering a jurisdiction’s
`geographic extent, the jurisdictions being within two or more states and
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`
`included in the multi-jurisdictional digital parcel map database.” PO
`Resp. 22.
`We agree with CoreLogic that BSI’s construction includes limitations
`that are already in the language of the claims (i.e., “within two or more
`states” and “multi-jurisdictional digital parcel map database”), so they
`should not be incorporated into the meaning of the term “separate service
`area directories corresponding to multi-jurisdictional service areas.” See
`Reply 7. Nevertheless, we also agree with BSI that CoreLogic’s proposed
`construction is unreasonably broad, as it equates directories with subsets of a
`database. See PO Resp. 23. In support of its proffered construction,
`CoreLogic argues that the ’352 patent “describes ‘directories’ as files,
`folders, or other subsets or parts of its NPDP database.” Pet. 8 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 7:24–8:25, 8:30–33, 9:26–28, 9:57–59, 10:16–26, 12:15–19,
`12:24–35). Although the ’352 patent refers to files that make up a database,
`CoreLogic has not pointed to any description indicating that directories are
`simply files or subsets of a database. Rather, the ’352 patent uses the term
`“directory” in a manner consistent with its ordinary meaning in the computer
`context, e.g., a catalog or way of organizing and grouping files and other
`directories, sometimes referred to as a folder.7
`The remaining aspects of the parties’ proposed constructions generally
`coincide. For the foregoing reasons, we construe “separate service area
`directories corresponding to multi-jurisdictional service areas” as
`
`7 See MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 162 (5th ed. 2002) (defining
`“directory” in part as: “A catalog for filenames and other directories stored
`on a disk. A directory is a way of organizing and grouping the files so that
`the user is not overwhelmed by a long list of them. . . . In [certain] operating
`systems, directories are called ‘folders.’”) (Ex. 3001).
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`
`“directories for service areas (e.g., jurisdictions),” where directory has its
`plain and ordinary meaning, e.g., a catalog or way of organizing and
`grouping files and other directories.
`
`B. Principles of Law
`To prevail in challenging BSI’s claims, CoreLogic must demonstrate
`by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable.
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been
`obvious at the time of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the
`art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question
`of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
`including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary
`skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v.
`John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). The level of ordinary skill in the
`art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`(Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`CoreLogic proposes that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the invention of the ’352 patent would have had “at least a
`bachelor’s 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 ¶ 12 (Declaration of Dr. Michael
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`
`F. Goodchild). BSI has proposed that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`have possessed “a Bachelor’s degree or higher in[] GIS engineering with at
`least 5 years of academic or industry experience in GIS database design.”
`Ex. 2006 ¶ 13 (Declaration of Mr. William Huxhold).
`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.
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness over Harder and Du
`CoreLogic contends claims 9, 10, and 12–22 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Harder and Du. Pet. 13–30;
`Reply 8–15. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Goodchild, CoreLogic
`explains how the references allegedly teach or suggest the claim limitations
`and provides a rationale for combining the references. Pet. 13–30 (citing
`Ex. 1006). BSI contests CoreLogic’s arguments. PO Resp. 32–40. Having
`considered the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence, we determine
`that CoreLogic has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
`claims 9, 10, and 12–22 are unpatentable over Harder and Du.
`
`1. Overview of Harder
`Harder is a book titled “Serving Maps on the Internet,” published by
`the Environmental Systems Research Institute (“ESRI”). Harder “presents
`case studies of a dozen different private and public organizations that are
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`
`delivering geographic information” online. Ex. 1003, vii.8 According to
`Harder, “[t]he convergence of geographic information systems (GIS) and the
`World Wide Web has changed mapmaking forever.” Id. at 1.
`Harder generally describes web-based GIS systems implemented
`using a client/server architecture, with parcel information stored in a
`relational database on a server. Id. at 12–14. Harder also describes specific
`applications of web-based GIS, including an application developed for
`Cabarrus County, North Carolina, to provide the public with access to the
`county’s parcel and tax data. Id. at 19–24. A user of the application can
`query the system for a parcel map by entering an address or parcel ID
`number of a desired parcel. Id. at 21. Once a unique parcel has been
`selected, map data of the immediate area is retrieved and transmitted to a
`client computer for display, with the selected parcel highlighted. Id. at 21–
`22. A parcel information table containing information about the selected
`parcel, including parcel owner, tax value, and property value data, can be
`displayed with the parcel map. Id. at 22. The system keeps data current by
`receiving updated parcel information and tax records, joining the tax records
`table to the parcel information, converting data into shapefiles, and indexing
`key fields to speed up user-defined searches. Id. at 24. Harder also
`describes another application in which “the user selects the data and controls
`the geographic area to be displayed (from statewide down to the town
`level).” Id. at 7.
`
`
`8 Citations herein are to page numbers in the original underlying references,
`rather than to the exhibit page numbers affixed by CoreLogic.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`
`2. Overview of Du
`Du is a U.S. patent titled “System and Method for Processing and
`Display of Geographical Data.” Ex. 1018. Du describes a system in which
`geographic information is stored in a hierarchical data structure that includes
`map data for national, regional, local, and parcel levels. Id. at 6:40–55,
`Fig. 3. Du describes partitioning each map into cells using, for example,
`jurisdiction boundaries, township boundaries, or legal land descriptions.
`Id. at 2:12–23. Each cell is assigned a unique identifier, such as a number.
`Id. at 2:24–26. Du also describes grouping spatial objects by the cells in
`which they are located, and storing the grouped objects as a long binary field
`in a column of a table in a relational database along with a column
`containing the unique cell identifiers. Id. at 2:47–54, 7:20–37, 8:28–9:56.
`The column of unique cell identifiers serves as a spatial index. Id. at 2:25–
`26, 9:16–56. In one example, a user may request map data for lot
`boundaries within a block, which may correspond to one or more land
`parcels. Id. at 9:5–6. In response to the request, the system finds the unique
`cell identifiers associated with the block, and retrieves each cell record to
`obtain the spatial objects within the cells. Id. at 9:16–21.
`
`3. Claim 9
`CoreLogic contends that Harder teaches most of the limitations of
`independent claim 9. Pet. 14–20. First, CoreLogic argues that Harder
`teaches a method for retrieving and displaying geographic boundary polygon
`maps, id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1003, 3, 12–17, 19–25), and a server receiving a
`request for a parcel boundary polygon map for a selected parcel, id. (citing
`Ex. 1003, 7, 8, 13, 19–25). CoreLogic also argues that Harder teaches the
`last limitation of claim 9—transmitting the parcel boundary polygon map for
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`
`the selected parcel and adjacent and surrounding parcels for display, with the
`selected parcel highlighted. Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003, 21–25, 105–11).
`BSI does not dispute that Harder teaches these limitations, and we find the
`evidence supports CoreLogic’s contentions.
`Claim 9 also recites limitations involving a “multi-jurisdictional
`digital parcel map database,” which CoreLogic contends is taught by a
`combination of Harder and Du. Id. at 14–17. Harder discloses searching, by
`a server, a digital parcel map database for a selected parcel and adjacent and
`surrounding parcels. Ex. 1003, 7, 8, 13, 19–25. Although Harder discloses
`an example of a parcel database that contains data for one county, elsewhere
`Harder suggests it was well known in GIS systems to retrieve and display
`information spanning multiple jurisdictions. Id. at 19–25 (Cabarrus County
`example); id. at 7 (map displaying multiple jurisdictions); see Ex. 1006 ¶ 48.
`Moreover, CoreLogic relies on Du’s description of a GIS system that
`includes a database with map data for national, regional, local, and parcel
`levels. Pet. 16; Ex. 1018, 6:40–55, Fig. 3.
`Claim 9 further requires the database to “contain[] information about
`individual land parcels normalized to a common spatial protocol, including
`polygon data used to describe the boundaries of a plurality of properties.”
`CoreLogic asserts that Harder teaches this limitation because it describes
`examples of datasets stored in a database “in the industry-standard shapefile
`(.shp) format” and discloses, with respect to the Cabarrus County example,
`“convert[ing] the data into shapefiles.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003, 24, 106).
`Further, CoreLogic submits that the Cabarrus County example in Harder
`uses ESRI ArcView technologies to convert parcel data into shapefiles,
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`
`similar to the ESRI shapefiles used in the ’352 patent as an example of
`normalized data. Reply 10 (citing Ex. 1003, 24, 25; Ex. 1001, 7:33–64).
`The first of two steps in claim 9 involving the multi-jurisdictional
`database is “retrieving, by the server, a jurisdictional identifier associated
`with the selected parcel from an index of a multi-jurisdictional digital parcel
`map database.” Regarding this limitation, CoreLogic first asserts that
`Harder discloses indexing key fields of GIS data “to speed up user-defined
`searches.” Pet. 15 (quoting Ex. 1003, 24). CoreLogic then turns to Du’s
`system in which a map is partitioned into cells. Id. at 16. According to
`CoreLogic, when the map is divided into cells defined by jurisdiction
`boundaries, which Du expressly teaches, the unique cell identifier is a
`“jurisdictional identifier” as required by the claim. Id.; see Ex. 1018, 2:12–
`26; Ex. 1006 ¶ 38. Du also describes grouping spatial objects by the cells in
`which they are located, and storing the grouped objects as a long binary field
`in a record in a relational database table, along with the unique cell identifier
`stored in another column, which serves as an index. Ex. 1018, 2:47–54,
`7:20–37, 8:28–9:56. CoreLogic, with support from Dr. Goodchild, contends
`that Du’s column of unique cell identifiers (jurisdictional identifiers) is an
`index of different cells (jurisdictions) and the spatial data (parcel data)
`associated with each cell (jurisdiction). Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1018, 7:20–37,
`9:15–57; Ex. 1006 ¶ 38).
`Du discloses an example in which a user may request map data for a
`block, which, according to CoreLogic and Dr. Goodchild, may correspond to
`a single parcel, such as a requested parcel in Harder. Ex. 1018, 9:5–6; see
`Pet. 16; Ex. 1006 ¶ 38. CoreLogic further explains that based on the
`requested block (parcel), Du’s system finds one or more unique cell
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00222
`Patent 8,065,352 B2
`
`identifiers (jurisdictional identifiers) associated with the block (parcel),
`where the unique cell identifiers serve as an index of cells (jurisdictions),
`and retrieves each cell record to obtain the spatial objects (parcels) within
`those cells (jurisdictions). Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1018, 9:16–21; Ex. 1006
`¶¶ 38–39).
`Claim 9 further recites “searching, by the server using the
`jurisdicti
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
